Movies.com have posted a great article detailing why they felt Bryan Singer's Superman Returns never spawned a follow up movie. They weigh in on the positives and negatives of the film, and discuss the reasons it failed to connect with many fans. They also reveal a few "what might have been" details in regards to the sequel that never was. It seems much of it is just rumor, but it's still interesting to find out what direction Warner Bros. might have taken things..
According to rumors, the sequel would have centered around Brainiac using a version similar to Superman: The Animated Series from 1996 where he was originally from Krypton. He would have followed Superman back to Earth from the remnants of Krypton during his five year trip. There were further rumors that the bank robber who shot Superman in the eye around the middle of the film would turn out to be John Corben, a.k.a. Metallo for the sequel. There was another rumored mandate from Warner Brothers to make the film darker than previous incarnations. That thought worried many fans who understood that Superman needs to be a symbol for hope. With that in mind, our expectation was that the world he inhabited could be darker, but that he would be the beacon of light in the middle of it.
Darker, more action, Brainiac. All welcome addition in my opinion. Although I agree with the author that
Superman Returns is quite a bit better than many give it credit for anyway. If certain elements were added/altered, how would you guys have felt about a direct sequel to
Returns? Do you think Singer deserved another go as director? Would you have accepted Brandon Routh in the title role again? Sound off in the usual place, and be sure to click on the link below to check out the entire article, it's a good read.
About The Author:
Mark Cassidy is a writer, photographer, amateur filmmaker, and Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic from Dublin, Ireland.