Consider this.
Burton did two Batman movies, with the sequel accepted as being equal, for some, even better. Due to studio interference a different director came in and the movies went to hell, the trilogy never came full circle.
Raimi did the same with Spider-Man, a great first film, a second one which was hailed as even better than the first and then, due to studio interference, a very messed up third movie with too much going on that is generally accepted as an uneven (at best) movie. The trilogy came full circle, but with a limp and some cringe-inducing moments.
The same could be said about Singer's X-Men, similar to Spider-Man's case but with a different director for the third, "limp", one.
The Terminator might not seem a very good example because of the 12-year gap and Cameron's total lack of involvement, but it's still a case of an (arguably) better second film, and a downgrading for the third one.
Godfather 3? Alien 3? Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? All had sequels equal or even better, and a limp third film.
Yeah, these thoughts are not real arguments and every case is a different one, but it's as if the third movie is destined to "suck" in some way, or be uneven, at best.
Do you think that Nolan can "pull an Indy"? Indy and the Last Crusade is the only great third film in a series I remember right now, but it came after a messed-up second film it could only improve upon by going back to basics, not to mention it had Sean Connery in it. :P
Let's not even start with fourth movies :P
I think that Return of the Jedi is probably the greatest third film in a trilogy I've ever seen. But yeah, I do agree w/ you about the third film meaning that it's the end of a series. Just look at Superman 3. It had absolutely no potential. Once you see Richard Pryor in a superhero film, you'll know that it will BOMB!
I even think that a second film could ruin a series or put it in development hell. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation bombed at the box office big time back in 1997 (like another movie we all know). But I believe it's b/c of the fact that there was a new director in charge, almost a completely new cast & to top it off, a horrible script that really didn't follow the plot of Mortal Kombat 3. There were too many characters to develop. Everything just felt rushed. Things like that can also ruin film franchises.
Smokey and the Bandit 3 was far better than the first two, Tom Selleck was amazing in that film, he deserved an oscar!!
I completely disagree. Loved Spider-Man 3, and thought Temple of Doom was better than Last Crusade. Truthfully, I thought Kingdom of the Crystal Skull blew LC right out of the water.
But no, I don't think that Nolan's third will be successful. It will be another Spider-Man 3-style reaction. There'll be a huge amount of Nolanites who try to deny it, but face it. The Joker, especially as done by Heath Ledger, just cannot be topped. What Batman villain can you have that's bigger and badder than the Joker? Any film after TDK will just feel like a let-down.
Doesn't mean it will be a bad film, but it means that it will be remembered and treated as a "disappointment," like Daredevil, Elektra, The Fantastic Fours, Spider-Man 3, Batman Forever, Superman Returns and Hulk. ALL of which I'm open-minded enough to love, mind you.
These films, like Nolan's third-to-be, can only be appreciated by those open-minded enough to see what the director saw in it. This is the only way that following the Joker in B89, BR is so good. Are Catwoman and the Penguin better villains than the Joker? Hell no. But is the film just as good? Yes, because we all see the depth that Burton was trying to go for. The same goes for any of the "hated" films I listed above. Some of them do have their problems (SR chief among them), but there's plenty to love in ALL of them, but the narrow-minded just write them off. And a third installment? People are conditioned to be disappointed with them, it's a common superstition that is self-fulfilling.
That's why I wasn't let down by the third Spidey film, because I "got" what Raimi wanted me to. I didn't go into it looking for what the haters were saying about it, like most everyone did (even if they didn't think they were trying to).
Superman Returns wasn't that bad, but it didn't feel like anything was fresh to me (other than for certain things like Lois & Cyclops as a couple LOL). I read about the reboot. I think it just sounds moronic. What do you think DocLathropBrown?
Agreed.
I hate restarts, mostly because they do as Batman Begins did and devide the fanbase. I mean, I can understand reboots ofm comic book movie franchises under certain circumstances. If there's been like 20 years since the last installment, I'd say it's okay to restart. If 2006 had a Superman reboot rather than SR, I wouldn't have been too broken up, as a whole generation went without a Superman film (my generation). But I applaud SR for being so ballsy, but then I'm a tad disappointed that it dropped half the ball. And Bryan Singer was right, why bother remaking the original? You can't do it better than Donner did, and I appreciated that it was in the same continuity (albeit with a time-period shift). Where Singer dropped the ball continuity-wise by only including certain parts of Lester's Superman II, when it should have had it ALL in continuity, or none of II at all.
But I think comic book movie restarts, only a few years after the previous installment, is cheap and cowardly. Take it like a man and do something interesting with what you're given. I would have prefurred a Batman 5 that fixed all of the Schumacher problems than a new continuity (Nolan's) that now has to strive to change what already worked in the first place.
I don't think Superman should be restarted. Not at all. Just get Geoff Johns to script and consult with Singer (to keep him in line), and do something interesting with the kid. If you have the kid get kidnapped by Darkseid, you can bet your ASS that that could be some powerful stuff if Clark has to battle his own son, turned against him by Darkseid in the next film.
They could go anywhere, but no, movie studios are afraid of being ballsy with these movies, not like they are about regular films. WB should bite the bullet and give Singer another chance. It's not like the guy is incapable of learning. But more than WB, I hate the people who are vehemently anti-Singer (thecolorsblend aside), deciding to just cast aside any chance that Singer has a brain and can understand criticism. Likewise, I hated that they restarted the Hulk series, when really, with a few exceptions, it's the same kind of film we'd have gotten from a sequel to the 2003 movie anyway. There was no point.
In order to please fanboy bitching, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment.
People felt BR was a mis-fire. BF swept BR's "errors" under the rug without restarting, and look how successful that was? Hugely successful.
Only internet fanboys care about a previous film "tainting" continuity. General audiences don't give a damn.
When talking about "good" or "bad" sequels I mostly referred to the general critical reception and the consensus surrounding these films, not my personal views. Personally, I find nothing wrong with Alien 3, Star Wars Jedi or even X-Men 3, and Batman Forever indeed saved (commercially) the franchise despite (or maybe because of) being a movie that destroyed everything Burton tried to do, but this doesn't change the fact that all of these films are somehow "tainted" and considered as "lesser" entries. Sub-par.
Same thing with Indy 2, people like it and it's certainly not a bad film in a strict sense, but it was (and still would be) something of a misguided black sheep if Indy 4 never came out or had a chance of being a good film.
I wonder if Batman Mk. II Part 3 will turn out to have a similar fate, especially after TDK's massively overhyped reception.
BR, IMO, was the subject of hate for a lot of those soccer mommies back in 1992. >:(
Critically, from what I've read, it was better than BATMAN. With Returns, I think Burton brought what a graphic novel film adaptation should be like. In fact, TDK would be nothing w/o BR. It would've been bashed by soccer mommies in the same manner.
How come Returns was criticized for being very dark and violent when the first movie was just as (if not more) dark, violent and VERY disturbing? Why was there no backlash against '89 or the new ones?
First film: most of the darkness came from Nicholson, who also came off as "funny" to disguise the darkness.
New films: times have changed and things are overall more "liberal."
Well, this darkness that is so much talked about is more of a fairy tale, night fairies, dark elf, goth club, Edward Scissorhands, Addams Family, Count Dracula-flavor. Theatrical, fanciful, a larger than life and harmless kind of darkness. Like Phantom of the Opera. Dark by comic book and superhero standards. Dark in the Halloween sense.
I'm still puzzled about the backlash BR received simply because it had DeVito covered with nasty make-up spewing bile and a Dominatrix-looking Catwoman, or Batman killing off some thugs in a humorous way.
There is some "darkness" in there that has to do with the subject matter Tim Burton is very fond of, his obsessions about wearing "masks", being something you are forced to be, mistreated outcasts and and how ruthless and stupid society can be (the "masses" in Batman Returns are totally stupid and as dangerous as the villain due to their stupidity), but I don't think this classifies as social commentary the children can "get". It goes over their heads anyway. More like the icing on a tasty cake.
The Dark Knight has a similar kind of "movie cool" darkness, superficial and more like a pose than anything. The film backs off every time there's going to be violence, in a true PG friendly manner.
And this reaction in a country where the current trend is to show as much violence and gore as possible in so-called "horror" (splatter pornography I'd say) films.
I'm no fan, believe me, but isn't ROTK generally regarded as a worthy LOTR film?
QuoteIn order to please fanboy *****ing, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment
In fairness, the reluctance to reboot in the 80's likely stemmed from (A) such a thing being a foreign concept, esp in so short a time and (B) any reboot would likely have to jettison Reeve, which NOBODY was willing to do.
Besides, Superman III sucked, that much is true, but it hardly screwed the franchise. You could've just as easily had a Superman IV that exceeded even the mighty STM. Hell, we very nearly
did! You could deliver a follow up to SIII that made everything okay.
No such follow up is possible for the Singer movie. Keeping the kid means irreversibly altering the mythos. Killing the kid means irreversibly altering the characters. Eliminating the kid (via a "warm reboot") irreversibly confuses the series; the Singer movie was a loose sequel/remake with "vague continuity" to STM... and it's followed by a loose sequel with even "vaguer continuity"???
This, of course, before we even start talking about the Singer movie's myriad other problems.
Give us the Superman reboot we should've gotten back in 2006.
The one thing that can't be overlooked in all this is studio pressure. Once a sequel is a megahit, they immediately go into overdrive to push for another one asap. I guess I can't blame them. I want a new Batman movie to come out every year!
But great stories need time to develop. Now I'm not a studio insider so I can't vouch for any of these rumors but they certainly sound true:
-- Spider-Man 3: Raimi wanted to use Sandman but Marvel Studios told him that the fans wanted Venom and that's who he needed to use. So rather than pick one, he used both and the film's story suffered greatly as a result.
-- X3: Singer never got along with the execs at Fox but he was still hard at work on both X3 and X4. Then WB stole him for Superman (wish they hadn't...but I digress) and pissed off Fox. Rather then put the project on hold, they rushed it because it "needed" to be released before Superman. Matthew Vaughan was actually supposed to direct but he left the film shortly before filming and was replaced with Ratner, who apparentl always wanted to do a comic book film.
In both cases, the films ended up being megahits. But if people were disappointed with either (and they were) it might affect their decision to see the next installment. I believe one of the reasons B & R did so poorly is because a lot of average filmgoers weren't too impressed with Forever so they just decided to wait for the rental. I'd also go so far as to say it affected the box office take of Batman Begins, at least with respect to the "average filmgoer." We'll see what happens with the Wolverine prequel...
As for a third Nolan film, I think he certainly has the chops to do another great film but only if he doesn't let the pressure overwhelm him. The Joker is incredibly hard to top, which may be why the rumor (prior to Heath's death) was that he would be featured in the third film as well.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 07:11
I'm no fan, believe me, but isn't ROTK generally regarded as a worthy LOTR film?
QuoteIn order to please fanboy *****ing, they just give up and restart these days. That didn't happen with the original Superman franchise. III sucked, but what did IV do? It didn't restart continuity. There was no need to mention anything from III. So don't. Problem solved. Theater-goers generally don't care about how the previous film's mistakes matter. They mostly care about what's up with the film they're watching right at the moment
In fairness, the reluctance to reboot in the 80's likely stemmed from (A) such a thing being a foreign concept, esp in so short a time and (B) any reboot would likely have to jettison Reeve, which NOBODY was willing to do.
Besides, Superman III sucked, that much is true, but it hardly screwed the franchise. You could've just as easily had a Superman IV that exceeded even the mighty STM. Hell, we very nearly did! You could deliver a follow up to SIII that made everything okay.
No such follow up is possible for the Singer movie. Keeping the kid means irreversibly altering the mythos. Killing the kid means irreversibly altering the characters. Eliminating the kid (via a "warm reboot") irreversibly confuses the series; the Singer movie was a loose sequel/remake with "vague continuity" to STM... and it's followed by a loose sequel with even "vaguer continuity"???
This, of course, before we even start talking about the Singer movie's myriad other problems.
Give us the Superman reboot we should've gotten back in 2006.
I will agree that if they aren't going to follow up with the kid, a restart is necessary. Anything else would confuse the audience.
But really, ANY reboot will confuse Joe Q. Public that ain't in-the-know on the 'net. They either need to wait until memory of SR fades and reboot, or make a sequel if they're gonna make a new film soon. Any kind of rebooting now will only confuse the older audiences who haven't a prayer of knowing for sure that it's a reboot. THAT crowd will expect to see what goes on with the kid, the continent flung into space, Lex on the island, James Marsden's character, etc...
I think that because it isn't the film
you wanted, that doesn't mean that it's completely devoid of merit and should be banned to Hell. Was the film a misfire? Absolutely. Maybe if Singer hadn't been so busy partying, he could have been more coherent. We needed a proper prologue to establish what the history exactly IS, for one thing. The original "comic read by kid" (a'la STM) opening would have been perfect for it. Explain to the audience if
Superman II IS or IS NOT in-continuity.
I found that STM is only in the "vague" history as far as the time period of STM's happening has been changed. Otherwise, it's events happened. SII? Not so sure. There's a kid, so they slept together. Lex has been to the fortress before. Lois doesn't remember: thus, the superkiss. But no mention of the Zod gang incident? Pretty big event to just go unmentioned, right?
See, it was sloppy. Material that was NEEDED (Lex revealing that he fabricated the reports of Krypton being intact, to trick Superman into leaving Earth, Clark revealing that he didn't realize the trip would take 5 years) was left on the cutting room floor.
But... alter the mythos? Who cares? It ain't the comic book continuity. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to add an element for a good dramatic reason, I'm okay with that. Movies always change SOMETHING. It's just alteration of continuity like what "Smallville" does that bugs me. At this point, there's no way Clark can become Superman on that show without everyone knowing who the Hell he is already.
Anyway, according to the time period of S:TM....
Krypton explodes in 1948.
3 years in rocket ship to Earth -> 1951.
15 years later, Clark leaves Smallville for the North -> 1966
12 years of studying under Jor-El at the fortress -> 1978 (year that STM took place originally).
Superman II: 2 years later (Lester's, at least) -> 1980.
Superman hears of Krypton being intact, leaves for 5 years -> 1985 (year that SR takes place, in original time-frame)
Adjusted for Singer's new continuity:
Krypton explodes -> 1969
3 year trip -> 1972
15 years later, leaves Smallville -> 1987
12 years with Jor-El -> 1999 (Year that STM now takes place)
2 years later, SII, tkaes out Zod gang (?) -> 2001
Leaves for 5 years, and Superman Returns -> 2006 (year of film)
See, I don't think Singer even mapped it out THAT much. Would have been nice.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 08:59I will agree that if they aren't going to follow up with the kid, a restart is necessary. Anything else would confuse the audience.
But really, ANY reboot will confuse Joe Q. Public that ain't in-the-know on the 'net. They either need to wait until memory of SR fades and reboot, or make a sequel if they're gonna make a new film soon. Any kind of rebooting now will only confuse the older audiences who haven't a prayer of knowing for sure that it's a reboot. THAT crowd will expect to see what goes on with the kid, the continent flung into space, Lex on the island, James Marsden's character, etc...
Your whole response was good, man.
Anyway, I disagree. For example, BB didn't have the box office it maybe might've had largely (I think) because B&R sucked, not because people couldn't figure out that it was a reboot (although some apparently struggled with it).
I think retelling Superman's origin, introduce him to say Lois for the first time, Lex for the first time, etc, will tell audiences what they need to know without the director pausing the movie and shouting "this is a new thing, forget the past". A new cast, new costume and set designs and the right script will tell audiences that this reboot has nothing to do with the past.
Besides, if the trailers look good, people will see it. They won't say "durrrr, I just don't get it, it doesn't make sense, I'll stay home until I figure it out".
QuoteI think that because it isn't the film you wanted, that doesn't mean that it's completely devoid of merit and should be banned to Hell.
It wasn't what a LOT of people wanted. One of Singer's many mistakes was assuming that STM had achieved the same cultural status of Star Wars. Among the geek community, it has. The two are roughly equal in some circles.
But among the filmgoing public (any blockbuster's bread and butter) they might remember Reeve wearing the outfit but the finer texture (plot, subplots, characters, etc) of the first two Reeve films are hazy at best. And that's for the over 30 crowd. For the under-30 crowd, 10:1 they've never even seen the Reeve films. Singer requires a decent recall of STM (and S2) to follow his movie's plot. Had he made that same movie in the mid-90's, things might've turned out better for him. But this ain't the mid-90's.
QuoteWas the film a misfire? Absolutely. Maybe if Singer hadn't been so busy partying, he could have been more coherent. We needed a proper prologue to establish what the history exactly IS, for one thing. The original "comic read by kid" (a'la STM) opening would have been perfect for it. Explain to the audience if Superman II IS or IS NOT in-continuity.
Agreed. The film opened with text anyway so why not throw in "following his defeat of Zod and his followers, Superman left the earth in search of other Kryptonians"? Referencing Zod gives Superman stronger motivation for thinking other Kryptonians could be out there somewhere. It's still a wild goose chase no matter how you look at it but at least making a reference to Zod gives it slightly more plausibility. It was a big event, as you say.
QuoteBut... alter the mythos? Who cares? It ain't the comic book continuity. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to add an element for a good dramatic reason, I'm okay with that.
Problem. Lois is a tenacious investigative reporter. That's who she's always been, partly to drive the plot forward and to provide exposition. She often risks her life in doing her job (ie, to give Superman someone to save). Putting her into a position of motherhood means all that has to change. It would be selfish for her to continute putting herself in harm's way when she has a child depending on her. Bringing the kid along would be even worse!
The kid? He's just the beginning...
QuoteMovies always change SOMETHING. It's just alteration of continuity like what "Smallville" does that bugs me. At this point, there's no way Clark can become Superman on that show without everyone knowing who the Hell he is already.
I can overlook that. Glasses would never fool anyone anyway. It's a convention of the character, and it either works for you or it doesn't. Just like nobody could dodge a bullet but we accept that Batman does it hundreds of times night after night. Smallville is doing their own thing with the legend, often with unsung resonance to the comics. If nothing else, the show has erred in giving us something new, which Singer largely made no effort at.
This is coming from someone who doesn't think comics fidelity is the end all, be all. The spirit of the comics should be adapted but the letter of them is not an absolute in my book.
QuoteSee, I don't think Singer even mapped it out THAT much. Would have been nice.
Agreed. There was one interesting thing though. 9/11 would have likely happened after he left. You don't want to mix too much reality with fiction but imagining the world Superman left (maybe in the summer of 2001) and comparing it to what he came back (maybe the spring of 2006) heightens his shock at how much things changed while he was away.
Singer's non-timeline doesn't work anyway. The script CLEARLY calls for veteran characters. Late 30's Superman and Lois, late 50's Lex, mid 60's Perry, late 20's/early 30's Jimmy, etc but the casting skewed toward the "comics ideal", where everyone is about the same age as Singer's cast. The cast should have been about ten or so years older than they were as the script OBVIOUSLY demanded... unless you're trying to tell me Superman came on the scene at age 18.
The one thing I don't criticize SR for is the continuity errors with the first two Reeve films. Singer was clear that the film used those movies as a "vague history". So that pretty much lets him get away with having a Lois that looks like she's 16 and other timeline discrepancies.
But as for the rest of the movie, well, he's got no excuse.
He is a talented guy, though. I'm sure if he actually spent some time developing the movie we might've been able to see something special.