Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Singer said in an interview that he would like to do something similar to the 'Wrath of Khan'. I know that that's a Star Trek movie from the 80's, but I don't know what the reference means. Someone said that that meant he was going to bring back General Zod, and that just freaks me out. I'm scared for that. Tell me what that means please. Does it mean Superman is going to die???? What????

you stole this from me

"Wrath Of Khan" style, in reference to Star Trek II, means an adversary from the past comes back to wreak havoc.
I also hope it doesn't mean Zod. Give me Darkseid or Braniac, or maybe Doomsday.

Why do you want three movies? It is not enough.

Originally posted by roughrider
"Wrath Of Khan" style, in reference to Star Trek II, means an adversary from the past comes back to wreak havoc.
I also hope it doesn't mean Zod. Give me Darkseid or Braniac, or maybe Doomsday.

If it means an adversary from the past comes back, then I don't see how they could mean anything but Zod. Superman hasn't had any adversaries other than Luthor, Zod, and some odd form of Bizarro in the movies..... That sounds ridiculously dumb. Jese man.......

Zod holds Superman's background by 100% not the White House involved please, but as a global threat. Let's get serious and bring the best.

I've found just what I needed to use. On the dining table there are two glass adornments, cone shaped...that's how I would prefer the phantom zone be like.

Originally posted by redcaped
I've found just what I needed to use. On the dining table there are two glass adornments, cone shaped...that's how I would prefer the phantom zone be like.

lol

I really hope this doesnt mean Zod i really dont. Superman needs to expand not keep elaborating on the same story and enemies. Give me brainiac. Brainiac has something against Kryptonians so i hope this means him.

Further clairification from Singer on 'Wrath Of Khan'. He means that while the first Star Trek was longer, deliberately paced with a wide vision, Khan was tighter, faster and more fun in a standard way.
That is the tone he's seeking for the second film.
And there will be a second one. Warners has invested too much money in this restart, to walk away now.

I hope they bring in Metallo or Doomsday.With the current CGI technology superspeed flight and other things looked great, but Superman saving planes or people isn't that fun.Who is a match for him?No one, except if there's kryptonite around.
To really have fun we need a character with superpowers who can smack Supes around and then get what the Man Of Steel can dish out, we need a slugfest of superstrong guys, not boyscout action.

Please don't take them away...did Did you read my explanation about the trio from Krypton to be the best there is...that was what I meant...please!

Originally posted by redcaped
Please don't take them away...did Did you read my explanation about the trio from Krypton to be the best there is...that was what I meant...please!

we're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningnananananananananananananananana.....

Originally posted by roughrider
we're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningwe're not listeningnananananananananananananananana.....

lol. yea please no Zod, ursa or non! New story in Superman's life

oh c'mon chase!

redcaped you should look at the new smallville teaser they show zod "Kneel before ZOD!!"

www.supermanhomepage.com

I must be one of the few who is actually rooting for Zod to return. Have him played by Jude Law and I am the happiest person on the planet.

Zod would be a great villain to see again. I can just imagine that if the sequel features Zod, it'll have to involve him realizing that Superman has a son, and once he does, one of the sweetest forms of revenge Zod could take would be to try and take Jason away from Superman, make him an apprentice of some sort. Zod could tell him that he should enjoy his godlike powers and revel in them, ala Vader.

And it'd be great to see Lex have to deal with Zod again. Those two had some of the best scenes together in the entire series.

No...not Smallville, the Big Screen.

This is a conflict only between them...there is no point by making it the same.

Yeah it'd be great to see Lex, this time as Spacey of course, try and deal with Zod again. I loved all the bantering that they did in Superman II, with lines like:

Zod: "We have no more use of him. Kill him now".
Lex: "Me! Lex Luthor!"

And of course to see Zod and Superman duking it out like never before. If anyone has seen the epic battle Superman had with Darkseid on the last episode of JLA, to see a battle like that between Zod and Superman in the sequel would be incredible stuff.

If this next movie is anything like the same context of Wrath of Khan, with a great villain, story, acting, and action, then 2009 can't come soon enough.

Ok..... I did some researching and I found out what it means guys. 'Wrath of Khan' is the 2nd Star Trek movie with Shatner, which really kicked the franchise off. It was better recieved from the public, and even from non Star Trek fans. It's widely thought of as a very good sci fi flick by many people, and was and is recognized as far superior to the first movie. If that movie was a failure, the Star Trek franchise would not have had all of the success it's had since then. The reason people liked it was because of the character development and how twisted and menacing the villian was. It was actually the same villian as in the first one, but you got to see a whole new side of him, and in a way, the villian actually seemed more fresh and unpredictable in the second film.

In the context of how Singer said this, and the quote goes, "I want to go Wrath of Khan with this," he meant that now he had reestablished the franchise, that his limitations would be lessened in the second film, and he wouldn't have to 'walk with a bum leg'. He was defending the first movie to a somewhat partisan crowd who was grilling him on the box office dissapointments, and, though most thought it was a decent movie and just not done the right way to make money, some were ragging on the quality of the movie. When fielding questions, one of the questioners went as far as to flat out say that he was extremely dissapointed in the movie before asking his question, which I think is rude. Basically Singer was saying, look guys, the movie needed to be this way, and too much action would have been off. From the way he made it sound, he is boasting an extreme crowd pleaser and action extravagansa for the sequel. I'm extremely excited!

I also think that the criticisms of Singer and the movie are just off. People think that because, for some reason or another, people went to see Pirates 2 instead of Superman Returns, that it gives them a right to bash the movie. I'm sick of it. On opening night, our crowd gave a standing ovation, and even my cousin, who is the most cynical person I know said, 'Actually, it was great.' I guess people think it makes them look smart to say things are not up to their standards, but in my mind, it makes people look foolish to complain when there's nothing to complain about. It doesn't make you look great to be a whiny unsatiable jerk. Whey even go to the movies if you don't like any of them you see. I can't believe I let these guys get into my head with their nonsense. I loved the movie, and I thought it was outstanding. In fact, it exceeded my expectations, and it's my favorite movie of all time. There. I have said it, and those of you that are trolls can shove it. I'm through with you guys.....

Originally posted by superman41082


I also think that the criticisms of Singer and the movie are just off. People think that because, for some reason or another, people went to see Pirates 2 instead of Superman Returns, that it gives them a right to bash the movie. I'm sick of it. On opening night, our crowd gave a standing ovation, and even my cousin, who is the most cynical person I know said, 'Actually, it was great.' I guess people think it makes them look smart to say things are not up to their standards, but in my mind, it makes people look foolish to complain when there's nothing to complain about. It doesn't make you look great to be a whiny unsatiable jerk. Whey even go to the movies if you don't like any of them you see. I can't believe I let these guys get into my head with their nonsense. I loved the movie, and I thought it was outstanding. In fact, it exceeded my expectations, and it's my favorite movie of all time. There. I have said it, and those of you that are trolls can shove it. I'm through with you guys.....

couldnt have said it better then myself

the movie got a standing ovation the first 2 times i saw it as well

Those lines were terrible. They have Superman as Superman even when others are like him which is very but very childish to me and ridiculous.

Originally posted by redcaped
Those lines were terrible. They have Superman as Superman even when others are like him which is very but very childish to me and ridiculous.

What on earth does this mean???

Originally posted by superman41082
Ok..... I did some researching and I found out what it means guys. 'Wrath of Khan' is the 2nd Star Trek movie with Shatner, which really kicked the franchise off. It was better recieved from the public, and even from non Star Trek fans. It's widely thought of as a very good sci fi flick by many people, and was and is recognized as far superior to the first movie. If that movie was a failure, the Star Trek franchise would not have had all of the success it's had since then. The reason people liked it was because of the character development and how twisted and menacing the villian was. It was actually the same villian as in the first one, but you got to see a whole new side of him, and in a way, the villian actually seemed more fresh and unpredictable in the second film.

Definitely, Wrath of Khan is a must see for anyone even remotely into sci fi...



I hope you're right... and if the guy didnt like the movie he was entitled to say so...



Ok...

and no, not for one second does anyone think it puts them up on some plateau if they didnt like the movie... i've seen it twice in the theatre, and there was no standing ovation where i was...

if everyone like the movie the world would be a very boring place, everyone has different ideas of what makes a good movie, especially what makes a good Superman movie given the enormous fanbase...

and frankly, the opinion of anyone who didnt like the movie (as long as they explain why), is just as valid as anyone who did like it...

and fyi, i enjoyed Superman Returns more than Pirates...

Originally posted by pr1983
Definitely, Wrath of Khan is a must see for anyone even remotely into sci fi...



I hope you're right... and if the guy didnt like the movie he was entitled to say so...



Ok...

and no, not for one second does anyone think it puts them up on some plateau if they didnt like the movie... i've seen it twice in the theatre, and there was no standing ovation where i was...

if everyone like the movie the world would be a very boring place, everyone has different ideas of what makes a good movie, especially what makes a good Superman movie given the enormous fanbase...

and frankly, the opinion of anyone who didnt like the movie (as long as they explain why), is just as valid as anyone who did like it...

and fyi, i enjoyed Superman Returns more than Pirates...

I only wanted to comment on your last leg of your post, but I'm not slick enough to know how to only quote one part of your post. I'm not saying that people's opinions are not valid. What I'm referring to is people who complain just to complain and use their criticisms to give them some kind of power. Some people actually think it makes them look good to look down on things and people. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't having an opinion. It's pittiful and irritating. The point of the last part of my post was simply to say that the people who liked this film shouldn't listen to the people that are bashing it because they get off on making other people feel insecure about the things that they feel. If someone doesn't like a film, for the most, they'll basically say they simply didn't like it, but you can tell the difference between honestly disliking something and complaining to try and upset someone. I personally think it's very rude to bash a movie that someone likes right in front of them, or anything for that matter. Just as it's rude to bash someone's mother or friend in front of them, bashing should be done without their company. Also, I think that most of the bashing about this film is unwarranted. I just can't see how anyone would think this movie is horrible, because it's not. I can see people not thinking it's great, but horrible? Give me a break. Certain people have certain tastes, but one can recognize if something's done horribly or not. Dukes of Hazzard was horrible. Maybe it was funny to some people, which I won't dispute, but it was horrible. Superman Returns was at least done decently. Most of the people who say it is so horrible are just being jerks and not giving a true opinion.

Originally posted by superman41082
I only wanted to comment on your last leg of your post, but I'm not slick enough to know how to only quote one part of your post. I'm not saying that people's opinions are not valid. What I'm referring to is people who complain just to complain and use their criticisms to give them some kind of power. Some people actually think it makes them look good to look down on things and people. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't having an opinion. It's pittiful and irritating. The point of the last part of my post was simply to say that the people who liked this film shouldn't listen to the people that are bashing it because they get off on making other people feel insecure about the things that they feel. If someone doesn't like a film, for the most, they'll basically say they simply didn't like it, but you can tell the difference between honestly disliking something and complaining to try and upset someone. I personally think it's very rude to bash a movie that someone likes right in front of them, or anything for that matter. Just as it's rude to bash someone's mother or friend in front of them, bashing should be done without their company. Also, I think that most of the bashing about this film is unwarranted. I just can't see how anyone would think this movie is horrible, because it's not. I can see people not thinking it's great, but horrible? Give me a break. Certain people have certain tastes, but one can recognize if something's done horribly or not. Dukes of Hazzard was horrible. Maybe it was funny to some people, which I won't dispute, but it was horrible. Superman Returns was at least done decently. Most of the people who say it is so horrible are just being jerks and not giving a true opinion.

THANK YOU. There are definately people on this forum who repeatedly just disagree and point out EVERY little thing that you say... just to be dicks. You can say you did or didnt like the movie, but it is so unneccessary to dissect an entire opinion piece by piece and come back with irratating disrespectful comments. People with no lives and who get spit on everyday do that. I dont feel the need to cause arguments on this forum, all i ever do is comment and elaborate on people i AGREE with and give my opinion. Some losers on here will actually quote, line by line, what you say and how your wrong (which isnt true). Its soooo pathetic. Superman Returns was a GREAT movie in my mind. My favorite Superhero movie, i liked it better than The original. Thats my opinion. That being said... I already know which two people are going to quote that and say "Nooo the movie was far from great. Routh lacks character and the movie was sooooo boring"....

watch

Originally posted by superman41082
I only wanted to comment on your last leg of your post, but I'm not slick enough to know how to only quote one part of your post. I'm not saying that people's opinions are not valid. What I'm referring to is people who complain just to complain and use their criticisms to give them some kind of power. Some people actually think it makes them look good to look down on things and people. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't having an opinion. It's pittiful and irritating.

I agree, i just think that the people who didnt like it for genuine reasons shouldnt be mistaken for the kind of people you named above, thats all...



But what, to you, constitutes bashing... if i say i didnt like the movie, is that bashing? if i say, i thought routh was a poor mans chris reeve, is that bashing? or if i say that bryan singer is lacking when it comes to superhero movies, is that lacking? If it is, then i apologise if it comes across that way (at least when i say it). Its my opinion, and i could talk all day about my reasons for having such an opinion... to me, people coming in and using the godawful net speak and calling superman gay and so on, now that, to me, is bashing...



There are aspects of it that could be considered horrible to some... like lois' casting, singers inability to create a modern superman movie...



That can be true in a lot of cases...

Now, from my point of view, its annoying to see people come onto this forum and talk about Superman Returns like its the second coming (without giving genuine reasons), so there is a flipside to your argument...

They say the most unrealistic things about the movie (at least imo), and to me, that gets on my nerves. Here's an example...

A few days ago i heard someone (and i honestly can't remember who) say that Superman Returns was a good portrayal of a modern Superman...

Now... to me, a line like that is full of shit (if you'll pardon my french)

Now, i love, and i repeat, LOVE, the chris reeve movies, so i can understand Singer's love for them too. But all through SR, its blatantly obvious (at least to me) that Singer is trying to recapture the spirit of those Reeve and Donner movies. Now, maybe when the first Superman was made, it was a decent portrayal of Superman at that time (pre-crisis and all that), but that Superman and the Superman of today that i read every month in Action Comics and Superman are very different entities (at least to me). So in trying to emulate the Reeve movies (and its hard to blame Singer, but i'd have preferred the Death of Superman, or something more modern day), Singer does anything BUT modernise Superman...

and finally... i don't think Superman Returns was shit... i, like most people who love Superman, watched him save the plane with the hairs on the back of my neck standing up. But to me, Singer could have, and should have, done alot better... the lack of action, certain casting choices, the script, those, to me, are genuine problems with the movie...

Sorry i wrote so much, got a bit carried away...

Going "Wrath of Khan" doesn't necessarily mean a bad guy from the past... i took it as he meant that Superman Returns established the characters and NOW the story ride can begin. "WoK" was a movie that took very popular and established characters (the Star Trek gang) and pretty much put them all in a pot and stirred everything up randomly. Things that didn't happen to heroes was happening to them and it was a chaotic time. I think we can expect death from either Lois, Jason, Richard (too obvious so I doubt it), or Lex. I think Singer is making sure we DON'T have any clue where this story is going, though we think we do. That's what "Wrath of Khan" was. I wouldn't be surpised to see Darkseid or Zod at all playing the symbollic role of Satan. My REAL guess as to what happens... the boy and/or Lois dies and a powerful, evil figure temps a bitter, screwed up Superman toward the dark side of his power. That's my guess.

Which one came first to comics Zod or Darkseid? You cannot rely on old movies to follow the story.