Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

[James Stocks]

Guess we'll never really know until early screening reports come in, with all this secrecy.

[thecolorsblend]

International Footage Screening Reveals Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers
Source: Juado , TrekMovie
March 7, 2013

With just over two months to go before the release of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness, Brazilian website Juado (via TrekMovie.com) is reporting on nearly 40 minutes of footage just screened for the press. While that footage overlaps with the IMAX footage from late last year, quite a lot of new footage was also shown.

Please be aware that spoilers for the sequel follow.

While Benedict Cumberbatch's character's motivations remain a mystery, the biggest reveal included in the new footage seems to be the identity of Peter Weller's character. The site reports that Weller will be playing "Admiral Marcus" who, one assumes, is the father of Alice Eve's Carol Marcus. In fact, an "Alex Marcus" was recently teased in the pages of the "Countdown to Darkness" comic book prequel. If both Marcuses are indeed one and the same, that means that Weller's character was the former first officer on a different U.S.S. Enterprise, serving under Captain Robert April.

The other major plot detail revealed is that, towards the beginning of the film, Chris Pine's Kirk will be demoted for violating the Prime Directive on Nibiru and accidentally revealing the Enterprise to the natives. Bruce Greenwood's Captain Christopher Pike will be put in charge of the Enterprise with Kirk serving as first officer and Zachary Quinto's Spock getting transferred to another vessel.

The film, set for release on IMAX screens on May 15 and in regular theaters May 17, 2013, also stars John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban and Anton Yelchin.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=101271

Really? I personally didn't need ST2009 to end with Kirk as captain of the Enterprise but since it did, why not stick with it? You're not going to get the same buzz from the audience upon seeing Kirk become captain again after the end of the first movie. Ugh...

Oh well, at least Greenwood seemingly has a bigger role. That's a-okay in my book.

[non_amos]

I too wonder if this is a good move. It just doesn't seem like the right way to keep this franchise going. Spock on another vessel? Really indeed!

[James Stocks]

This is sorta interesting, because it could either go horribly horribly wrong or it could be very excellent if done right. Wrong because it might serve no purpose and just rehash the whole angle of Kirk getting command, again.

So what how could it get it right? First thing needs to be said. The 2009 film promoting a third year cadet Kirk to the captain of a flagship of the Federation was probably, no, it was THE dumbest moment in the entire flick. Kirk did save Earth, but at best he should have been given an field promotion to ensign. There was a similar storyline in DS9 about a young Ferengi, the first of his kind to join Starfleet that wants to make a difference and better himself. During war, he proves his worth to be given an immediate promotion to ensign (as Captains have that authority, as Christopher Pike does) despite only being a two year cadet and gets to pilot the flagship of the fleet in battle. You can't just get a promotion to Captain because you need to prove it with years of experience, that you truly are a proven commander. What Kirk did was great, but would he prove it in further missions?

This is where it could get good. As result of saving the Earth, Kirk has unofficially become the poster boy of Starfleet. Lots of officers question whether he really deserved a command when there's so many other, better experienced officers who would be better suited than him. Kirk starts off well on a few minor missions, but then he fucks up BIG time, Pike gets chewed out by the council for badly judging Kirk as a worthy choice for promotion. Kirk is given a dishonorable demotion, pretty much ruining his reputation as a commander. This set up would allow Kirk to redeem himself and prove that it the whole thing with saving earth wasn't just a fluke, that he truly does have what it takes to make a great commander.

This is basically taking a bad idea (early promotion) and making the most believable story out of that by showing the consequences while also setting up Kirk as a legend. This storyline is actually something I thought up after the 2009 film on what direction the series could take. There's a lot I don't like about the 2009 film, but that doesn't mean you can't make a great follow up to it.

Another idea I always had was reinventing the character Sybok, Spock's older emotionally driven half-brother seen in STAR TREK V, considered one of the worst sequels ever. As a result of Vulcan's destruction, there are a lot of Vulcans that have found the experience emotionally overwhelming that they have a hard time trying to maintain their logical upbringing. Sybok, having always embraced his emotions because he felt it was the key to self knowledge, takes these emotionally driven Vulcans under his wing and forms his own terrorist group to attack Romulan colonies to avenge their homeworld, believing Romulan government had a part in the attacks by Nero. The Romulan government demands Starfleet to take care of the situation themselves, otherwise they would believe the Federation condones Sybok's action thus be considered an act of war. Therefore Kirk is assigned to search for Sybok and take him in custody for his war crimes. There's also a subplot of Spock declaring to uphold his logical upbringing not only because he's doing it to preserve his culture but also because he knows that Vulcans by nature are very emotional and when not put in check become dangerously violent much like Sybok's terrorist group. Throughout he'll try to convince his brother that this act of vengeance is illogical and that the only way to truly help Vulcans heal emotionally is by helping them suppress it and try to stay strong as a species.

It's story ideas like these that really make me wish that the reboot was done on TV instead of waiting every couple of years for a new film. As I said, 2009 film had bad ideas but at least it provides some potential storylines that would something very new for Kirk and company that the old show and films never did.

[thecolorsblend]

at least it provides some potential storylines that would something very new for Kirk and company that the old show and films never did.

I'll agree about that much. And exploring those story ideas makes a hell of a lot more sense than basically doing a Wrath of Khan remake, which some fans were clamoring for a while back. Sooner or later, Kirk has to become the captain and that's fine but the end of the first movie was simply the wrong time to make that happen. The one logical argument I can make for doing it was that nobody was sure if a sequel would happen so you may as well leave it the way most people remember TOS in case the movie doesn't justify a sequel; no loose ends (except for Spock Prime wandering around but hey...).

[James Stocks]

Even though it would have been a stretch, I would have preferred Kirk being promoted to XO at the end, with Pike as CO at the end of the 2009 film. Maybe it wouldn't feel right at first, not having him as a captain at the very end (it certainly didn't feel right for Spock Prime to recite "these are the voyages", that should have been Chris Pine's moment to shine). However, given this is supposed to be his early years, it would make sense that he was still not a captain by that point, and that by the next film he would earn his command (kind of like how Lt. Gordon in BB eventually became commissioner later).

But yeah, I don't understand many of the fans that want to revisit old storylines for the movies. In TOS, Khan was in the grand scheme of things just a one-off villain. He was the best villain to revisit by the first set of movies, mainly because of where they left things off. But he's never really been Kirk's great nemesis in my eyes, just a great villain in general. I suppose most of the villains in the movies being very lackluster is why Khan is better remembered. This is why I am hoping John Harrison really is just that: John Harrison. Hopefully the villain turns out good. I do have confidence in Cumberbatch, but then again a lot of the lackluster villains were played by very good actors (Lloyd, McDowell, Abraham, Hardy, ect).

[Apologist Puncher]

[Apologist Puncher]

International trailer:

[Apologist Puncher]

I loves me some Alice Eve....

[thecolorsblend]

Is it just me or do the Gary Mitchell rumors have more teeth than ever?

I loves me some Alice Eve....

She's no Kate Bosworth... thankfully.

[non_amos]

Is it just me or do the Gary Mitchell rumors have more teeth than ever?

I loves me some Alice Eve....

She's no Kate Bosworth... thankfully.

Point #1: Gary Mitchell. Now from the new international trailer that AP posted, we see additional footage. For example, the quote from 'John Harrison' about 'your peace is just an illusion' actually shows him speaking the final words in said quote. Notice other times he speaks. His voice doesn't even have the same quality as a normal person. It's almost like he's a superior being talking down to ants or something. Now if you'll recall TOS episode with Mitchell that his voice sounded loud & echoed at times as he talked down to people he stated that he would 'crush like insects'. Now. Don't you get the same vibe from this new trailer? It's almost like they've got Harrison on a 'Superman' level. Wasn't that him jumping off that skyscraper?! Yet we're supposed to believe this ain't Mitchell?! Then what then? One thing that concerns me is the statement that he was one of Starfleet's top agents which doesn't jibe with TOS continuity so we'll have to wait & see I guess unless someone really gets major spoilers.

Point # 2: No 5-head here that's for certain!

[James Stocks]

Something about that trailer feels familiar.

[James Stocks]

[James Stocks]

I don't have much energy to lay out all it's problems but I'll sum it up in ways you'll all understand.

It's better than the last film as it improves on certain aspects, but it makes some awful decisions especially towards the end. Decisions that are no different and stupid from what Singer did with SR where he took scenes from the classic 1978 film and chucks them into his film hoping it works. In this case, Abrams rips off (or "homages" as he calls it) the classic Trek film THE WRATH OF KHAN, particularly during the climax, with retcons galore.

Watching it as a summer tentpole blockbuster, it can be fun. Watching it as a Star Trek film, it's almost cringe-worthy. Here's hoping that Brad Bird gets the gig, now that Abrams is busy with STAR WARS.

[non_amos]

I haven't seen the film yet but tell me this. I read over at SHH on the comments section where people were saying that 'John Harrison' is really KHAN! And to me that makes absolutely no sense! I'll explain.

For one, ethnicity. Although Ricardo Montalban was Hispanic the character he played in Khan was basically Indian, as from India. He had an accent that wasn't British btw. He also pumped iron & it showed in ST2 in spite of some film reviewer recently saying he had 'fake' pecs. I remember reading years ago that Montalban had some sort of health scare when he was younger & without researching it I forget now exactly what it was but that's what inspired him to start working out apparently. But look at 'John Harrison'. He's obviously full-fledged Caucasian & speaks with a British accent, right? He also so obviously doesn't have the physique that Montalban had & even if he's superhuman in the film he looks like a runt. So just how is he Khan exactly?

Another thing, canon. I may not be an absolute authority on Star Trek but I think I know it fairly well. First of all, even in this 'rebooted' universe, shouldn't it still be before the events that happened in the episode SPACE SEED? And remember, Wrath Of Khan was 15 years after that in the timeline. Soooooo......someone care to explain to me how this is KHAN again?! How can you possibly make this work in light of the above evidence? Unless you're just gonna crap all over the franchise. That ain't what Abrams did is it?

One more thing. Didn't TPTB flat-out deny that Khan was the villain? Like we discussed here on these forums before, it looked for all the world like they were adapting GARY MITCHELL which would probably have fit the new timeline better anyway. So what? Did they lie?! What's going on here exactly? Spoilers are welcome.

[thecolorsblend]

Haven't seen the movie yet either but those are the same questions I've got.

Apart from that, it seems evident that someone sooner or later is going to continue this franchise. Once they do, they'll have no choice but to finally be more original since the whole WOK vibe has finally been fully exploited. Love the plot twist or hate it, at least it forces future creative teams to be more original going forward. The fans who have criticized this reboot for being little more than a WOK love letter should at least be happy about that.

[non_amos]

What I don't understand is that if this is a 'love letter to WOK' then you'd think JJ would've learned a lesson from Singerman? Sure, that was Bryan Singerman's baby but still..........it wasn't exactly hidden either. Surely JJ knew how that turned out? So why similarly go make a film 'chock-full' of homages? I'm hearing this film is better than the first but simultaneously it doesn't sound as original as the first. Even this past Sunday morning I saw a film critic's report on CBS where even he made references to the homages & it showed a clip of Scotty looking at giant fish in an aquarium which was obviously meant to channel STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. He went on to say that if you were a 'non-fan' then you'd really enjoy all the explosions & big space spectacle but if you were a fan then you'd be disappointed. Now JJ has stated in the past that he was never really a 'fan' so maybe it shows here? But you'd think he'd learn a lesson from Singerman too.

[James Stocks]

The writers explained that the reason Khan looks different is because Admiral Marcus put him under plastic surgery, because if he started walking around in public somebody would recognize him since he's one of Earth's most vicious dictators from the past, or at least attract some attention over his resemblance. Problem is that they never explain that in the film, thus that invited a lot of criticism of whitewashing of what's supposed to be an ethnic character.

As for finding him well before they should have, they do give a reasonable explanation. Kirk doesn't find Khan this time. After Nero destroyed Vulcan, Starfleet started searching further into space to seek out potential threats and one of the ships discovered Khan's ship.

And yes, they definitely lied when denying it was Khan. First hint was that Abrams confirmed that the villain would be from canon, and immediately everyone suspected Khan and kept pressing him about it to the point he made everyone deny it. The producers never said it would be Gary Mitchell, instead they made Karl Urban pretend to slip the name by accident in an interview as a way of throwing everyone off.

The problem is that when Cumberbatch's casting was announced, they made the big mistake of not revealing who he was playing thus making fans speculate that it's Khan. If Abrams wanted to make it such a surprise, the wise thing would have been to announce the name "John Harrison" right when the actor was cast. Instead because of the way they handled things, the moment where he reveals he's Khan falls flat. It's presented in a way that's supposed to be a big reveal.

From a marketing standpoint, this was also a really stupid move. Right now it looks like the grossing for this flick at the box office isn't going to top the last film, and it might not even reach $200 million with the competition ahead. You know what might have helped? If they had hyped up that the film featured Khan. A lot more interest would have generated over the fact that Kirk was going to face one of his iconic villains in the new film series. This is such a big lost opportunity that I am very sure that by the time the third film comes up that Paramount will not go along with the mystery box approach anymore. They don't have to give away plot points, but just be honest about your film.

And there will be a third film, despite INTO DARKNESS under-performing. The reason is that in three years it will be the 50th anniversary of the Star Trek franchise. There's no way Paramount is going to let go of that opportunity. Back in 1989, STAR TREK V was an overall critical disappointment and the lowest grossing film in the series by that point. The only reason it didn't kill the film franchise right then and there was because the 25th anniversary was coming up in 1991 and because Paramount believed in Trek enough to continue, it recovered and kept on for ten years before NEMESIS finally killed it.

[Apologist Puncher]

It was an ok film, filled with head-scratching stupidity.

Now as to Khan's appearance, and the answer above about plastic surgery, I would have to question WHY he would need to do that at all. In the film, they mention he is over 300 YEARS OLD. Did they really think people would say "Hey, that guy looks like that guy from 300 years ago! It HAS to be him!!"? And, from what they implied, he had been working covertly for Weller's character this whole time. So worrying about people seeing him shouldn't have been an issue. Just another case of trying to make the character fit the actor, instead of vice versa.

Simon Pegg was easily the highlight of the film. He got 90% of the laughs, and you missed him when he wasn't onscreen. Anton Yelchin was severely underused, and Zoe Saldana had WAY more screen-time than she needed. At least John Cho had a VERY cool "moment" of his own.

My biggest beef with the film is the ending. Weller's character was THE top guy in Starfleet, and he had broken every single rule they lived by. He even attempted to murder HUNDREDS of innocent people. And there is no mention of how this would have rocked Starfleet to it's core? No fallout from his betrayals? Instead we get a "One Year Later" middle finger?

No.

Like I said, it's an ok film, but I would put 'IM3' waaaay ahead of it so far this summer. I have a feeling 'Man Of Steel' is going to be the best thing I see this year. I really do.

[non_amos]

James Stocks wrote:

You know what might have helped? If they had hyped up that the film featured Khan. A lot more interest would have generated over the fact that Kirk was going to face one of his iconic villains in the new film series. This is such a big lost opportunity that I am very sure that by the time the third film comes up that Paramount will not go along with the mystery box approach anymore. They don't have to give away plot points, but just be honest about your film.

Interestingly THE AVENGERS used a similar strategy with the Hulk. How? Not that the Hulk himself being in the film was a mystery, it wasn't. It was a known fact. However, it seemed like it was the 11th hour almost before they even revealed his appearance. Remember that? It's like they kept his appearance a mystery right up until the last minute. Instead we saw pics of Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. Now I get that they may have been working on the CGI but I also believe at least some of it had to do with not wanting to reveal too much, too soon. The thing is though is that they really nailed the Hulk this time & it paid off.

On the other hand, in the new ST film, they lied about Khan but still tried to keep an aura of mystery around the villain. Yet if you think about it, finally revealing he's Khan seems like a letdown, like Paramount dropped the ball. Marvel didn't. Big difference. Another major thing is that Ricardo Montalban owned Khan! The ethnicity, the physique, the charisma, the whole 9 yards. And even though it sounds like Cumberbatch really did a good acting job, just how can you really call him KHAN?! Did the plastic surgery remove his muscles also?!

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Now as to Khan's appearance, and the answer above about plastic surgery, I would have to question WHY he would need to do that at all. In the film, they mention he is over 300 YEARS OLD. Did they really think people would say "Hey, that guy looks like that guy from 300 years ago! It HAS to be him!!"?

To keep bringing up seemingly unrelated projects, the original DARK SHADOWS immediately came to mind here (not the Burton/Depp fiasco). In the TV series Barnabas Collins, the vampire, shows up to his family's descendants nearly 200 years after being imprisoned in his coffin. So when he's released by the thieving Willie Loomis he shows up to his 'cousins' & announces his existence & the supposed 'English' branch of the family. But he looks just like the guy in the portrait, the original Barnabas Collins! That's because he is but he lies to them. He basically explains the uncanny resemblance away as 'persistent Collins genetics'. And they buy it! In this instance he was claiming to be 'related' to the original & not hiding it but the portrait is what attracted all the attention in the first place.

In Cumberbatch's appearance as Khan, I'd think this phenomenon would be far less noticeable or questionable, even without plastic surgery. Besides, even if someone saw the resemblance, who in their right mind would think that some dude was still alive after 300 friggin' years?! Now you can see how Barnabas pulled it off? I'd call it the same difference.

[thecolorsblend]

What I don't understand is that if this is a 'love letter to WOK' then you'd think JJ would've learned a lesson from Singerman? Sure, that was Bryan Singerman's baby but still..........it wasn't exactly hidden either. Surely JJ knew how that turned out? So why similarly go make a film 'chock-full' of homages? I'm hearing this film is better than the first but simultaneously it doesn't sound as original as the first. Even this past Sunday morning I saw a film critic's report on CBS where even he made references to the homages & it showed a clip of Scotty looking at giant fish in an aquarium which was obviously meant to channel STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. He went on to say that if you were a 'non-fan' then you'd really enjoy all the explosions & big space spectacle but if you were a fan then you'd be disappointed. Now JJ has stated in the past that he was never really a 'fan' so maybe it shows here? But you'd think he'd learn a lesson from Singerman too.

The difference is that Singerman was ("vague history" bullshit aside) intended to be a continuation of the Donnerverse. Abrams is clearly rebooting Trek and giving people new stuff while throwing fans of the old franchise a bone with the WOK material. He's basically appealing to newbie fans and the old guard at once. At least theoretically so; in a practical sense, wide audiences connected to the reboot but will completely miss the WOK stuff while old school fans feel disenfranchised by the reboot and patronized by the WOK references. As others have said, that may ultimately harm STID's bottom line but not the rebooted franchise's long term prospects.

This is different from what Singer did, where he played the nostalgia card while simultaneously disavowing everything the character has ever stood for. However, wide audiences didn't connect to the nostalgia factor because they don't remember STM anymore... or, if they do, they sure didn't appreciate the shitting that Singer took upon a legend. That killed the immediate film. Beyond that, story developments within Singerman made it virtually impossible to go forward with the Donner continuity in a way that bore any similarity to the common perception of the Superman mythos. I think some of us believe Singer secretly intended to shoot the franchise in the foot. But if you're a skeptic, ask yourself that if you were determined to ruin Superman's big screen prospects, don't bother asking yourself what you would do but ask instead what you would differently from Singer. If that was my mission, I'm hardpressed to think up something Singer didn't already attempt.

But Bryan Singer can fuck off; JJ Abrams (Trek notwithstanding), Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder are who I want to hear more from with these geek franchises.

[James Stocks]

It was an ok film, filled with head-scratching stupidity.

Now as to Khan's appearance, and the answer above about plastic surgery, I would have to question WHY he would need to do that at all. In the film, they mention he is over 300 YEARS OLD. Did they really think people would say "Hey, that guy looks like that guy from 300 years ago! It HAS to be him!!"? And, from what they implied, he had been working covertly for Weller's character this whole time. So worrying about people seeing him shouldn't have been an issue. Just another case of trying to make the character fit the actor, instead of vice versa.

You could argue it was done so he wouldn't attract attention of any kind because of his strong resemblance, even if nobody believed it was really a dictator from 300 years.

Simon Pegg was easily the highlight of the film. He got 90% of the laughs, and you missed him when he wasn't onscreen.

Yeah, I thought he was much better handled this time. He actually was written more as a guy of his profession than just some goofy eccentric comic relief.

My biggest beef with the film is the ending. Weller's character was THE top guy in Starfleet, and he had broken every single rule they lived by. He even attempted to murder HUNDREDS of innocent people. And there is no mention of how this would have rocked Starfleet to it's core? No fallout from his betrayals? Instead we get a "One Year Later" middle finger?

No.

It's sort of a cliche in Trek to have a top admiral corrupt. What was most baffling though was that all the action was taking place right next to Earth's moon. You'd think Starfleet would be seeing EVERYTHING going on. They're at the heart of the Federation, with heavy security and dozens of starships docked in several different spacedocks. Even today NASA would immediately detect some crazy shit happening so close.

What I don't understand is that if this is a 'love letter to WOK' then you'd think JJ would've learned a lesson from Singerman? Sure, that was Bryan Singerman's baby but still..........it wasn't exactly hidden either. Surely JJ knew how that turned out? So why similarly go make a film 'chock-full' of homages? I'm hearing this film is better than the first but simultaneously it doesn't sound as original as the first. Even this past Sunday morning I saw a film critic's report on CBS where even he made references to the homages & it showed a clip of Scotty looking at giant fish in an aquarium which was obviously meant to channel STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. He went on to say that if you were a 'non-fan' then you'd really enjoy all the explosions & big space spectacle but if you were a fan then you'd be disappointed. Now JJ has stated in the past that he was never really a 'fan' so maybe it shows here? But you'd think he'd learn a lesson from Singerman too.

The difference is that Singerman was ("vague history" bullshit aside) intended to be a continuation of the Donnerverse. Abrams is clearly rebooting Trek and giving people new stuff while throwing fans of the old franchise a bone with the WOK material. He's basically appealing to newbie fans and the old guard at once. At least theoretically so; in a practical sense, wide audiences connected to the reboot but will completely miss the WOK stuff while old school fans feel disenfranchised by the reboot and patronized by the WOK references. As others have said, that may ultimately harm STID's bottom line but not the rebooted franchise's long term prospects.

Yup. Whatever problems there are, it's still at least salvageable enough to grant a third film and as I said earlier there is NO WAY that Paramount is going to miss out on hyping up the 50th anniversary. It'll likely be a celebratory film, but hopefully it won't be so overt like STID. A great example is FIRST CONTACT, released during the 30th anniversary where it pushes the characters further while at the same time gives audiences an idea of the genesis of Star Trek where humanity first achieves light speed. It's a nearly perfect example of making a film for both the fans and regular audiences.

This is different from what Singer did, where he played the nostalgia card while simultaneously disavowing everything the character has ever stood for. However, wide audiences didn't connect to the nostalgia factor because they don't remember STM anymore... or, if they do, they sure didn't appreciate the shitting that Singer took upon a legend. That killed the immediate film. Beyond that, story developments within Singerman made it virtually impossible to go forward with the Donner continuity in a way that bore any similarity to the common perception of the Superman mythos. I think some of us believe Singer secretly intended to shoot the franchise in the foot. But if you're a skeptic, ask yourself that if you were determined to ruin Superman's big screen prospects, don't bother asking yourself what you would do but ask instead what you would differently from Singer. If that was my mission, I'm hardpressed to think up something Singer didn't already attempt.

God knows what the hell Singer would have cooked up for a follow-up. Better off not knowing.

[non_amos]

James Stocks wrote:

God knows what the hell Singer would have cooked up for a follow-up. Better off not knowing.

I don't have a link handy & I'm not sure there is any one specific link but rather this whole thing may be Internet hyperbole but I believe there was at least an element of truth to some of it. Thankfully this never saw the light of day & instead we're now getting a real Superman film. Nevertheless I think the proposed concept went something like this:

1) General Zod- played by Jude Law (because he has some 'vague' resemblance to Terrance Stamp).
2) Brainiac also involved (which Brainiac is anyone's guess).
3) Zod & company to channel Stamp & company.
4) Brainiac downloads himself into Jason the super-twerp thus possessing him.
5) Singerman, played by BJ the Bartender, then has to kill Jason in order to kill Brainiac (yes, you heard that correctly).

So some combination of the above plot points were to have been used, supposedly. I'd like to know though how Singer would've reasoned out using both Zod & Brainiac in the same film? But be thankful we didn't have a sequel to Singerman where Singerman was forced to kill his own son! Man! That would've made for good popcorn entertainment in a big summer tentpole now wouldn't it?

[James Stocks]

I remember the Jude Law thing. I think he would make a good Zod, but that was then.

I do remember thinking if there had to be a follow-up for SR, I would like there to be consequences for his going to Krypton. He's at the ruins, and Brainiac just happens to be around and spots Supes, believing he's one of the survivors of Krypton. Supes then journeys back to Earth, with Brainiac following him because he believes Supes is heading for a planet with Kryptonian survivors, only to find that it's just Earth with weakling humans. He takes his time then lands on Earth, presenting himself as a friend of Krypton and taking advantage of Superman's desire to meet someone of his own kind or at least someone who was a friend. Supes is relieved, but cautious.

Killing off Jason sounds intriguing, but having Superman kill him sounds is way too much. I would take a different approach. Maybe Superman is losing a fight, Brainiac is about to blast him for good, but Jason jumps right in front of the blast, sacrificing himself for Supes. The blast drains Brainiac's energy, which gives Superman a fighting chance.

I wouldn't include Zod. That's too much. Maybe Lex would play a role, either siding with Supes to help him fight Brainiac. Having him help Brainiac would be too much of a callback to Hackman and Stamp's collaboration.

[thecolorsblend]

Either the kid lives or the kid dies.

If you keep the kid, there's no way for Bosworth's character to do much of anything besides fade into the background in sequels and probably look for a less risky career. Routh's character should be involved with the kid's life... but not at the expense of Cyclops's acknowledged role as the boy's true father figure. This option opens up a huge can of worms.

If you kill the kid, Bosworth, Routh and Cyclops ALL suffer because they've ALL lost a son. That's something a parent never truly gets over. Do you have any idea what the divorce rate is for married couples who lose a child? This option also opens up a huge can of worms.

If you keep the kid, you've killed the mythos. If you kill him, you've got other problems. There's just no way to move forward in a positive way with a child in the picture. So the obvious solution is to, um, not introduce a kid.

And this is not to speak of the dramatic dead end that is the Donnerverse (so much pathos has already been mined) or how the tone of the Donnerverse doesn't really lend itself to more heavy sci-fi things like Brainiac or whatnot so if you introduce Brainiac, the tone must be adjusted from the light realism Donner employed to something else or otherwise you have to change Brainiac to fit Donner's reality. What you cannot do is insert Brainiac as is into the Donnerverse. Something's gotta give.

Time to reboot!

[Sponsored content]