|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 18:53:29 GMT -5
There were plans for a fifth Christopher Reeve movie in the late 80s/early 90s despite the negative (mostly) reaction to Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. Some of the rumours lacked any substance. One newspaper article at the time talked about how Reeve and Gene Hackman were set to return in a film which would see Superman saving the planet from environmental destruction. That could have been a journalist filling column space. At the 1994 Atlanta Dixie Trek Convention, Christopher Reeve did take part in a Q&A session. He did talk about how there were plans for a fifth movie, how the Salkinds got the rights back, how a script was written, etc. For whatever reason it didn't happen. In 1993, a publication that was a lot more reputable than a tabloid published some news about how Reeve had been offered a substantial sum to return to the role. I believe they were thinking about a 1994/95 release. Obviously, that didn't happen. As we all know, Superman Returns was released in 2006. Brandon Routh played the Man of Steel. Footage of Jor-El (Marlon Brando) was used. John Williams' score was used. It was a sequel to the first two Salkind movies. Can we consider Superman Returns to be the fifth Superman film? In some ways, can we consider it "Superman V"? After all, the continuity is there. Broadening our horizons a tad, would the film have been more successful if it had been called "Superman V"? As Box Office Mojo shows, the movie had a budget of $200 million and 'only' made $391 million worldwide. Yes, it made its money back, but that was hardly the box office numbers that would have seen a sequel greenlit. We know Hollywood likes a better return than that. So, the questions I am posing to you fine folk (well, the ones who have seen it): 1.) Why do you think it didn't succeed financially? 2.) Were you interested in a sequel? 3.) Would calling it "Superman V" have led to a better financial return? 4.) Or would calling it "Superman V" have alienated people? Would that have been a terrible decision? Answer all of those questions, answer some of them, answer none of them. Or add your own theories. All views welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 11, 2019 19:17:31 GMT -5
In my mind it was definitely Superman V as it was based squarely on the films that came before it. As for why it didn't do better, I can't say for sure but for me, despite loving Routh as both Clark and Superman I think the film really lacked the "Super" in Superman...and the Return part was odd as the impetus for the journey away from Earth felt more interesting than another Lex Luthor land scheme and yet we never really got to see that journey which makes the Return a non-starter as you don't know or care why he left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 19:23:42 GMT -5
I think it was a mistake to tie it to the original films.
At the end of Superman II, Superman promises the US President that he won't let him down again. There's also the question of Luthor's forthcoming trial.
Yet Superman Returns was asking us to believe that after saving Earth/promising the US President he wouldn't let him down, the Man of Steel flew off into outer space for many years. It seemed feeble. And by not being around to testify against Luthor, that allowed Luthor to leave jail and rinse, wash and repeat the land grab scheme.
It would have made more sense for the film to be set an undetermined amount of time after Superman IV. At the end of that film, Luthor is back in jail, Nuclear Mean has been neutralised - and Supes gives that press conference about the gift of freedom from war not being his gift to give, effectively "handing control of the planet back to its people". With Nuclear Man defeated and Luthor in jail, it would have made logical sense for Superman to go off into space.
Or not. It's clear from the three Salkind films and the Canon movie that Krypton is dead. As are its inhabitants.
Superman Returns felt like a feeble attempt to send the Man of Steel off on a wild goose chase just to get Luthor out of jail and have that whole absence with Lois storyline going.
The film, in my humble opinion, should have been set after the fourth movie or just been "another adventure in the life of Superman". Did they really need to tie it to the Reeve films?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 11, 2019 19:35:37 GMT -5
Yeah, it being so long after the originals made it love letter like feel to it pretty strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 19:44:28 GMT -5
In my own opinion, this movie that starred Brandon Routh and they did use some stock footage of Marlon Brando and reference to John Williams Music and all ... I just find it hard to accept that this movie is no way a continuation of the four Superman Movies that Christopher Reeve starred in and I consider this film is a standalone at it's best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 11, 2019 19:50:25 GMT -5
I’d day Superman returns is actually Superman III if continuity ignores the Richard Pryor film and Superman IV. But yeah, it’s apparently meant to be the Christopher Reeve Superman we see on screen, despite a few cosmetic changes.
In the final analysis I didn’t much care for the film... The airplane scene was brilliant, but Kal-El acting as a creepy stalker was just wrong, and the story was barely adequate. I did love the connection with the Reeve movies, though, because I truly loved Superman and Superman II.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,333
|
Post by shaxper on May 11, 2019 22:11:24 GMT -5
Superman Returns was overt fan-service, and I think that's part of why it failed. It was, at the same time, too wild a departure from the core premise with Superman fathering an illegitimate son.
It also dragged on and dragged on.
From my own standpoint, I enjoyed it in spite of its failings, but what really ensured it would never become a favorite of mine was how weak the Daily Planet family came off. If you're not invested in those characters, why bother?
Brandon Routhe was amazing and may well have out-Reeved Reeve, but nearly everything else about the film was a mistake.
I prefer the original three films without IV or Returns attached to them. You only truly need I, II is an excellent companion piece, and III is guilty pleasure fun. The rest do very little to contribute positively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 23:33:20 GMT -5
It is packaged and sold as such. There are now DVD (and blu-ray) sets selling the complete Superman saga that include Superman I-IV plus Superman Returns (I actually picked up the 5 disc set used for $5 at a used DVD place here in town a few weeks ago). So whether it was intended to be or not, or whether fans agree or not, in the minds of the suits selling the product, yes it is the fifth film in the Superman series and sold as such.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 11, 2019 23:37:22 GMT -5
Agreed with RR -- I'd say Superman Returns is an alternate version Superman III. Bryan Singer is a huge fan of the Richard Donner films, and Superman II was the last one that Richard Donner had any hand in. The big thing that Superman Returns seems to depend on from the Donner films is that Lois and Clark finally got together in Superman II. Presumably, Jason was conceived when Clark gave up his powers and did the deed with Lois in the Fortress of Solitude.
Having said that, at the time the movie was being released, I remember reading in a few articles and interviews that the Donner films were meant to be a loose backstory, and not necessary tightly coupled to the plot of SR. They never quite came out and said that it was supposed to be a sequel, and seemed to be purposefully vague about how precisely everything was connected. My guess is that Singer wanted to homage and connect to the original films, but he didn't want to be painted into a corner and wanted to make his own story without having to worry too much about continuity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2019 0:04:25 GMT -5
All I know is that it’s the single most boring movie I ever tried to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 0:08:51 GMT -5
All I know is that it’s the single most boring movie I ever tried to watch. I've still not made it through the movie without falling asleep. I fell asleep when we went to see it in the theatres and each of the three times I tried to watch it at home. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2019 0:16:39 GMT -5
All I know is that it’s the single most boring movie I ever tried to watch. I've still not made it through the movie without falling asleep. I fell asleep when we went to see it in the theatres and each of the three times I tried to watch it at home. -M I only tried once. I’m not a Superman fan anyway but my boys wanted to see it. About 1/3 of the way through all of us just decided to turn it off and take it back to the video store. Watching grass grow would have been preferable. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 5:41:14 GMT -5
So much (that I didn't cover in my initial post) was wrong with it. It rehashed the first movie. The finale was underwhelming. And Kate Bosworth did not look old enough to be a seasoned reporter.
The whole stalker angle? What was that about? I presume a sequel would have seen Lois break her partner's heart, reveal her child belonged to Superman - and then a dejected Richard White would disappear so the Man of Steel could live happily ever after with Lois. What is this, a soap opera?
And using Luthor again? Yuk! Given this was Superman's first big-screen film in 19 years, I think I'd have preferred a punch-up with Metallo or Brainiac threatening Metropolis. Or, hey, how about the Parasite?
There's just so much wrong with the film. And I come away thinking how selfish Superman was, the disappearing for years so that he couldn't testify at Luthor's trial, wanting Lois back, etc, etc. What were the producers thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 12, 2019 6:18:21 GMT -5
I saw it once in the theater and remember geeking out at the airplane scene. I enjoyed it and considered it Superman III.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 7:00:04 GMT -5
The aeroplane scene is about the only part of the movie that I enjoy. I can view that on YouTube, but although I have the Blu-ray (it came as part of the Superman package), I won't watch the movie again.
|
|
