Superman sequel cancelled??????? [Archive]

Jerome Gibbons

03-19-2007, 08:08 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a Justice League movie would look ridiculous live action. Seeing all those people in those colorful costumes will look silly.

I could be wrong.

I agree with you.

Plus, they'd need a massive budget to pull something like that off, I think...I think they're probably better off making an animated film, maybe a CGI movie.

Matt Jay

03-19-2007, 08:08 AM

Thudpucker

03-19-2007, 08:09 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a Justice League movie would look ridiculous live action. Seeing all those people in those colorful costumes will look silly.

I could be wrong.

They would probably have to redesign the costumes like they did for the X-Men movies, make them more practical. But considering they made Superman and Batmans costumes work live action (the two most rediculous in my opinion) I think they could make the others work too.

Simps

03-19-2007, 08:09 AM

From Comic Book Resources today:

THE MAN OF STEEL

A note at the Blue Tights Network (http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1232219&postcount=329) has a quote from Robert Meyer Burnett, who did behind-the-scenes documenting for the first film: "Angeloz asks if I'm coming back to work on the sequel. The answer is ... I'm ALREADY working on the sequel. Bryan, Brandon and the whole merry bunch will be coming back ... and filming will probably begin March, 2008, as was always planned from the beginning. The WWII film Bryan plans to shoot over the summer will have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the 'Superman' sequel schedule."

Ryan F

03-19-2007, 08:10 AM

While I don't really buy this, I would support it if true. I don't think that Singer is the guy to make Man of Steel.

Jerome Gibbons

03-19-2007, 08:14 AM

They would probably have to redesign the costumes like they did for the X-Men movies, make them more practical. But considering they made Superman and Batmans costumes work live action (the two most rediculous in my opinion) I think they could make the others work too.

Yeah, but I mean...it's the JLA. You can't really stray too far outside the line. The visual for characters like Flash, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern are a little too embedded into the general public's mind, I think. Not as much as Superman's or Batman's, but enough. In my opinion.

Ben

03-19-2007, 08:16 AM

They would probably have to redesign the costumes like they did for the X-Men movies, make them more practical. But considering they made Superman and Batmans costumes work live action (the two most rediculous in my opinion) I think they could make the others work too.
Both costumes worked on their own in their movies. You could make acceptable, cool costumes for all the JLAers if they were going to be appearing alone in their own movies. But put them all together, and they'll look just as silly.

Thudpucker

03-19-2007, 08:20 AM

Yeah, but I mean...it's the JLA. You can't really stray too far outside the line. The visual for characters like Flash, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern are a little too embedded into the general public's mind, I think. Not as much as Superman's or Batman's, but enough. In my opinion.

Sure, but think about it. If they made Superman look good any of the others will look fine. Who has a more ridiculous costume? The guy wears red, yellow and blue with a cape and underwear on the outside of his pants.

SteveFlack

03-19-2007, 08:22 AM

Screw all this, I'm way more interested in the WWII film Bryan Singer wants to shoot first.

-Steve!

Thudpucker

03-19-2007, 08:24 AM

Both costumes worked on their own in their movies. You could make acceptable, cool costumes for all the JLAers if they were going to be appearing alone in their own movies. But put them all together, and they'll look just as silly.

I don't know, I don't think it would be a problem for me.

Jerome Gibbons

03-19-2007, 08:24 AM

Sure, but think about it. If they made Superman look good any of the others will look fine. Who has a more ridiculous costume? The guy wears red, yellow and blue with a cape and underwear on the outside of his pants.

Flash has the most ridiculous costume, most certainly. The dude is covered from head to toe in bright red, and has lighting bolts springing from his heads and covering his body and stuff. And I also think Ben is right when he mentions that a bunch of people dressed in superhero costumes would probably look not very good on a movie screen.

ZombieSpeedball

03-19-2007, 08:48 AM

It would be a dream come true for them to cancel any sequel to Superman Returns. But it would be just that: a dream. I can only wish the movie is cancelled for some reason.

Matt C. Linton

03-19-2007, 08:49 AM

I thought they made the Flash costume look fine in the TV series.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 08:52 AM

This is just a rumor and nothing more.

Matt Jay

03-19-2007, 08:52 AM

I thought they made the Flash costume look fine in the TV series.
Hell yiah.

http://www.monitorduty.com/mdarchives/flashTV.jpg
And that was just TV. For a movie they could shell out the dough to make it look even better.

Foolish Mortal

03-19-2007, 09:05 AM

Foolish Mortal

03-19-2007, 09:08 AM

Sure, but think about it. If they made Superman look good any of the others will look fine. Who has a more ridiculous costume? The guy wears red, yellow and blue with a cape and underwear on the outside of his pants.
It's a matter of numbers. You could suspend your disbelief enough to buy into one guy running around in an outlandish costume. But 7 or 8 people running around in costumes would be too much.

That's why they went with the black "pleather" costumes for the X-Men films.

A.Huerta

03-19-2007, 09:11 AM

What they need to cancel is the Hulk sequel. That one is going to be bad.

Simps

03-19-2007, 09:21 AM

What they need to cancel is the Hulk sequel. That one is going to be bad.
Glad to see you've formed an opinion already.

JBElliott

03-19-2007, 09:23 AM

The worst thing about that article was the mention as Routh as Superman. Routh wasn't a good Superman the first time around and won't be any better the second time around.

As for costumes, I wish Hollywood and people in general would embrace superheroes for what they are. It worked well in Spider-Man and it will work well in any well made movie. There's no need to put them in black leather, that's just the same as tights. If a movie is well written, well acted, well made with high production values it will set fashion trends. If it's really super, people will start wearing capes and tights.

Skatonic10

03-19-2007, 09:24 AM

Having a Justice League movie without Batman, Superman AND Wonder Woman would just be rediculous.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 09:24 AM

So we're gonna just keep speculating on costumes like this is an actual piece of news and not just a baseless internet rumor?

A.Huerta

03-19-2007, 09:25 AM

Glad to see you've formed an opinion already.

No ILM, all the actors are gone and I think the writer from my super ex-girlfriend... not looking good.

Foolish Mortal

03-19-2007, 09:30 AM

So we're gonna just keep speculating on costumes like this is an actual piece of news and not just a baseless internet rumor?
Warner Bros announced they had live-action JLA film in the works awhile back.
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=102605&highlight=Justice+League+Film

I don't see how they're going to do such a film without the characters in costume. Unless they're going to take a radical departure from the comics.

THWIP!

03-19-2007, 09:32 AM

Screw all this, I'm way more interested in the WWII film Bryan Singer wants to shoot first.

-Steve!

Tell me more.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 09:32 AM

So we're gonna just keep speculating on costumes like this is an actual piece of news and not just a baseless internet rumor?

It's not solid news, but I'd hardly call it baseless. If you look back to the site that originally reported the rumor, the report comes from a pretty reliable inside source. And their contacts at Warner Brothers made no effort to deny the rumors.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070319_exclusive_superman_wont_go_it.html

Thudpucker

03-19-2007, 09:36 AM

Glad to see you've formed an opinion already.

The oddest things bring you joy.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 09:40 AM

Warner Bros announced they had live-action JLA film in the works awhile back.
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=102605&highlight=Justice+League+Film
Yeah? They also announced a Superman film with Nic Cage like 10 years ago. These are properties they own that they would like to turn into tentpole film franchises in the future.
why would they start one franchise (Superman) only to not use it as a franchise and work to begin another (JLA)?
I don't see how they're going to do such a film without the characters in costume. Unless they're going to take a radical departure from the comics.

It's not solid news, but I'd hardly call it baseless. If you look back to the site that originally reported the rumor, the report comes from a pretty reliable inside source. And their contacts at Warner Brothers made no effort to deny the rumors.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070319_exclusive_superman_wont_go_it.html

The sources? What sources? Unnamed sources on an internet site? You've got to be kidding. Those aren't sources. Moviehole.com's unnamed sources aren't exactly Woodruff and Bernstein.

Here's the quote: Having now heard the same from about half-a-dozen reliable insiders, I checked in with a couple of sources near the Water Tower itself, who wouldn�t confirm nor deny the reports, but definitely haven�t dismissed that it�s a possibility. One of them would only say that there �could be something in [that]�.

Oh yeah, that sounds really credible. :-?

ZombieSpeedball

03-19-2007, 09:41 AM

I'd prefer they cancel the movie in favor of a movie about what happened to the kryptonite island he threw into space. 2 hours of it just floating.

Simps

03-19-2007, 09:47 AM

Singer's already signed a deal for Superman II. They're not going to let that cash walk out the door at this point.

Foolish Mortal

03-19-2007, 09:48 AM

Yeah? They also announced a Superman film with Nic Cage like 10 years ago. These are properties they own that they would like to turn into tentpole film franchises in the future.

why would they start one franchise (Superman) only to not use it as a franchise and work to begin another (JLA)?
I have no reason to believe they're not serious about doing a Justice League movie. They were very serious about the Nic Cage Superman movie until louder voices prevailed.

As for suspending the Superman sequel to do the JL movie, I don't know if that's true or not. But if it is or isn't, they still intend to do the JL film in live-action. I think it's a mistake. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Billie

03-19-2007, 09:49 AM

Batman too big of a guy to waste on the JLA?

what the fuck

DAVE

03-19-2007, 09:51 AM

I have no reason to believe they're not serious about doing a Justice League movie. They were very serious about the Nic Cage Superman movie until louder voices prevailed.

As for suspending the Superman sequel to do the JL movie, I don't know if that's true or not. But if it is or isn't, they still intend to do the JL film in live-action. I think it's a mistake. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If that was your point, I was confused by you quoting and responding to my post, which had nothing to do with whether or not the movie should be done in live action.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 09:52 AM

Batman too big of a guy to waste on the JLA?

what the fuck

Yes, that's an example of the low quality of writing and professionalism in the source for this rumor. It baffles me how anyone can believe it.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 09:58 AM

The sources? What sources? Unnamed sources on an internet site? You've got to be kidding. Those aren't sources. Moviehole.com's unnamed sources aren't exactly Woodruff and Bernstein.

Here's the quote: Having now heard the same from about half-a-dozen reliable insiders, I checked in with a couple of sources near the Water Tower itself, who wouldn�t confirm nor deny the reports, but definitely haven�t dismissed that it�s a possibility. One of them would only say that there �could be something in [that]�.

Oh yeah, that sounds really credible. :-?

Like I said, I wouldn't consider this a solid confirmation, but there's enough reason to think that there's some truth to this rumor to dismiss it completely.

And regardless, I don't see any harm in discussing the story as if it might potentially be true.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 10:01 AM

Yes, that's an example of the low quality of writing and professionalism in the source for this rumor. It baffles me how anyone can believe it.

Only that point is absolutely true. Batman is too big for Warner Brothers to be tied up in the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 10:03 AM

Only that point is absolutely true. Batman is too big for Warner Brothers to be tied up in the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie.

Yeah exactly. So is, oh I don't know, SUPERMAN.

Foolish Mortal

03-19-2007, 10:06 AM

Batman too big of a guy to waste on the JLA?

what the fuck
I think the implication is that Warner Bros would profit more from a series of Batman sequels rather than a Batman appearance in one JLA film. Especially since Batman won't be the focal point of the film and it might not attract all of the fan base of the Batman films.

If that was your point, I was confused by you quoting and responding to my post, which had nothing to do with whether or not the movie should be done in live action.
I was responding to your assertion that a JLA movie was just a rumor. I was pointing out that Warner Bros themselves announced they were looking into making a JLA movie. So it is out of the rumor stage.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 10:07 AM

Yeah exactly. So is, oh I don't know, SUPERMAN.

Yeah, that's not true though. Warner Brothers has been having trouble justifying a sequel to SUPREMAN RETURNS since that movie opened. Right now, Superman is much more valuable to them as the anchor for the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie than he is the star of his own franchise.

ZombieSpeedball

03-19-2007, 10:19 AM

Jerome Gibbons

03-19-2007, 10:27 AM

Hell yiah.

http://www.monitorduty.com/mdarchives/flashTV.jpg
And that was just TV. For a movie they could shell out the dough to make it look even better.
I...don't know, dude. I always thought that costume looked a little cheesy. Not as bad as the one from JL TV movie, mind you, but then again...

Singer's already signed a deal for Superman II. They're not going to let that cash walk out the door at this point.

Yeah, I don't believe they'll be scraping SR2 for a JLA movie, personally. Not that I don't think they won't be making a JLA movie (which I maintain is a bad idea) but I really don't think they'll be dropping SR2 like that.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 10:30 AM

Singer's already signed a deal for Superman II. They're not going to let that cash walk out the door at this point.

But surely it's not another one of those play-or-pay deals, right? They had to have learned their lesson from the first time around.

ZombieSpeedball

03-19-2007, 10:30 AM

I...don't know, dude. I always thought that costume looked a little cheesy. Not as bad as the one from JL TV movie, mind you, but then again...

Dude, seriously. Ryan Reynolds as the Flash in a movie would rock. The costume looks amazing, by the by. No cheese involved. You want cheese? Go to Captain Marvel, the Big Red Cheese.

Thudpucker

03-19-2007, 10:32 AM

So we're gonna just keep speculating on costumes like this is an actual piece of news and not just a baseless internet rumor?

Only as long as you keep going out of your way to post that it is not.

Why are you doing that, anyway?

Simps

03-19-2007, 10:42 AM

But surely it's not another one of those play-or-pay deals, right? They had to have learned their lesson from the first time around.
There's no way he and his team are going to sink time into pre-production only to have the carpet ripped out from under them. I can't fathom a way that he wouldn't get paid regardless.

d.j.

03-19-2007, 11:01 AM

Yeah, that's not true though. Warner Brothers has been having trouble justifying a sequel to SUPREMAN RETURNS since that movie opened.

Oddly enough, SR made more than BB. Sure, it cost a helluva lot more, but more people bought tickets for it...

Superman Returns - Worldwide: $391,081,192
Batman Begins - Worldwide: $371,853,783

Just keep the SR sequel at a tighter budget (b/c SR cost WAY more than it should've), and there's no reason they wouldn't want to make a sequel.

Matt C. Linton

03-19-2007, 11:13 AM

Oddly enough, SR made more than BB. Sure, it cost a helluva lot more, but more people bought tickets for it...

Superman Returns - Worldwide: $391,081,192
Batman Begins - Worldwide: $371,853,783

Just keep the SR sequel at a tighter budget (b/c SR cost WAY more than it should've), and there's no reason they wouldn't want to make a sequel.

The biggest problem with the budget was all of the false starts. I think something like 50 million was just paying for all of the different scripts and folks like Burton and Cage. Now that everything is in place, a sequel could be done for much less money.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 11:21 AM

Oddly enough, SR made more than BB. Sure, it cost a helluva lot more, but more people bought tickets for it...

Superman Returns - Worldwide: $391,081,192
Batman Begins - Worldwide: $371,853,783

Just keep the SR sequel at a tighter budget (b/c SR cost WAY more than it should've), and there's no reason they wouldn't want to make a sequel.

That 5% difference is pretty much negated by ticket price inflation, so attendance between the two was probably about equal.

Plus, I think the general consensus is that most people enjoyed BATMAN BEGINS and look forward to its sequel, whereas the reaction to SUPERMAN RETURNS was pretty mixed.

NickT

03-19-2007, 11:41 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a Justice League movie would look ridiculous live action. Seeing all those people in those colorful costumes will look silly.

I could be wrong.
No, you're not :razz:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/JLAmovie.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/JLA.jpg (obviously two of these were added :) )

Jerome Gibbons

03-19-2007, 11:45 AM

No, you're not :razz:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/JLAmovie.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/JLA.jpg (obviously two of these were added :) )

Heh. God that pilot was retarded. Martian Manhunter looked like ass.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 11:52 AM

Yeah, that's not true though. Warner Brothers has been having trouble justifying a sequel to SUPREMAN RETURNS since that movie opened. Right now, Superman is much more valuable to them as the anchor for the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie than he is the star of his own franchise.

Warner Bros would have no trouble justifying a sequel to a movie that made them money, starring a cultural icon. Besides, the Superman franchise is not merely SR, it's all the movies. That's a franchise that has brought in $518,116,559, with a lot of that made in the 70's and 80's. Contrastly, the Batman movies have made more, $916,338,094, but it's during the era of the mega blockbuster.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 12:11 PM

Warner Bros would have no trouble justifying a sequel to a movie that made them money, starring a cultural icon. Besides, the Superman franchise is not merely SR, it's all the movies. That's a franchise that has brought in $518,116,559, with a lot of that made in the 70's and 80's. Contrastly, the Batman movies have made more, $916,338,094, but it's during the era of the mega blockbuster.

Yeah, at this point, all that money made in the 70s and 80s isn't nearly as much of a factor as the amount of money made in the last two or three years.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 12:22 PM

Yeah, at this point, all that money made in the 70s and 80s isn't nearly as much of a factor as the amount of money made in the last two or three years.

Yeah, but the highest grossing one came out last year. Whatever, if you don't want to beleive that Superman is as big a commodity to Warner Bros as Batman is, fine. All I've got is numbers to back up my claim, the same numbers that have caused Warner's to order a Superman Returns sequel.

bartleby

03-19-2007, 12:49 PM

Yeah, but the highest grossing one came out last year. Whatever, if you don't want to beleive that Superman is as big a commodity to Warner Bros as Batman is, fine. All I've got is numbers to back up my claim, the same numbers that have caused Warner's to order a Superman Returns sequel.

Two successful movies from three decades ago does not a valuable franchise make. And saying that SUPERMAN RETURNS is the highest grossing of the series is incredibly misleading as the price of tickets has close to tripled in that time. If you take that ticket price inflation into consideration, SUPERMAN would have grossed somewhere around $360 million -- dwarfing SUPREMAN RETURNS' $200 million.

SUPERMAN RETURNS performed well below Warner Brothers' expectations for the movie. The decision to greenlight a sequel was hardly a foregone conclusion, and I think they're suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse, particularly with Bryan Singer putting priority on other projects. If Superman was that important of a franchise, they'd be pushing to start filming this year.

DAVE

03-19-2007, 12:52 PM

Two successful movies from three decades ago does not a valuable franchise make. And saying that SUPERMAN RETURNS is the highest grossing of the series is incredibly misleading as the price of tickets has close to tripled in that time. If you take that ticket price inflation into consideration, SUPERMAN would have grossed somewhere around $360 million -- dwarfing SUPREMAN RETURNS' $200 million.

SUPERMAN RETURNS performed well below Warner Brothers' expectations for the movie. The decision to greenlight a sequel was hardly a foregone conclusion, and I think they're suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse, particularly with Bryan Singer putting priority on other projects. If Superman was that important of a franchise, they'd be pushing to start filming this year.

ok, this is silly. You win: Superman isn't valuable to Warner Brothers. What was I thinking?

bartleby

03-19-2007, 12:57 PM

ok, this is silly. You win: Superman isn't valuable to Warner Brothers. What was I thinking?

Thanks for completely changing around my words to make your point.

I never said that Superman wasn't important to Warner Brothers. I said that, at this point, Superman is more important in anchoring the start of the JUSTICE LEAGUE franchise than having another movie focused solely on him. Whereas Batman is strong enough to continue his own franchise.

Albert

03-19-2007, 01:00 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a Justice League movie would look ridiculous live action. Seeing all those people in those colorful costumes will look silly.

I could be wrong.

I don't know. I've often thought the X-Men movies, as much as I like most of them, would be cooler if their costumes were at least a little bit more vibrant. All that black begins to look kinda drab.

Silliness all depends on how it's pulled off. In theory, Superman's costume is silly, but I think it worked fine in Superman Returns. It doesn't have to look exactly like the costumes in the comics, but not doing something because it might look silly seems short-sighted.