You'll believe a man can fly... Again. Superman Returns!

It didn't take "Returns" that long to get written.

 

No, it doesn't take most movies that long to get written. Only 6-8 weeks. But that has to be settled reasonably for the art department to go to work.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Bad news for The Man of Steel?

ComingSoon.com

Castro Street to Hold Up Superman Sequel?
Source: Rotten Tomatoes July 2, 2007

Rotten Tomatoes reports that Bryan Singer will likely direct The Mayor of Castro Street after Valkyrie, which would push back the Superman Returns sequel:

"Bryan Singer had previously told us that the "Superman Returns" sequel "Superman: The Man of Steel" would be his next film after "Valkyrie." His producers tell another story. Neil Meron and Craig Zadan have Singer lined up to direct "The Mayor of Castro Street," a story of gay rights activist Harvey Milk, within a year.

"The next Superman, that's a ways off," claimed Meron, with Zadan adding. "Don't worry about it. Trust me. We may even start preproduction on Harvey Milk while he's on post production on the Tom Cruise movie."

 

This has been discussed to death at Blue Tights. The short and long of it is, these guys are NOT producers on MOS. They almost certainly don't know what's going on with that. I'm sure they *hope* Singer does their film first, and I'm sure they like to get some publicity this way... but really, it won't mean anything unless it's from Singer or WB.

Singer has a contract for MOS already, contingent upon a script being done and a budget working out. I think Harris and Daugherty are probably working on the script or will be soon. And just a month ago at the Saturn Awards, Singer himself said MOS was his next project after Valkyre.

I'm not too worried. This source really has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's good business for these producers to attach their film to the MOS controversy. Of course they're going to do that. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I just want to hear from WB or Singer one way or another what the timeline for MOS is at this point. I find it odd that there's nothing scheduled at Comic Con for it, but a lot of people are speculating that this could mean a surprise announcement. Who knows. All I can say is, it was the very end of July last year when we got word on The Dark Knight. So MOS could very well be on track if we here something at or around Comic Con.

Even if it's going to be delayed some, I want to know. I'm sick of hearing all the fans speculate out the wazzo and I'm sick of getting dragged into it myself


-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I've read the thread over at BlueTights right after I posted this so let me repost my thoughts about all this.

Something I don't think I've seen mentioned yet it what effect is the possible writers strikes going to have on the next Superman film.

The Writer's Guild of America contract with major studios expires in October and the Actors and Directors Guilds expire in June, 2008. The studios worry that all three guilds may band together next summer which would cripple the industry. Right now the studios are very reluctant to greenlight any film that would be shooting beyond June 2008. Superman would certainly fall into that time frame.

NBC is preparing by ordering more episodes of the Office then the typical 24 so they can stockpile them and spread them out in case a strike was to occur and the next TV season was delayed. I'm sure the other networks are considering similar ideas.

The studios are also trying to get as many films shot and put in the can as possible before the deadline occurs. This may be another reason why Singer may be doing "Valkyrie" and "Mayor of Castro Street" back to back. If Superman is delayed because of the strike he'll have two films already in the can.

I still think it's possible that he can do all three. If "Valkyrie" and "Mayor of Castro Street" each only takes a few months to film he could have both films shot before the end of the year and be ready to shoot Superman in early 2008.

 

Valkyrie isn't going to be some simple project and I really think the 2009 tentative release date is unrealisitic at this point even without Mayor of Castro Street getting in the way.

I don't think the writer's stirke is going to effect MOS. Synger has a good working relationship with his writers. Even if they go on strike I'm sure they'll go over some ideas without working on the acutal script

 

Either way, the film is going to get made. If it takes a bit longer, then it will. And yes, until we hear something solid about this other film, let's take it with a grain of salt.

 

Ah so Gobi that *is* you at Blue Tights I wondered...

I posted earlier in this thread that my contact who's been in the industry 43 years, is a long-time WGA member and still a working screenwriter says there are *always* rumours of strikes during renegotiation, but that 9/10 times, nothing comes of it. Still, that might not stop the studios from being paranoid, which in and of itself could cause delays.

Your suggestion there about Donner, BTW... Much as I love him, I'm not sure I'd want him on this. He has a much more 'feelings are bad for Superman' view of the character, and I don't really think that's appropriate for the situation Supes is currently in with Lois and Jason. Besides, he might try to turn the world backwards AGAIN

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

No wait let him, that way we can erase Richard Pyror in Superman III.

 

Singer already did that ...except DVD evidence still exists. And it's pretty funny to watch if you're in the right mood

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Superman Returns was CRAP! Harris & Dougherty were fanboys who Singer brought onboard the Superman gameplan. Mario Puzio wrote a freakin "phonebook" for Superman the movie. And was expertly revised by Tom Mankiewicz, co-written by Robert Benton, and also a husband and wife duo(primarily responsible) for Supes 3. Singer decided to pitch & pay homage to Donner and the original film. Which in my book was the wrong choice. He or someone else should have revised it or done something else. Did anyone know exactly how long Reeves'Clark Kent stayed in the Fortress? Ten-years. Why didn't they make a movie about that? I knew "Returns" was in trouble when I saw Peter Guber's(Executive Producer)in the title credits. This "Hollywood" producer wanted Superman fighting polar bears in the movie...and a mechanical spider.(See Kevin Smiths' comment about this on Youtube.)

Superman the Movie had magic...all the stars aligned for this magnificent film. Donner, Puzio, Brando, Williams and Hackman. The story pitch from Harris&Dougherty took place on a plane from or to Hawaii. And I heard from a L.A source that X-men 2 was mostly directed by the 1st Assistant director not Singer. And don't even get me started on Kate Boswell's completely forgettable Lois Lane.

 

In STM Clark is in the fortress for 12 years. If you're going to rant, at least get your facts straight.

I don't actually know what the point you are trying to make with that post is... sorry you don't like the film. Wish I could decipher why.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Why would anyone make a movie about what Supes did for over a decade in the FOS? And Boswell did well I thought.

 

You mean Bosworth?

Yeah, let's have a movie about Clark sitting there for 12 years becoming Superman while learning a bunch of stuff (though I prefer to think he left at least once in a while to see his mom and good movies )

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

My main beef with Returns was the villian. Don't get me wrong Spacey does a fantastic Lex Luthor but it seems like we've gone down that road too many times

 

I think they wanted to start out with something that the general public would be familiar with, so as not to scare people off right away with Superman's largely sci-fi based enemies. Which will probably be coming soon.

I have a question... can we start a thread for Man of Steel yet so that we can discuss SR here and that there, or what?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

There is a thread for the next film. No one has really used it yet.

Lex was used again, because he is one of the more memorable Superman villains and throughout the years, he has appeared the most. Now, we're set to get others. Hopefully Brainiac. Anyway, Clark's time in the Fortress would be boring as hell. He does nothing except learn and sleep.

And it was Jon Peters, not Peter Gruber. As it is, you should count yourself lucky whisper. If Peters had the control that he once did, the film would've been really bad.

 

1. It's Puzo, not Puzio.

2. As sinister said, be thankful it wasn't Peters, and be extremely thankful that J.J. Abrams's script wasn't used.

3. 3 was an unfunny comedy while 4 was stupidity cubed.

 

And noone at the Daily Planet thought it was odd that Superman and Clark returned at the same time.
They are more obvious than He-Man and Prince Adam.

 

Clark was still on Earth. Martha sent postcards to Lois, with Clark's handwriting forged. Superman was not seen all together. Clark also left after Superman was last seen publically, by a few days.

 

One of the great things about Brandon Routh's performance is that he underplays the part of Clark Kent. Making the fact that everybody overlooks and pays little attention to him really believable. I think that's another reason why nobody makes the connetion between Clark's and Superman's returns.

 

Thanks sinister. Makes a little more sense.

 

Yeah, I really really like his take on Clark. He feels like a living, breathing person, and the kind of guy you'd just take for granted. Plus, I enjoy the tons of subtle expressions that give the audience a clue about what he's actually thinking even though the characters don't notice. The overlap between Clark and Superman in this film is awesome as it lets you see the man between the disguises.


-sj loves kevin spacey

 

That's why Clark Kent's public persona is the way it is. The less people notice Clark Kent, the less likely they'll make the connection that he's really Superman. And when it comes to those who know Clark well, he has allies such as J'onn J'onzz cover for him. The only difference between Reeve and Routh was that Routh relied less on being clumsy, than Reeve, who used it to hide his strength and to make him look pathetic.

 

Well that and the nature of their scripts. SR was written so that we saw a lot of Clark after other people left or when they weren't watching as well as a lot of Superman by himself.

You don't get that much with the way STM is written once he's an adult. You mostly just see Clark the way he presents himself to others. And yeah, the extreme clutziness is part of it.

I think the low-key and slightly awkward Clark of SR is just a different take... but also, it seems like it would be closer to how he actually is. I really love the way how we the audience see Superman and Clark kind of bleed together, while the other people don't notice because they're not paying any attention.

-sj loves kevin spacey