ROTTEN TOMATOES: Spacey Back in "Man Of Steel"; Project Still A Ways Off? Comments

Spacey Back in "Man Of Steel"; Project Still A Ways Off?

by Jeff Giles | July 11, 2007

Summary

Hey, it's been a few days since we took a look at the various goings-on surrounding the upcoming "Superman Returns" sequel -- but not to worry, Man of Steel fans, your news drought endeth today: Kevin Spacey will indeed be returning as non-coifed supervillain Lex Luthor. Plus, have we got new hints about Bryan Singer's busy slate? Back to Article

(1-36 of 36 posts) | Reply

Merlin235 writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:08 AM

Interesting. Not the direction I thought they'd take, but Spacey did a good enough job with the material he was given in the first one.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:23 AM

..part of me is just psyched to be among the first to write a string-- I always get here around page 2...

I thought Spacey had serious potential, but they didn't do nearly enough with him. They have to find a more direct way for him to physically mix it up with superman while still incorporating the 'I'm soooo much F'ng smarter than you' element that makes Lex a fun character.

Spacey's definitely got the chops for it, and Singer's got the eye for it. Just make this an X2-style blowout ('cause if you remember, people also complained about Singer's first Xmen movie as being a little slow and under-powered, only to have him ROCK it out on #2).

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:47 AM

Wait wait wait, I thought this site refuted the rumor that Singer was going to do Mayor of Castro Street first? Is that not correct anymore. I have no problem with Spacey as Luthor. I'm just sick of Lex being the only villain who gets any screen time. Hopefully they'll put Lex in the background this time and let someone else take a shot at being the big bad.

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#919865)
I agree. I thought Spacey's Luthor was much more threatening and evil than was Hackman's. Hopefully, they'll use Luthor in conjunction with another villain.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:54 AM

I too would like to see a new villain.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jul 11 2007 08:49 AM

[b]God Almighty[/b]
Haven't they realized that Luthor has already been done to death? There has to be a more original script out there. The only way this could work is if luthor created Bizarro and then Bizarro is the main villain.

(Reply to this)

the train writes:
on Jul 11 2007 09:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#919869)
[b]definitely[/b]
let's have superman fright brainiac... and a polar bear...

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jul 11 2007 10:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#919866)
We've clarified this post: we'd originally got the exclusive from the Harvey Milk producers that their project was first, then reported on IESB's sources who rather rudely called it "horseshit" and claimed Superman was still top priority. Now it looks like Mayor of Castro Street will be first.

Then again, who really knows?? Neither film seems to have a completed (or any) script, Singer's still got a whole other movie to shoot first.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jul 11 2007 11:24 AM

Lets have a movie where Superman kills every single Marvel Comics Superhero except Spider-man and the X-men. That way, we won't have to be subjected to any more crap films.

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Jul 11 2007 12:28 PM

[b]I think that this would help the box-office[/b]
Well the last superman movie flopped big time, but lets just say they add different cast members. It was a rumor at one time about Johnny Depp and Beyounce playing the roll's of Lex Luthor and Lois Lane. I think that would have been a great idea, but except for Beyounce playing Lois Lane, put Cameron Diaz in her spot. Think, a blonde haired bright eyed woman is the perfect choice for Lois Lane, which Beyounce is just about the same. But i just think it would help the box-office this time around because they are very popular stars and they all are talented, well Beyounce is a little blande, but what actress that plays the heroes love interest isn't.

Then Johnny Depp is so flexible, he can handle anything at this point.

(Reply to this)

Jexy writes:
on Jul 11 2007 12:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#919872)
[b]haha[/b]
oh man, i could agree to that. marvel is killing the super hero vibe right now with garbage movies. im not talking about spider-man 3 either, it was entertaining... but enough with the F4 and hulk and offbeat heroes.... BAD movies.

anyway, as for this, the only source saying that superman will be done after the mayor movie, is variety, known for screwing up before, but irregardless to their sometimes shoddy reporting, only they are saying this. yet singer has said in interviews and on tape that superman will be started right after his tom cruise flick. also agreeing are more of singer's guys. so until singer himself says that is is not the case, i'm still thinking superman over this other movie.

(Reply to this)

lockdicer writes:
on Jul 11 2007 01:29 PM

[b]NO ACTION[/b]
the last movie was so devoid of action it was laughable, there was more action in one episode of the WB show. there was a budget of like 250 million - ON WHAT? 100 superman suits, a kryptonite continent, superboy salary? if luther is in this one again it means one thing - no battle scenes.

(Reply to this)

dwaltonk writes:
on Jul 11 2007 01:34 PM

[b]Too Early to Tell?[/b]
Even with Luthor in the movie, it doesn't necessarily mean he's the main villain. In fact, for all we know it could even (unlikely) be a bit part. With no script announced it's definately hard to even predict how he will be used in the final product.

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 11 2007 01:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#919873)
I'm a little hesitant to dignify your comment with a response, but what the hell: Are you f#*king serious??? Johnny Depp as Lex Luthor and Beyonce as Lois Lane? Cameron Diaz isn't much better. Thank God you're not a casting director. By the way, Superman Returns did NOT "flop big time."

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 11 2007 02:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#919871)
Thanks J-Yam...that's right I've given you a hiphop name, don't ask me why :)

(Reply to this)

Conehead2187 writes:
on Jul 11 2007 02:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#919869)
[b]Didn't they do that already?[/b]
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_iv_the_quest_for_peace/

(Reply to this)

reedmi1 writes:
on Jul 11 2007 04:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#919870)
Don't for get the giant spider!!

(Reply to this)

See-Jay writes:
on Jul 11 2007 05:09 PM

This is good news. Kevin Spacey was awesome as Lex and I felt like he was underused so maybe this will make up for that. Although I have to agree with some of the other posters that the sequel will need more action. Superman Returns was excellent, but not as action-packed as one would hope.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Jul 11 2007 05:34 PM

[b]THE FIVE WAYS TO MAKE MAN OF STEEL (MUCH) BETTER[/b]
1. give Supes a bigger threat that doesn't need Kryptonite to kick his ass. Darkseid, Doomsday, Brainiac, anyone but Lex and Zod. Lex is tired, Zod is dead. move on, Mr. Singer.

2. make Lex an underlying threat, not the main baddie. and have him use that inheritance he got from the old lady to buy a failing company so be can make it LexCorp.

3. introduce a new love interest, hopefully Lana Lang played by Isla Fisher. have Lana know that Clark is Supes so he has to choose between the unattainable woman he truly loves that doesn't know his secret and the attainable woman he used to love that does know his secret.

4. give Supes more lines! i think he spoke all of five times in SR.

5. dump Bosworth and recast Lois. Bosworth's Lois was dull. Lois needs that certain spark. Margot Kidder had that spark, Smallville's Erica Durance has it too, but Bosworth's Lois is just dull and boring. but if they must use Bosworth again, give her a better wig with straight hair and bangs to cover her beluga whale forehead. i swear you could land a plane on that thing.

(Reply to this)

gamejediben writes:
on Jul 11 2007 05:37 PM

For all those who think that SR didn't have enough action.... Have you watched Superman:The Movie lately? It is considered a classic, right up there with Star Wars, and it has very little action and *GASP* Luthor is the only villian!!!! Just putting things in perspective...

Superman is not like all the other superheroes, he needs good character drama FIRST and action 2nd. Having said that, I think Singer is going to do exactly like he said he would and "Wrath of Khan" it. We'll probably get more action than is needed. Brainiac or Darkseid going toe to toe with Supes makes for some serious out of this world destruction.

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#919878)
[b]If you should know[/b]
Yes Superman did flop, i mean it only made $200,000,000 at it's box-office and it's budget was $260,000,000 and it failed to make. And if you knew anything about what you are talking about, i did say Cameron Diaz would make a good Lois Lane. Check yourself buddy.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Jul 11 2007 07:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#919884)
the problem with SR is that it was trying too hard to connect with the first film instead of exploring new ground. many of the beats in SR are taken from the first film, only with slightly altered details and trumped up with better special effects. mind you, the first Superman was great considering the extreme limitations there were back then regarding visual effects. the tagline for that film was "You will believe a man can fly!" it was the closest visual effects had gotten to making it look like a person could look like they were actually flying in a movie. but a lot of action films have come and gone since the first Superman film and visual effects have improved vastly also, so the ante has been upped considerably since then. and yeah, Luthor was the only villain in that one, so that's already been done. he was in 3 or the 4 other Superman movies. he doesn't need to be in EVERY Superman movie. but if you're gonna make him the main baddie again, give us something else other than a retread of Luthor's plot from the first film. otherwise, find another villain.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Jul 11 2007 11:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#919885)
You're forgetting about the rest of the world there buddy. SR made 200 Mil domestically. It made ~400 mil world wide. That puts it in the minority of movies that actually make there money back and then some. Plus, Cameron Diaz excels in bubbly perky roles. Not hardnosed, dogged jounalist roles. IMO.

(Reply to this)

Jexy writes:
on Jul 11 2007 11:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#919887)
[b]building on your response[/b]
it also did not cost 260 mill to make, it cost 204, previous costs for other superman movies made didn't count, as they were not made. and marketing costs don't count either. also, if people were to include previous studio costs, the first spider-man and probably a ton of other movies would also have enormous "budgets", but that isn't the case.

also, in a recently release business article, the box office generates only a total of about 19% of a movie's total income. dvd sales, rentals, television, games, toys, merchandise, etc etc. there is a reason why so many crappy movies keep getting made.... money. fight club was a huge flop in the american box office, and since studio's only get 55% of box office revenue, it still lost money when you include the international gross too. yet that movie has made a TON of money on dvd sales and rentals. i mean, really, who hasn't seen that movie or know of 5 people who have? and it doesnt even have the tv time, games, toys, and other merchandise that superman creates. superman wasn't a flop, but it also sure didn't mean its expectations, which was over 500 mill worldwide.

personally, i think singer made it too good, to the point that it pleased critics more than the average movie goer to make them see it a second time. just take a look at the big 3 that came out in may, shabby reviews for all of them, yet they raked in the cash. because they were fun, but dumb. transformers is almost the same way. super cheesy, yet its raking in the cash. the new die hard had better action than transformers IMO, but transformers has that "cool" appeal, where you just don't have to think while watching it.

SR had a decent amount of action, but it was spaced out way too far for the average viewer with the slow love-type scenes that made you wonder what they were thinking. that doesn't cut it in a summer big budget action flick. Hopefully they change all that with the next movie, more action, more fighting, more all the stuff people love, and less love stuff. that was the big knock on spidey 3, too much love stuff, not enough action. the writers and singer have said there will be more action, at least 2 villains, basically, what we all want. so i can't wait. side note, singer would be wise not to upset a LOT of people and do the man of steel right after his current project like he said he would.

(Reply to this)

eastern2western writes:
on Jul 12 2007 02:15 AM

[b]Here are problems I have with superman returns[/b]
1) Singer turned Lois Land into the most superficial bitch in the galaxy. Her character loves Superman, but ignores clark kent despite that they are the exact same man. There should be a second character, could be Lana Lane, who knows the secret of clark kent and loves him with or without the blue tights. In addition, the secondary female character creates an interesting love triangle that adds more drama to the human side of the myth.
2) A much stronger villain or a smarter villain who can actually kick superman's butt. In returns, spacey's character was practically handicapped by kryptonite and he was worthless without it. The next movie should have villains who can go one on one with superman without any aides. A good villain does not have to be strong because a smart villain can also work. I remember there was one episode of wb's superman cartoon featured a villain who almost beat superman by blocking out the sun. At the end of the episode, superman was actually save by louis lane because she managed to destroy the sun-blocking device.
3) More action and less talking because the last movie spent about 1/3 of its time on setting up the plot.
4) Get another director because that man has too much work on his schedule. Why is singer so important to the franchise? I personally would love to see another director get a crack at it. Joe Scheumarcher destroyed batman with two movies of pure campiness and it was chris Nolan who revitalized it by returning batman to realism. Harry Potter franchise changed directors after the first two movies and they actually improve in theri quality. Why does the studio want to waite two to three years for singer when it can probably get some one sooner.

(Reply to this)

mreed3562 writes:
on Jul 12 2007 06:28 AM

[b]More Luthor, huh? OH BOY!!![/b]
Do they not realize that Superman has other enemies? My god, Luthor has been in 4 movies now!!! Braniac?? Doomsday?? Come ON!!

(Reply to this)

zsmiller79 writes:
on Jul 12 2007 09:49 AM

How about Lex steals some of Supermans DNA and creates Bizzaro Superman? That would Supes someone to actually fight, which would be cool!

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 12 2007 09:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#919885)
Check yourself, Jack! According to Movies.Com, Superman Returns was the #6 top grossing movie of 2006. It made $200,081,192.00 [domestically] BEFORE international box office and DVD sale. If you didn't like the movie, fine. But don't make-up facts and figures to justify your position. It was not a flop, either financially or critically. And I said Cameron Diaz ISN'T much better. Meaning that she'd be a lousy Lois Lane, not a good one.

(Reply to this)

mreed3562 writes:
on Jul 12 2007 05:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#919892)
The $200 million dollar figure you are referring to is domestic gross, not profit.

See for yourself -> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on Jul 13 2007 05:19 AM

In reply to this comment (#919893)
Thanks for the clarification. Regardless, the movie wasn't a "flop." I think most of us have been down this road more than enough. Some people didn't like the movie which is OK. The point is that many others [including most critics] did like it and "Superman Returns" DID make a susbstantial amount of money.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 13 2007 08:01 AM

If he returns, I want something different done with the character. I wouldn't mind if he was the villain, but make him a side villain, or do something interesting, like, I don't know maybe

The movie's main villain can only be destroyed by something Luthor has, but in order for Luthor to give it too Supes, Supes has to do something for Luthor that he would never do.

It's not briliant, but at least they'd be doing something else with Lex...

(Reply to this)

RiddleofSteel writes:
on Jul 17 2007 06:46 AM

I really wasn't that impressed with Spacey's version of Luther, Hackman blew him out of the water. Though to be honest my favorite version of Luther has to be from the new Justice League cartoons, where he is head of lex corp. Then again the script was pretty weak for Superman Returns so maybe Spacey didn't have much to work with, because he's usually awsome. I really hope they put the fun back in superman this time, and come up with a much better script. That whole island of kryptonite stuff was just lame.

(Reply to this)

Silverence writes:
on Jul 25 2007 01:42 PM

Just gunna throw this out there, even tho im gunna get flamed to hell:

I hated Spacey in the first one. Why? Whatever moron said to him "Do your best impersonation of Hackman from the first set" was an idiot. Guess what? The first 4? Not that good. Campy. Dated. Corny. ("Can you read my thoughts?")

You wanna make a Superman movie that'll knockem out? Make an antagonist that doesn't sound like they studied at the Laural and Hardy School of Villainery. Hows a movie about a guy whose invincible gunna be worth anything when the bad guy does schtick?

Take your cues from batman begins. go hardcore.

oh and no more of that crystal nonsense. God that was disappointing.

(Reply to this)

outoftowner writes:
on Aug 16 2007 08:12 AM

I just saw the film last night and thought it was a perfect role for Spacey. He was a real balloon prick in that one. The film was a bit lengthy without some type of comedy to balance the thriller / humor variety. Along with that Bosworth would have done better if she where more meladramatic and vocal . The youn boy , his hair was long enough dont you think? He looked as if he was a ophan, other than that if this was minus Kevin Spacey in that Superman returns ,.. I doubt it would have held up at all. The strength of that movie was definetly in Spacey and the new lad playing Reeves old part as Superman.
The cinemaphotaugropy was excellecnt as well as the directing. effects too were superb.
Singer will not let us down.

(Reply to this)

outoftowner writes:
on Aug 16 2007 08:13 AM

I just saw the film last night and thought it was a perfect role for Spacey. He was a real balloon prick in that one. The film was a bit lengthy without some type of comedy to balance the thriller / humor variety. Along with that Bosworth would have done better if she where more meladramatic and vocal . The youn boy , his hair was long enough dont you think? He looked as if he was a ophan, other than that if this was minus Kevin Spacey in that Superman returns ,.. I doubt it would have held up at all. The strength of that movie was definetly in Spacey and the new lad playing Reeves old part as Superman.
The cinemaphotaugropy was excellecnt as well as the directing. effects too were superb.
Singer will not let us down.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Superman Returns

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links