[Movies] Routh Talks Superman Returns Sequel
Posted by Ashish on 05.06.2008
Latest on film...
Brandon Routh recently spoke with SCI FI WIRE about the rumored Superman Returns sequel, saying he will return and that he begins to start shooting in early 2009. Of course, he added the following: "Of course, that's my timeline," Routh said, "not anyone else's."
Bryan Singer is expected to return as the director.
Nothing's for sure about the flick's storyline, but we know there will be more action. There's been talk of an alien villain, and Kevin Spacey is also expected to reprise his role as Lex Luthor. Additionally, Singer has hinted that the "New Krypton" landmass floating in space at the end of Superman Returns may figure into the story.
I guess I need to watch Superman Returns, one day, so that I can comment on
this.
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Or you know...just not comment on it at all.
Posted By: duh (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 01:51 PM
^ Don't worry, your doing fine as is.
Posted By: Kwas (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Just bring in Brainiac as a villian and the rest damn near writes itself. Also
keep the parallels to Jesus Christ to a minimum. They're appropriate, but
Singer overdid em.
Posted By: BJC (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 02:04 PM
First one was considered a bust because it didn't make any money. Why bother
with a sequel?
Posted By: JM (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Actually JM, 'Returns' is one of the 100 highest grossing movies of all time.
Which is almost exactly the opposite of what you said.
Posted By: Owain J. Brimfield (Registered) on May 06, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Superman Returns is only perceived to be a failure because too many fanboys have
internet connections and unreasonable expectations.
it was on par with the first Superman, inferior to Superman 2, and light years
better than 3 and 4.
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Registered) on May 06, 2008 at 02:22 PM
It was almost complete abortion of the Superman character.
Maybe this time they'll have writers that are actually familiar with the
characters and source material.
Posted By: PHOENIXZERO (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Superman Returns made about $200 mil domestically or so, and while I don't know
international or dvd numbers, I have heard that a movie needs to make 2.5 times
its budget to turn a profit.
SR, by that definition, was not profitable; however, if you look at the Bryan
Singer incurred costs, about $120 mil or so, after it is all said and done, the
movie did make a profit.
The other $80 mil is counted by Warners because that's what they put into the
abortions that Nic Cage, Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, etc, etc didn't ultimately
make.
The reason Singer/Routh could get the go-ahead is because someone pointed out
to Warners that the movie that they made should not be associated financially
with the movies other people started and never finished.
That said, whether you like or didn't like SR is solely up to the viewer, and
opinions thereof.
Phoenix, you didn't like it, great, that's awesome. I hope your opinion is
based after you saw the movie. But in either case, please don't state your
OPINION like it is FACT.
If there is one pet peeve of mine reading these and other boards, is people who
can't tell the difference between those two.
Posted By: Faustus (Registered) on May 06, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Superman Returns was an excellent entry and a great restart to he franchise. It
wa snot perfect and did move a little slow at times but overall it was very
good. The reason the movie is not considered profitable is because of all of
the aborted versionsof the movie that came before it which added something like
80-100 million to the overall cost of the movie whereas the actual cost of the
movie not couting the overhead from the versions that were never made was
around 165 million. So in actuality, it was a success. They dont make sequels
to movies that lose tremendous amounts of money.
Posted By: FCT (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Superman Returns...again?
Posted By: Guest#9309 (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 07:57 PM
what another one?
superman returns sucked big time... it had everything in it, great actors, cool
effects ... EXCEPT a good story... oh it had super kid in it that destroyed the
romantic tension of superman/clark kent and lois lane. i WAS a fan but not
anymore.
Posted By: miloytheman (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 10:26 PM
what happend to Brandon Routh's carrer after superman? did he make movies or tv
after that film?
Posted By: miloytheman (Guest) on May 06, 2008 at 10:28 PM
They need to bust out with Zod, dammit.
Posted By: Dirk (Registered) on May 06, 2008 at 11:16 PM
The story of the film was okay but it was as if they didn't trust routh to act.
They had little or no scenes with him as clark kent and I blame the casting ppl
for casting such a weak lois lane because at least margot kidder could help
carry the inexperienced Reeves during the first film where as this lois (don't
care about knowing her name) didn't have the acting chops to do that for Routh.
Posted By: Outlaw86 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 12:24 AM
settle down, Mortis, supes returns sucked.
on par w the original? ur higher than cheech & chong
supes 3&4 did suck tho, but that's no revalation
Supes return=Supes original: mortis=smart
Posted By: turnstyle (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 01:47 AM
superman returns was as faithful to the two superman movies as anyone couldve
done. unfortunately, since the days of cris reeves, comics have changed and so
have their subject matter. as a superman fanboy, i loved the movie and will
sing its praises till the day i die. it exemplified who superman is and what he
stands for. now they have to stay with that superman but add a little bit of
more in-depth story and villiany to the next movie. could anyone here have
really come up with someone better. if so, ur ass would be working at warner
brothers and not sitting next to your mom on the couch wondering why chicks
dont dig you. brandon routh did an awesome job as superman and in my opinion
gave superman the updated treatment he deserved as far as looks and personality
goes. now they just have to be more in-depth and give us a more character driven
script when it comes to im, and a more action and character driven enemy, and
make luthor the cool, calm, suave, murderous monster he really is. enough of
the campy gene hackman shit. i admit i expected kevin spacey to research who
luthor is now, more than going on what was done already. still tho. great work
on SR, cant wait for the sequel.
Posted By: cubansuperman (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 07:03 AM
As I already said the movie barely made anything maybe like 200 million and
considering it almost cost that much to make in reality it didn't make that
much.
Posted By: JM (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Actually Supes Returns grossed almost $391 million WORLDWIDE. there are lands
beyond the borders of the United States! I'd say with productions costs of
around $200 million that'd make it pretty successful. The second one just needs
a villain that can go one on one with Supes. Darkseid,Doomsday,Mongol.....
Posted By: Jake_Fury (Registered) on May 07, 2008 at 12:33 PM
"Nothing's for sure about the flick's storyline, but we know there will be
more action."
SPOILER ALERT!
Posted By: Stanley (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 03:05 PM
OK OK so it made money my bad. I read somewhere that it didn't. They obviously
should keep Lex Luthor but they need another villain. Brainiac, Doomsday,
Bizarro maybe?
Posted By: JM (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:37 PM
Superman Return was OK. One of the biggest things that dragged it down was the
fact that Routh and Bosworth looked barely out of high school. Routh looked
like he was returning from Freshman year of college, not the remains of
Krypton.
Also, Singer gave the movie the same glum treatment he gave the X-Men
franchise. Superman did enough brooding to make Wolverine look like an
optimist.
