Bryan Singer For A Day

posted by Tygrrius @ 6:12 AM

We're still a couple of years off from the release of The Man of Steel, the sequel to 2006's Superman Returns. Obviously, nothing's definite yet on this film. Even the title is tentative. For most of its production, after all, Superman Returns was titled Red Sun.

Anything and everything is still subject to change. Which means this is the most creative time for the movie, when potential is still limitless. Before the rumors start flying in full force, I want to toss around some of my own concepts and thoughts on the next Superman movie. Think of it as my Superman movie wish list.

I'm pretty sure producer and director Bryan Singer doesn't read The Film Frontier. That's not his fault. After all, we don't advertise a lot. Or at all. After Superman Returns, I'm confident he's going to make a fantastic sequel. So, he doesn't need to read this anyway. As for the rest of you, you're stuck here. Just remember that all ideas and concepts presented in this article are pure fan speculation.

It's time for Clark to grow up. We saw a bit of this near the end of Superman Returns, such as when he was talking with his son, Jason (Jay-El). The Kryptonian crystals are gone (presumably in orbit on New Krypton), so Clark is left to his own devices now.

And that's how it should be for the movie, too. Like Clark and the crystals, the Superman movies must now put Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve behind them. Superman Returns was an incredible tribute to both of them. But it's time for this version of the Superman myth to fully establish its own identity.

One step towards distinguishing this film from previous entries is overhauling the Fortress of Solitude. The Fortress of the movies, to this point, has essentially existed only to house the crystals -- providing a means for Clark to "communicate" with his long-dead Kryptonian parents. Now that the crystals are gone, it's a perfect time for Clark to do some redecorating.

In the comic books, the Fortress (though it now, too, includes crystal interaction with a bearded man who looks nothing like any previous rendering of Jor-El but, apparently, is, in fact, him) seems to be more of a museum than anything else.

In future movies, I'd rather see it as a highly advanced base of operations. A Superman command center, if you will. Let's see a mixture of Earth and Kryptonian technologies, as it only makes sense that Clark would draw from both. Since Luthor knows the location (he's been there at least three times now), it may be time to move the Fortress or otherwise hide its continued existence.

Brandon Routh did a great job in Superman Returns of finding his own middle ground between the bumbling Clark Kent disguise established by Christopher Reeve and the sophisticated Clark Kent as portrayed by Dean Cain.

One of Singer's nice touches was that he made Lois Lane nearly oblivious to Clark. Five years is a long time, and whatever professional relationship they once established was obviously gone by the time Clark returned. He has a lot of work to do.

For The Man of Steel, I'd like to see the beginnings of a return to that professional relationship. I'd also like to see a bit of the competitiveness that has traditionally existed between the characters in the comic books and various other incarnations.

In Superman Returns, Singer makes it obvious that Clark (in Metropolis, anyway) is the disguise, while "Superman" (including Clark in Smallville) is the true identity. And that's fine but in emphasizing that point, a lot of the journalistic aspects of Clark are lost. I'd like to see a bit more of the Daily Planet/reporter stuff this time around. Perhaps that's the Lois & Clark fan in me talking, though.

As for a personal relationship with Lois, Clark obviously has a lot of work to do there, too. The question is, does he want to? While he obviously still loves Lois, there is no good way for him to interrupt her relationship with the seemingly perfect Richard White. For the time being, Clark may be stuck on the outside looking in.

I don't think this aspect will or should be resolved in this movie, though. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Lois either marries Richard in the course of the movie or is already married to him by the time the film begins. Clark and Lois belong together, but it's going to take awhile to get there -- Superman Returns III at the earliest.

How will Singer eventually get Richard out of the way? I'm betting he'll die a heroic death, possibly near the end of The Man of Steel. This won't immediately open the door for Clark, of course, and in fact could add another layer of complexity to re-establishing the relationship.

Another possible out for the Richard character is to turn him into a villain. We've already seen the beginnings of his jealousy towards Superman, just a nudge or two more could reveal the uglier side of the "perfect" Richard. This would almost be too convenient of an out, though.

Let's not forget that Clark, too, revealed a great deal of jealousy in Superman Returns. Turning nice-guy Richard into a villain may be too cynical for a Superman movie, and make things way too easy for Clark.

Should Jay-El go the way of Jar Jar? Who should be The Man of Steel's "Khan"? Find out in two weeks by reading the exciting conclusion of "Bryan Singer For A Day." Same Bat-time, same Bat-place!

From Small Stories to Undiscovered Countries

posted by Tygrrius @ 9:09 PM

As a lifelong Trekkie, I'm trying to resist the urge to devote an entire blog to over-analyzing the tidbits that Star Trek XI writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci revealed in their recent interview with MTV. Like everyone else, I want to pull apart each quote and consider what they might mean for the future of Star Trek.

Speculating about top secret films is all part of the fun, of course. I remember reading and re-reading a brief article with director Nicholas Meyer from 1990 or early 1991 in which he described his then forthcoming Star Trek VI as "a small story about Spock in love." He went on to say, "I would not like to create a movie that ends with a bang or pulls too much on the heartstrings. I just want to tell a good story that seems to relate to today."

The quote from Meyer, one of the first about the new movie's direction, inspired both disappointment and curiosity in me. On the surface, "Spock in love" just didn't sound that interesting. It brought to mind images of the Vulcan hanging from a tree in "This Side of Paradise." After two comedies in a row, the most recent of which was less than well received, was a love story really going to be Star Trek's saving grace?

On the other hand, this was Nick Meyer after all! Directing Star Trek II and co-writing Trek IV certainly gave the guy a ton of credit in my book. In many ways, Star Trek V tried to be too large of a story. Maybe Meyer was right, a small story was the way to go this time out.

While I'm still not entirely sure if Meyer was a.) joking, b.) tossing out a red herring, or c.) not aware that he was going to throw the love angle out (I suspect "b"), we all know how Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country turned out. It was an epic yet sentimental story that acted as the perfect sendoff for the classic cast. Though the plot had nothing to do with Spock in love, Meyer's quote rang true in two ways.

Star Trek VI did not end with a bang. Instead, it started with one. Did Meyer already know this when making the comment? If so, he was being pretty clever messing with us fans like that.

And Star Trek VI did indeed pull from (and, in some cases, predict) headlines of the day in using the old Federation as USA and Klingons as USSR metaphor.

So, when Christmas 2008 rolls around, we'll likely be seeing these early comments about Star Trek XI in a whole new light. Which reminds me, I've never actually gone to a movie on Christmas Day. This might be the one to change that.

Will Star Trek XI be the perfect gift for Star Trek fans? Or will we be wishing we could exchange it for something else?

* * *

All right, all right, so I can't resist analyzing one small part of the MTV article. I only said I would try to resist. I submit to the pressure, every time.

From the sound of it, fans can rest assured that subtitles about undiscovered countries and insurrections are a thing of the past. Kurtzman and Orci told MTV that their film is titled, quite simply, "Star Trek." "That's the intended title. I don't think we want to put any colons or anything on it," Orci said.

Since it looks more and more like this movie will be a rebirth of the Trek adventures, my initial reaction to the proposed title is that it may be perfect. At least for this movie.

But, this is Hollywood, after all. You have to think about sequels. What would you call the sequel to a movie named Star Trek? Star Trek II? Haven't we already done that?

It seems to me that the colon can't be avoided forever, at least not without dropping Star Trek out of the title all together. Unlike The Dark Knight and The Man of Steel for Batman and Superman, I don't think there's a strong enough fill-in for "Star Trek" to use on sequels.

The biggest alternative that comes to mind is "The Final Frontier" and you can bet they won't use that one (see entry under failed movies). Another possibility is "Enterprise," which of course they won't use either (see entry under failed TV series). So, unless they come up with a title like Star Trek Generations each time, they are stuck with the colon for future sequels.

Though I can see the beauty of using the simple title Star Trek, I say keep the colon and bring back the Roman numeral. That's right, go old-school on the title and call it Star Trek XI: The Adventure Begins. Well, except for that "The Adventure Begins" part.

I can't really suggest a suitable subtitle, without having read the script. I'm sure the writers don't need my help devising titles. But, if they do, I'd be more than happy to send dozens of potential alternatives if they'd only send me a copy of the script.

Just kidding, I actually don't want a copy of the script. I'd rather wait and be surprised by opening the present on Christmas. Even if it isn't until 2008.