Superman: Man of Steel

Is that a British term? (I get your pun now that I know what a walkie is. Nice.)

The Man said:

No More Walkies For Superman..?

Click to expand...

Superman Unleashed....really? What a horrible title!!!!

deckard24 said:

Superman Unleashed....really? What a horrible title!!!!

Click to expand...

Hmmm, could we be in for some kick-assery?

BTW, I am SO relieved that Warner's has wised up and not abandoned Singer's glorious vision. THANK YOU! You have renewed my faith that you guys can make another awesome Superman movie.

These recent reports raise some questions: what ever happened to Millar's planned epic Superman trilogy?

kongisking said:

BTW, I am SO relieved that Warner's has wised up and not abandoned Singer's glorious vision. THANK YOU! You have renewed my faith that you guys can make another awesome Superman movie.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get your hopes up. This doesn't mean much of anything, really. All this really means is that they're planning another Superman flick. All the details of that - as to whether it's a continuation of Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS or not - are entirely up for grabs.

Singer had some good stuff in his movie. If they wanted to be really like "Comic Book Guy," just keep the stuff they want. I did like Brandon Routh in the role.... they need a new Lois. and the kid? dump him. that whole subplot of them sneaking onto Lex's yacht was so trite.....


anyway, Singer could come on at the beginning, like Alfred Hitchcock used to do on his show, give a minor "mea culpa," and tell that the new movie was the Superman of Earth-09, or whatever year/Earth they want to show. there's what, 52 in the new multiverse now?

and at the very end, have him say, "This is an Imaginary Story... Aren't they all?" a good wink to the Silver Age and the last appearance of Superman, at least pre-Crisis!

This reboot phase in Hollywood right now is getting lame but that's what Superman needs, not another rehash of the 1978 classic. Leave that continuity alone out of respect to Chris Reeve. Superman Returns is one of my most hated comic book movies of all time and it's hard for me to be disappointed in anything Superman-related being a die-hard fan of the character.The only good I found in Superman Returns was that it helped me forgive parts III and IV being made, at least III had Richard Pryor and that cool fight scene in the junkyard between Evil Superman and Clark.

I just don't know what they were thinking when writing Superman Returns. He goes missing for five years because astronomers tell him that Krypton may still exist but it shows clearly in the beginning that the planet gets destroyed and he's Superman, wouldn't he know the astronomers are wrong? And how can we forget the Super-kid storyline? Now there was a part where Lois gets hurt bad and Supes uses his x-ray vision on her body to make sure she was okay. If he can do that, wouldn't he use x-ray vision to know whether or not, he knocked up Lois before leaving Earth?!

In fairness to the movie, in the comics Supes went back to the remains of Krypton around Action Comics 600, and saw what he hoped was a planet- but it was only the remains of Krypton re-gravitating into a sphere. I'm sure there is a better physics name for that, but unknown to me!

that was during the John Byrne era of the books..... the new classics. now that guy could write Superman well. He's the one who "rebooted" Superman in the post-Crisis..... from my understanding, that has fallen off pretty much, and the re-re-boot they did had pretty much horrible artwork from what I saw online.

yes, I admit it, I've outgrown comic-buying, but far be it from me to give up completely on the stories- have to use the internet to keep track of things on my childhood idols!

TheDarkCrusader said:

I just don't know what they were thinking when writing Superman Returns. He goes missing for five years because astronomers tell him that Krypton may still exist but it shows clearly in the beginning that the planet gets destroyed and he's Superman, wouldn't he know the astronomers are wrong?

Click to expand...

It's established in spin-off material that this whole statement by astronomers was cooked up by Lex Luthor to hopefully (and, eventually, sucessfully) get Superman off Earth for a while while preparing his new plot. And if you were told by "experts" that your home may have survived disaster, wouldn't you be willing to take the time to travel there and find out?

This was one of many themes that I think Returns got absolutely right: the human need for family and a home, and the terrible sense of lonliness that Clark must endure every day for the rest of his life. I found the scene where Supes flies into the night sky with Jor-El's words going through his mind (concerning how he is, in the end, not one of us and can never be; he can only try to inspire and awaken the potential for good that all humans possess) incredibly poignant and heartbreakingly sad.

Every time, I, as a resident of Earth and a viewer, cannot help but feel overwhelmingly touched that an alien would care so deeply about such a pathetic and flawed race as us, and, instead of striking us down and eliminating a major threat to the universe, they try to help us conquer our evils. I honestly find it incredibly difficult to understand how people cannot be moved by this film, as it contains so much rich and relevent material with a genuine soul; something many films aspire to yet rarely reach.

TheDarkCrusader said:

And how can we forget the Super-kid storyline? Now there was a part where Lois gets hurt bad and Supes uses his x-ray vision on her body to make sure she was okay. If he can do that, wouldn't he use x-ray vision to know whether or not, he knocked up Lois before leaving Earth?!

Click to expand...

The storyline of Superman having a son is yet another piece of genius on Singer's end. (Go ahead, laugh at me. I don't give a rat's fart. ) It opens up a whole new universe of storytelling possibilities and avenues of drama in the myth of Superman.

The idea of Supes being gone for years without any reason, just up-and-left without a goodbye, is intended to serve as a logical explaination for why, if the character were real, he was not around to stop some of the terrible events to have recently happened in our world. It's an incredibly tragic concept to explore, the thought that, had he not left to find his people, incidents such as September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, etc. could have been prevented.

I think this might be why some detractors of Returns dislike the film so much: because they are personally disturbed and unsettled by this scenario and are too cowardly to see the very important message that Bryan Singer is trying to tell us with his epic: mankind needs a savior, we need a hero to look up to, to give us a shining example and show us what we are capable of if we have the heart and the virtue to try.

When Lois tells the world in her article "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman" that the world does not need a savior, it is the attitude of the modern world saying these words. It's because some of us really have adopted this idea: that we should not have to be looked after and taught how to do things.

And when, in probably the most profoundly heart-wrenching scene in the movie, Superman later tells her as they float in the air, "every night I hear them crying for one?", its Singer desperately trying to remind us that "no, we need help, and we should actively seek it out and accept it when it is offered. Humans deserve better, and we have the capacity to help ourselves, true, but we all must first be "shown the way."

Please hear my words. Don't reject them as sentimental reading-into-things-too-much nonsense. There is something very, very important going on in Superman Returns, and if we don't pick up on it we are dooming ourselves to ignorance. Please. PLEASE.

kongisking said:

The storyline of Superman having a son is yet another piece of genius on Singer's end. (Go ahead, laugh at me. I don't give a rat's fart. ) It opens up a whole new universe of storytelling possibilities and avenues of drama in the myth of Superman....

Click to expand...

they took the idea of a son from the last story of the pre-crisis Superman comic, "whatever happened to the man of tomorrow?" which was basically a way to wrap up the chracter's baggage so they could restart. in the end, Superman is blitzed by his villains, most of his friends die, and he makes a great sacrifice, seemingly killing himself out of guilt at the Fortress...... only then the reader sees a flashforward (1997, from mid-80s) and Clark still is powerless, but has married Lois, and in the suburbs, his SON, about 10, crushes a lump of coal into a diamond.

I dont think Singer was some sort of visionary as much as forcing a retread onto a public that just doesnt care. the story from the 70s is just too hokey- and I admit Reeve pretty much redefined Supes at the time, but the new image needs to be respected too. there are great post-crisis stories, and John Byrne, despite his sticking points, really brought the character back to the spotlight with his work post-crisis. and the work nowadays is not too shabby either.

Superman belongs to the people who read him- if they want an updated version to the culture of the early 21st century, give it to them!

i love returns but jeez. if you have a character who can do things no other hero can do, then DO IT. Supes needs to be in the biggest/epic, i'm talking alien braniac/darseid invasion movie. he needs to kick BUTT.

kongisking said:

The idea of Supes being gone for years without any reason, just up-and-left without a goodbye, is intended to serve as a logical explaination for why, if the character were real, he was not around to stop some of the terrible events to have recently happened in our world. It's an incredibly tragic concept to explore, the thought that, had he not left to find his people, incidents such as September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, etc. could have been prevented.

I think this might be why some detractors of Returns dislike the film so much: because they are personally disturbed and unsettled by this scenario and are too cowardly to see the very important message that Bryan Singer is trying to tell us with his epic: mankind needs a savior, we need a hero to look up to, to give us a shining example and show us what we are capable of if we have the heart and the virtue to try.

Click to expand...

First of all, I don't want a movie where Superman fights real-life problems that can't be fixed in real life. There's limits between reality and fiction. Didn't we learn from that mistake in Superman IV when Supes got rid of all nuclear weapons. Of course it's fun to see Indy beat up Nazis but if there was a movie where Indy kills Hitler himself, that would be crossing the line.

But you're putting people up that dislike Returns to be stupid for not getting "the very important message" that they're supposed to find. People aren't that stupid to know what they like or don't like, especially when it comes to movies. I know why I didn't like Returns because it wasn't the Superman movie I wanted. I didn't want a sequel to the Chris Reeve movies simply because he was the main star of those movies, they were HIS movies and making his movie without him is pointless. I don't care how much Routh looks and sounds like Reeve, he's still not Reeve.

A long but amusing account by Kevin Smith of where the franchise was in the 1990's.
Be grateful no producer like Jon Peters is the arbiter of the sequels you desire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk
The short version's here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Peters

I must say that I really liked Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. It was loyal to all we'd come to love about the Christopher Reeves Superman films and it was true to the established perceptions of Superman.

I'd love to see Mr. Singer produce the rumored sequel to Superman Returns which is under the current title of "Superman: The Man of Steel." From what I've heard the movie will focus on the new "Kryptonian land mass" and I hope that it will also take a closer look Superman's son and his "powers". I'd be happy if DC Comics/WB settles to a Superman trilogy type like Marvel did is doing with their incredible Fantastic Four movies.

Christopher Reeve was an excellent Clark Kent/Superman......but I don't know if the movies themselves were all that great.

Singer's film was bitterly disappointing to me..........to me, Superman is probably the "premiere" American superhero, and amidst this superhero craze, this was a chance to make a great modern Superman film and bring Superman to a whole new generation.........and it failed.

Brandon Roth felt like he only got the part because he looked the part. Superman having a kid? Come on. Trying to make a "sequel" of sorts to Superman I & II was an ill-advised move on Singer's part.

I'm not saying it's a HORRIBLE movie; it just doesn't live up to expectations. The whole airplane sequence, and the shot of Superman in space, listening to the world..........that was cool, and it's an example of the cool stuff you can do in a modern superhero.............but the movie itself is unengaging - even a little boring at an inflated run time of 2 hours 30 minutes.

Cole said:

Christopher Reeve was an excellent Clark Kent/Superman......but I don't know if the movies themselves were all that great.

Singer's film was bitterly disappointing to me..........to me, Superman is probably the "premiere" American superhero, and amidst this superhero craze, this was a chance to make a great modern Superman film and bring Superman to a whole new generation.........and it failed.

Brandon Roth felt like he only got the part because he looked the part. Superman having a kid? Come on. Trying to make a "sequel" of sorts to Superman I & II was an ill-advised move on Singer's part.

I'm not saying it's a HORRIBLE movie; it just doesn't live up to expectations. The whole airplane sequence, and the shot of Superman in space, listening to the world..........that was cool, and it's an example of the cool stuff you can do in a modern superhero.............but the movie itself is unengaging - even a little boring at an inflated run time of 2 hours 30 minutes.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the magical Disney esque scene in which Clark takes Lois for a flight and shows her life from his point of view.

That was one of the most touching and tear jerking aspects of the movie. I also had to cheer when Clark's son smashed the villain with the piano. To bad there are not to many movies in which children get to crash a villain.

Furthermore I think the scene in which Clark is lifting the chunk of Kryptonite landmass back to space was grand including the Clark's near death free fall back to earth from Space.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8QbJpZa0kXY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8QbJpZa0kXY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I say let Bryan Singer finish the franchise no matter what Mr Miller would do it. I want to see Clark raise his son, and his son fight along side Superman, the first movie was AWESOME i watch it mostly everyday. I don't know this guy who wants to do the films but i don't care if there good are not but i like Singers Superman Returns and i hope he will do several series as well. I love the Lois and i love the boy, if u don't like them go watch something els.

Bryan Singer is the most overrated director in Hollywood. The Usual Suspects had it's moments and X-Men 2 had a handful of good scenes, although not many "moments". Those two movies are really all that Singer has going for him. That's it.

The only problem i had with the movie was Lex getting hold of the Kryptonite so easily and making Superman not smart making him kinda dumb but so far i love it.

Superman to be KNIGHTED! Cool!

As a proclaimed, very vocal supporter of Superman Returns, I'm still sad that we didn't get to see Singer's epic tale be completed, but this news means that if they are rebooting it, they're at least doing it in the best way possible.