Many cheap Superman sequels or few expensive ones?

[crazy_asian_man]

"Star Trek" is one of my favorite movie series (overall), because the audience got a good chunk of tries at the movies, and we got to see the actors in favorite roles. Because of the moderate costs of these (in relation to moderate box office)--- these kept coming out at a semi-regular pace from Paramont.

What may or may not be holding up "Superman" (I'm only speculating) is the gigantic (possibly impossible) expectations that WB has--- particularly in light of box office receipts of "Iron Man" and "Dark Knight".

Given that....and given that it's already 3 years since Superman Returns.... all the actors are getting older by the minute. The more WB drags its feet (understandably to a degree if they demand it be a $200 million dollar investment or so)--- the more years go by that there's no Superman film. SR may have only been considered a disappointment because of HOW much money WB was expecting in relation to the investment.

Should the strategy change, so that the focus is more on character and story, less emphasis on high budget spectacle? (Action of course, but not gigantic break the bank action)

Not so low as to be identical to television fx- (Or *shudder* Superman IV)--- but if a lower budget would guarantee that Superman films DO get made.... would you support that?
Or should Superman ONLY be a big budget event?

[Valentine Smith]

I think last year's "Incredible Hulk" is a perfect template for Superman flicks. Unpretentious, action packed, the special effects look like special effects, and they're true to the characters.

I would be TOTALLY satisfied with a Superman movie that had a similar fx budget.

[upandaway]

quality is my answer.
weather many cheap films or one or two expensive film, quality is key.

[superman]

Not 5,

but 10!

I AM SUPERMAN!!!

[crazy_asian_man]

Not 5,

but 10!

Given all that we're starting to know about the fragile elements involved in getting ONE movie made, (let alone sequels), looking back, it's a minor miracle perhaps that 4 Superman movies got made at all....(regardless of quality, at least there's four Reeve performances to enjoy on film for all time).

Even though I hated some of Mark MIllar's ideas for a Superman reboot, one idea I didn't think was bad was to actually have a rock-solid trilogy in mind ahead of time.

10 consistent movies would be great.....but it's ridiculous that even ONE Superman movie now seems to take about 20+ years to make!

[crazy_asian_man]

quality is my answer.
weather many cheap films or one or two expensive film, quality is key.

Agreed....but I have to admit, that in rewatching STM, there were sequences that looked somewhat cheap... (legoland, Supes' landing on the street above Luthor's underground home, the blue screen boat, etc.)--- and even though it was probably more of a weakness of the technology at the time than cutting corners- overall it didn't hurt the film, because the film didn't live or die on them.

There's a limit, of course to how much to cut corners in this day/age of free fx on tv.....I realize you can't go too cheap- and I remember that some sort of compromise seemed to have already been worked out with the studio and Singer with a lowered budget for MOS, but was okayed- (damn "Valkyrie" for ruining the timing! ugh!) by both parties- So, again, it dredges up that old pain of MOS not taking off already. *sigh*

The question is: where should corners be cut? Singer has talked a lot about working with low budgets to begin with, and applying that knowledge to Xmen and Xmen 2- and presumably SR as well. He's still the man. The $10 mil sequence for SR that got cut actually doesn't seem like a waste, if it could be used as an opening sequence for MOS. (Hint hint WB, are you listening?)

Unless Brando is STILL demanding a lot of money from the grave, it's an interesting curiosity on how/where things get spent. I have no doubt all the money is on the screen on a Singer film- whereas, with a film like "Daredevil", I scratch my head as to how that cost $100 million to make.

[crazy_asian_man]

I think last year's "Incredible Hulk" is a perfect template for Superman flicks. Unpretentious, action packed, the special effects look like special effects, and they're true to the characters.

I would be TOTALLY satisfied with a Superman movie that had a similar fx budget

"Incredible Hulk" was really well done- the thing with Hulk 2 imo was that they had designed some killer fresh action sequences, with Hulk in battle. SR I've always said couldn't have hurt to have had (as the screenwriters were pushing for) a superhero battle of sorts as well woven in, like Hulk 2 did.

MOS I bet would deliver on that- Singer had said already alluded to that in different ways. Singer said in an interview he was fine with the lower budget and agreed to have a shorter film, and much more action..... (and he's more than proven he could with Xmen 2)...

So....

WHAT IS WB WAITING FOR? HIRE SINGER/ROUTH and get started already!!!!
Gah! ;p

[Deleted]

I'd rather get a Superman sequel with Routh with a nice budget every three years, maybe three more, max. Not five, though. That's way too many. The interest and quality would surely wane.

[crazy_asian_man]

I'd rather get a Superman sequel with Routh with a nice budget every three years, maybe three more, max. Not five, though. That's way too many. The interest and quality would surely wane.

Given the wealth of material that could be drawn on (Painful hearing how DOnner was planning to work from that for a lot of sequels, if given the chance, but never got it...)--- as long as there was a strong 'quality control' person in charge (Singer)--- I think the interest and quality could be maintained, or even improve! (After all, Star Trek IV actually made more money than Trek 1, 2, 3--- when 2 and 3 were losing numbers! So I think the audience doesn't HAVE to go down with each sequel. Also, with Xmen 1-2, they went up!)

If the stars all aligned, and there was enough of a game plan, there's so much that could be integrated in sequels-- all it would take it is a good enough story (and of course execution is the other half, but) that progresses the characters and that universe to keep me going.

It's not exactly the thread for it, but I could already see how Singer could move on for five films with it: with a bit for action, a bit for the personal story-

#1: Superman Returns- Reintroducing all the characters and situation--- adding
Superman's kid and Richard White as a complication....with Brainiac hinted at, who probably followed Supes when he went to Krypton's remains.

#2: Man of Steel- Introducing Brainiac as a villain. Resolving the story of Richard White and Superman's kid. Showing Superman dealing with rage for the first time, and NOT being able to turn back time with his kid being killed/ or in danger. (Think "Titanic" and "Dark Knight" WB! Neither one was exactly a family film, but they were still #1!)

#3: Introducing Lana- in a good way, not a Clana way. ;p
Villain- Parasite? Toyman?

#4: Introducing Darkseid?

#5: Introducing Supergirl? Or the Legion? In the right hands....

There are a lot of directions that the Superman movie can go to, but I think WB did the right thing the first time in going with Singer and backing him to go with his vision. Right now, they seem in paralysis mode because they probably want "Dark Knight" box office but not sure how to get it.

Superman I agree with Singer is harder to pull off right than a "Batman" movie, in getting the right story. At the very least, Batman could always be a crime movie. Superman is either science fiction or fantasy/part fairy tale.

WB is trying to please everyone (including investors I'm sure) but put impossible demands on the boxoffice returns, I think. SR made $391 million worldwide--- how is that not successful?

I'm totally fine if they have to lower the budget, so long as SInger/Routh is onboard. But I've read that the safest answer to say in Hollywood is "No, let's wait"--- that way nobody loses their job, while the opportunity slips away to make a great series of films. *sigh*

If WB is really waiting on Nolan to say 'yes' to "Batman 3"- so that it can have the potential capital to pull over to MOS, that's one thing.....but there's a limited time that they can wait, before actors get too old to play the parts.

[ye5man]

I imagine the kid's voice will start to break by next year ;D