Superman Returns, in 1985.
-
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 02:50 AM)
Yep. but something other than lex and land again (rehashing STMs plot). Maybe something involving Brainiac (who was discussed for III) discovering earth through Kal El being sent there (not Superman disappearing for 5 years looking for krypton) and doing something like the SR lex plot with the crystals turning earth into krypton (also like MOS). And no superkid..
From the actual III we got could keep the subplot of the fake kryptonite turning superman bad/junkyard fight (maybe lex getting revenge and distracting Superman from Brainiac). Also the chemical plant fire and the Smallville stuff with Lana. But Lois would be more prominent (love triangle thing). Brainiac could've built something like the Ultimate Computer (with lex? and couple lackeys not Otis/MissTech). Robert Vaughn could've voiced Brainiac (like Demon Seed). And obviously no Richard Pryor (unless it was just a fun cameo) -
alexandercappelli — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 04:32 AM)
I don't mind that Lex's plan is essentially the same, since only a few years has past since Superman (1978) and he had no real plan in Superman 2, besides trying to make friends with General Zod, so once he gets out of jail it makes sense that he would try and revisit the idea of land from the first movie, since it never panned out for him.
-
Krazy Joe — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 10:49 AM)
Yep. but something other than lex and land again (rehashing STMs plot).
It wasn't even close to rehash. It was a completely new plot/story that kept the villain's motivations consistent.
Aquaman: 15% Off, you say? By Poseidon, those savings are OUTRAGEOUS! -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 08:56 AM)
I doubt it. The problems SR had wasn't that it was twenty years too late with a different cast, it's that it was a glum, dour, uninspired follow up that didn't have any of the joy, wonder, sex, and cleverness that the first two brought to the table. As problematic as III and IV were, they were at least closer in spirit with the first two films because they didn't forget that they were Superman films. The junkyard fight between Clark and Superman is more compelling than seeing some emo Superman lift a giant Kryptonite rock. And at least I can laugh at THE QUEST FOR PEACE in its badness, whereas with RETURNS I'll likely fall asleep in boredom.
Singer should have stayed with X-Men, as that series was far more fitting with his sensibilities as a storyteller. As much of as a fan he claims to be of Donner's Superman, he completely missed what made that film such a hit and why it still resonates today than SR ever did in the ten years it's been out. -
Times_Up — 9 years ago(May 16, 2016 07:29 AM)
I agree. I don't why people think this is such a good homage. It has none of the joy, wonder or fun of the Donner pictures. It's more in line with the glum, smug "being Superman is a curse" Synder films. Surprises me more MoS / BvS fanboys don't enjoy this one.
Were trying to pretend as if these comic books dont exist. - David Goyer on the DCEU -
glynis23-282-577521 — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 11:16 AM)
SR was more like a end story than a beginning.
There were things that worked perfectly in the 70's that won't work perfectly now.
Problem being when you have something like the Christopher Reeve Superman where people are constantly saying it's definitive you end up with somebody like Singer doing SR and every live action Superman being bashed on. -
Benjatron_Gear_Solid — 9 years ago(April 29, 2016 12:24 PM)
Yeah it would've faired much better back then. Back in 2006 I was excited for this movie but I felt board when it was over, I went back for a second viewing but it didn't change my opinion unfortunately. I guess by this time I was looking forward to something more than just Luthor again. I wanted to see Superman have an epic battle with another super villian. I was so grateful for Man of Steel.
-