ROTTEN TOMATOES: A "Superman Returns" Sequel? Don't Hold Your Breath

A "Superman Returns" Sequel? Don't Hold Your Breath

by Jeff Giles | March 16, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

All that talk about potential villains for the "Superman Returns" sequel will have to remain conjecture for awhile -- the film's director, Bryan Singer, has his plate full with other projects, including a just-announced reunion with "The Usual Suspects" screenwriter Chris McQuarrie for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner's United Artists imprint.

Details are scant -- pretty much all that's being said right now is that the film will be a World War II ensemble piece -- but the project has fallen together pretty easily thus far. As Singer told Variety:

"This was something Chris showed me late last year, and we worked on it quietly during the holidays...We brought it to UA and it was nice one-stop shopping. We decided it was the right place to make this movie, as opposed to shopping it around. It's a period in history that has always fascinated me, and we found a very interesting story that materialized into a pretty wonderful script."

Cruise and Wagner, who revived United Artists last fall, have taken on a few development projects, and are in production on director Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs," starring Cruise and Meryl Streep, but they've been fairly choosy about their releases thus far, which would seem to bode well for Singer and McQuarrie's latest venture.

And don't feel bad for Warner Bros., the studio that released "Superman Returns." Singer has several projects in development for Warners, including a Harvey Milk biopic and the ABC television pilot "Football Wives."

Source: Variety
Source: IGN Movies

Related Items

Celeb:	Bryan Singer
	Tom Cruise
	Christopher McQuarrie
	Paula Wagner
	Brandon Routh
Movie:	The Usual Suspects
	Superman Returns

(1-20 of 66 posts) | Reply

Mikeal420 writes:
on Mar 16 2007 11:26 AM

[b]Kinda Dissapointed[/b]
After avoiding "Superman Returns" for almost a year, I finally broke-down and watched it. Guess what- it was a pretty good film. My only problem with it was the casting of Lex Luther- Spacey is a brilliant actor, one of the best around, but he did not have the same presence Gene Hackman did in the original(why was he not broght back to play that role??!!)

I enjoyed this film from beginning to almost the end (the last 15 minutes could have been left out) and don't see why it should mark the end of the Superman franchise. Some of the visuals were simply outstanding and highly creative.

It was defintly better than Superman III and IV

(Reply to this)

hugz4thugz writes:
on Mar 16 2007 11:49 AM

I think this is a good idea. Superman Returns wasn't very good and it seemed to be miscasted, and horribly written and paced (althogh it did have some badass action scenes ie bullet in the eye and the airplane scene). Other than about 20 minutes of the movie I felt it kinda fell flat and didn't really do anything to revitalize the series like Batman Begins did for Batman. If they make another one they should just start fresh.

(Reply to this)

AstroZombie138 writes:
on Mar 16 2007 12:00 PM

[b]FANTASTIC.[/b]
Okay, can somebody get Bret Rattner on the phone so we can keep this franchise going? Oh, and Bryan needs his Ritalin. Jesus...

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Mar 16 2007 12:22 PM

I think this is excellent news. Chris McQuarrie is a very interesting writer - the concept behind The Usual Suspects was brilliant. And I think it's about time that Singer returned to a non-comic book drama. I loved Apt Pupil.

Superman Returns was retro cheese. I for one have no interest in a sequel.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Mar 16 2007 12:34 PM

If Singer is allowed to carry on with the Superman franchise he'll probably have Superman cuddling up to a baby seal outside the Fortress of Solitude in the next movie and have him battling sealers. Give the damn franchise to Quentin Tarrantino so we can finally see what Superman is really capable of doing. At least we'll have some action.

(Reply to this)

Cindy_Lou_Who writes:
on Mar 16 2007 12:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#858345)
Ha ha! But at least if Tarrantino had Superman battling the sealers, he would have Samuel L. Jackson as the king sealer armed to the teeth stomping around the ice flows screaming "There's too many Motherf****n' seals on this Motherf***n' ice."

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Mar 16 2007 01:11 PM

[b]This film was a joke.[/b]
Why anyone would want a sequel to, what I deem a complete bastardization of the mythos is beyond me.
Singer has managed to create a film so uninspiring, unoriginal, undemanding that one has to question as to whether or not Singer understood the ideals behind the hero.

The film is poorly paced and cut and I had to question at some moments if they simply forgot to splice scenes in before the curtain went up. There is a scene so confusing and cold, I wondered if Clark forgot that he was raised as a human.
The actions scenes that do exist, while thrilling to witness, have no lead up. There is no awe-inspiring moment or second that ever gave me that goose bump moment. In the Donner version, we felt the march. That at the height of the crescendo, it wasn�t just Reeve rocketing into the stratosphere, it was the audience. In this film, there is no build up to reintroduce us to the hero.
Singer unhinges all the ideals of Superman and makes him a creepy stalker just eager for a shot on Dateline to show that he�s the most challenging predator to catch yet.
I�m not sure when Superman thought it was a good idea to float outside bedroom windows and using x-ray vision and super hearing, spy on the conversation between two people that he has no business spying on. NSA would be proud. These problems probably started around the same time he thought cock blocking, and penis measuring were still solid forms of chivalry.

The talks between the two love interests are insipid, the don�t move with natural punch and basically serve to get from A to B. Where is the wonderful charm that Lois and Clark shared high above her apartment, speaking of the color pink? It�s dead and gone and we are left with Clark simply trying to horn in on a loving family. Wow, last son of Krypton AND a home wrecker. Singer has taken Superman into the 21st Century via Liberalism, and while that will please many, knowing that the most Conservative hero has finally bowed down to the pressures to �get with the times�, what we lose is more damaging. The very fact Singer hasn�t learn that Superman doesn�t reflect current speech patterns, ideals, style and time is forever lost on him and he killed the last true Boy Scouts.

(Reply to this)

eastern2western writes:
on Mar 16 2007 01:30 PM

[b]no singer[/b]
god the man made superman return into a movie about real estate slipping

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 16 2007 01:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#858348)
[b]haha[/b]
"real estate slipping"

well, at least it's applicable to our modern housing market.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 16 2007 02:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#858347)
Wow, I never realized Superman was on a par with Herman Melville or Shakespeare. And here I thought it was just a comic book about some boring guy who nobody can beat up. Thanks for showing me the multiple layers of this literary masterpiece. I will now go forward enlightened.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Mar 16 2007 03:13 PM

It just needs a new director. Bret Rattner would be a good choice. X-men- The Last Stand was great. Superman Returns made enough money to justify a sequel. Let's hope it happens. The world needs Superman.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Mar 16 2007 03:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#858341)
I agree completely.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Mar 16 2007 03:36 PM

He's a good director and this new project sounds a lot better to me than another Superman film, so I'm happy with this.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Mar 16 2007 03:48 PM

Maybe it's me, but most of the people who hated the latest Superman movie seemed to be either 15 year old video game junkies with Attention Deficit Disorder or comic book geeks who see their comics on the same level as Christians see the Bible. Personally, I don't have the patience for any of them. I thought Superman was good and enjoyable, although the similarities to the first one with Christopher Reeve were a little jarring. I do have enough patience that I don't need wall to wall action and actually enjoy character development, which is what I liked about Superman.

And when exactly did Brett Ratner become a great director (the last X-Men movie was good, but quickly forgettable)?

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Mar 16 2007 03:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#858347)
I could not agree with you more good sir. There is nothing I would want to see less than a sequel to "Returns". I hope they start over next time and re-cast Superman with someone bulkier and less pale.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Mar 16 2007 04:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#858350)
No problem. Glad I can help. It is great that when two people engage in a converstaion that they can leave by learning so....HEY, wait.... That was sarcasm!

*finger wag*

You almost got me there. For a second I thought you were genuine.

Wait a sec, you frequent RT and yet you wish to discuss Melville or Shakespeare? Isn't that like going to Hillary Duff and bitching how Metallica has more edge?

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 16 2007 05:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#858356)
No, that was my point. Your post, while well-thought out and reasonably argued (unlike many who frequent these forums) tries to make Superman sound like some grand operatic thing when in reality it's just a comic book. Now I'm not saying comic books can't explore grand themes, but Superman is essentially a white knight who's nigh invincible, which makes him (to me) rather dull. Truth, justice and the American Way is all well and good, but it doesn't make for epic storytelling. I didn't see the same creepiness you apparently saw in his dealings with Lois and family, I saw someone who was more human, with some of the same flaws and foibles we all have. After all, in the end he does the right thing, which is something I think we all would hope we would do.

My biggest problem with the movie (and I liked it well enough) was that I had already seen it...in 1978.

(Reply to this)

daveyhatton writes:
on Mar 16 2007 05:17 PM

[b]F that[/b]
Huge Superman fan of the movie format and I though SR was incredible. I don't know how RT can slam the flick in the opening statement when it got pretty dam good reviews. Very much disappointed that the sequel will be delayed, but I can wait...

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Mar 16 2007 08:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#858357)
Not sure one can even respond to your post, as you already laid yor case against comic books for being less than serious medium. Tough to combat ignorance. I have made a living writing comics, and the idea that someone would broach a subject that I do take serious, with a condescending attitude, is almost foolhardy.
But in the interest in a reasonable discussion, let me remark on this quote: " I didn't see the same creepiness you apparently saw in his dealings with Lois and family, I saw someone who was more human, with some of the same flaws and foibles we all have."

Let the point be known, I also didn't mind that Singer showed us that Superman can make mistakes. But if he is supposed to be the beacon of hope and truth that we all ask him to be (and I think that we do), then it's not the fact that he morally slips up, it's the fact that he himself, doesn't recognize his immorality. That's why his relationship with his mother is so crucial to the story, because it's his only tie to being a human. It's his only tie to his morality. Not because I say do, but because Singer demands it. But instead, he fails at creating a reasonable relationship with his mother. A mother who's pined for her son for years, suddenly gets her wish come true, has him return, only to wake up in the morning, bring a delightful bowl of Cheerios to his bedroom door and see that the brat took off, not even leaving a forwarding address. For the good and the bad, Superman's morality is his strength and weakness. It's what seperates him from all todays darker heroes and what seperates him from the "popular" ones. He isn't flexible with his morailty. That in itself is the conflict. So I disagree when you say "Superman is essentially a white knight who's nigh invincible, which makes him (to me) rather dull."
Dullness is subjective. It's what one does with the content that makes it either sink or swim. Imagine a planet, who's so morally bankrupt, who has adopted very "liberal" views and is revisited by a hero who's out of the times. A black and white thinker. How can he be an example to the people who don't take him seriously?

Singer mismanaged the mythos, and say what you will, and take a rather embryonic view of the character and comics in general, but comics like these are our modern mythology. These are stories that, whether you find them puerile or not, exist in our culture for a reason. Since the start of time, when we've studied cave writings on walls, comics have told us stories that continue to this day. Hardly frivilous when one puts it into that scope.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Mar 16 2007 09:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#858359)
This, I think, is an example of taking comics a little too seriously. Superman needed updating and Singer did it. In today's society, it's really hard to relate to a a character like the original Superman. To most people, he was a one dimensional character that lived in a black and white world and saw it as such. It was a product of it's time.

I, as well as many others, felt that Superman was a little of a boring hero. He 's impenetrable to any harm except Kryptonite. Doesn't seem to have any real issues he must deal with except as his alter ego, which is a disguise anyway. He's a boy scout of steel. Real exciting.

The original Superman was an unrealistic character. Do people from Krypton not have the same emotional frailties as people from earth? Why wouldn't Superman feel jealousy, regret and all of that? In the new Superman, he actually got some depth for once and a lot of fanboys are acting as if the Bible has been rewritten.

Remember, a movie like Superman Returns is not for the die-hard fans. It's for the average person, such as myself, who knows a little about Superman but aren't huge fans. If you want a movie for the fan boys, don't expect a big budget because not many people are going to end up seeing it.

(Reply to this)