Why no sequel?
-
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(May 12, 2016 03:00 PM)
You act like I'm saying it's the greatest movie ever which I'm not but for a movie you claim no one cared about you still can't explain why SR was the highest rented film and had the highest sales on blu ray and dvd for the year it was still relevant. If it sucked so much then why the hell did it set records for dvd and blu ray sales? Why would people purchase it? It's still ranked pretty high in 6th place for highest grossing film for 2006 so people were definitely buying tickets regardless of how the film community see it now.
The fact is that the writers' strike and Warner wanting more was what killed it. They had a panel/summit where Warner met with DC and decided to reboot it.
Besides being a somewhat successful brand outside of movies and comics, Superman as a character in a film will never resonate with modern audiences. He's no longer interpreted as something relevant or relatable to viewers. -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 08:54 PM)
Superman as a character in a film will never resonate with modern audiences. He's no longer interpreted as something relevant or relatable to viewers.
That's a lame excuse, so clich trying to put the blame on audiences for not being able to appreciate the character when it's at the fault of the filmmakers. The truth is that the recent films never presented the character as relevant or relatable, or at least worthy of inspiration. Routh and Cavill unfortunately had to work with material that had Superman portrayed as mopey and dull character with little personality and wasn't much fun to watch. I feel bad for them, because they could have knocked it out of the park if they had better screenplays to work with. Cavill was absolutely AMAZING in THE MAN FROM UNCLE. Oh man, had he not been so restrained as Superman and was allowed to be totally charismatic all throughout, might have made helped his rep as a great Superman. Routh in just SCOTT PILGRIM alone showed he can actually be fun to watch, and from what I understand he's been shining in that LEGENDS OF TOMORROW tv show. I'll have to check that out.
Superman can be an inspiring figure that brings a smile to your face while also drawing you in emotionally as we saw done in the first two SUPERMAN films. The problem is that WB doesn't earnestly believe in Superman as a character. Like you, they assume audiences can't appreciate Supes because he's too goody two shoes, that he's not angsty enough or "badass" to be cool. That Superman can only be compelling if they make him question himself on whether he should be a hero or not.
Marvel, on the other hand, has been able to make very successful films with a character that WB probably would have written off as too wholesome and unrelatable for audiences to embrace: Captain America. If Marvel can make that character resonate with audiences, WB should have no issue making an even more successful film. -
thatguy_78757 — 9 years ago(August 17, 2016 12:08 AM)
Part of the reason a movie like this costs so much is the development
multiple scripts, casting, special effects development
If they had made a sequel it would have cost so much less.
They already have most of the cast, have built all the computer model copies of brandon rouh, etc.. -
tbirdman-1 — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 08:14 PM)
We the fans had to wait seven long years for another Superman
movie after "Superman Returns." And a huge slap in the face
to the WB studio execs who decided to reboot the franchise
and replace Brandon Routh with Henry Cavill! The series did
not need another reboot and the people in charge of the WB
did not need to have to start all over again by writing an
all new movie with a new leading man as Clark Kent/Superman!
I really despise the WB for having done this as it was all
so unneccesary! Plus Brandon Routh could have and should
have been retained in the lead role!
Lorenzo Sunny Arizona
Call me a sailor or a swabby just not a squid!!!
I am James "Sonny' Crockett! -
glynis23-282-577521 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 05:13 PM)
There was the lack of action that most people complained about, it it had a little more perhaps would've met expectations. They were saving all the action for the sequel but the problem being if the first film does not make a instant expression they scrap plans for a sequel, similar to a TV series if it's not a ratings smash hit in the first ten episodes they give it the axe so there's no chance anymore to get an audience.
Fans were hoping they would've had a entirely new continuity to the Donner films. -
srb-3 — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 06:49 AM)
- Why was there no sequel to Superman Returns?
See answer to your question 3. - Why was Brandon Routh replaced by Henry Cavill?
New production, new cast. - Did this movie perform under expectations of the
studio execs?
Yes. - Why did we the fans have to wait seven long years
for Man Of Steel? I really did not care for the film
and it could have been so much better!
Because the WB was not going to make another Superman until the Superman creators' heirs won the 2008-2009 lawsuit which stated they had until 2011 to have another Superman movie appearance, before the Superman movie rights were to go to the Superman creators' heirs in 2013.
- Why was there no sequel to Superman Returns?