MAN OF STEEL

[AtomicHyperbole]

Perhaps a giant rotating evil head of a wanker will make you yearn for Jack Black again... wurhurhurhur...

Why KON's face dude?

It's not Kon's foo'.

[ONeillSG1]

While the Daniel Day Lewis casting intrigued me, no one could have done better than Brando. Thank God for Mario Puzo's involvment in the script writing, otherwise who knows who would have been Jor-El in the original.

[AtomicHyperbole]

While the Daniel Day Lewis casting intrigued me, no one could have done better than Brando. Thank God for Mario Puzo's involvment in the script writing, otherwise who knows who would have been Jor-El in the original.

You do not remember me...

[ONeillSG1]

While the Daniel Day Lewis casting intrigued me, no one could have done better than Brando. Thank God for Mario Puzo's involvment in the script writing, otherwise who knows who would have been Jor-El in the original.

You do not remember me...

Yet another post worthy of the great Jaffa . . .

[Shane]

Everywhere I look the majority wants to see Braniac, not Zod, and I agree with this majority. Go to SHH now, they even have a poll on who the villain should be, and Braniac is dominating. Darkseid would be nice, but save him for New Gods. Now with that being said, We should have the Braniac Casting Thread..

Braniac needs to be more of a great thespian than a run of the mill actor.

so my suggestions....

Terrance Stamp
Gary Oldman
William Defoe
Ian McKellen
Christopher Lee
David Caradine

[Chairman Kaga]

While the Daniel Day Lewis casting intrigued me, no one could have done better than Brando. Thank God for Mario Puzo's involvment in the script writing, otherwise who knows who would have been Jor-El in the original.

I wouldn't say that. Puzo's suggestion to the Salkinds, when he turned in his first draft, was to have the same actor who played Superman play Jor-El. The Salkinds are who went and got Brando.

With that said, the question then is: Why was it greeted this way? And thus, how can they prevent it from happening again with the sequel, if greenlighted?

I think most of the blame can easily be heaped upon the awful ad campaign. Aside from the first trailer nothing in the ads was remotely interesting or Superman-ish especially the complete disregard for Williams' score wherein they substitued crap-pop-rock-rap...

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Since the next Batman film will be called The Dark Knight, should the next Superman flick be called The Man of Steel?

[Chairman Kaga]

Since the next Batman film will be called The Dark Knight, should the next Superman flick be called The Man of Steel?

I saw this posted in the other thread Pops. If true that wouldn't be a bad way to go.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Since the next Batman film will be called The Dark Knight, should the next Superman flick be called The Man of Steel?

I saw this posted in the other thread Pops. If true that wouldn't be a bad way to go.

would The Man of Steel be an appropriate name for a low budget superhero film? Cause from the box office thread, it sounds like that's the only way we'll ever get another Superman film.

[Chairman Kaga]

Since the next Batman film will be called The Dark Knight, should the next Superman flick be called The Man of Steel?

I saw this posted in the other thread Pops. If true that wouldn't be a bad way to go.

would The Man of Steel be an appropriate name for a low budget superhero film? Cause from the box office thread, it sounds like that's the only way we'll ever get another Superman film.

I don't think there is any way to say right off the bat. Considering WB doesn't have to license the characters from another company like Sony with Spidey etc they must incur some sort of savings as a result though I'm not sure if it's large enough to really make a dent in $200+ million budget. I mean WB benefits if a Superman movie pushes Superman everything including comic sales while Sony may only benefit from merchandising driectly related to Spidey's films. I think WB is going to take a wait and see approach as the film winds down in cinemas and as it hits dvd in time for Christmas. The fact that another movie isn't immediately greenlit doesn't necessarily mean it will be Roger Corman esque cheap.

Since WB owns DC I think they are well aware that their two biggest Superhero franchises are Bats and Supes thus I doubt they are going to sit one out while the Superhero craze is still running wild through the industry. WHat else do they have left to throw out there Wonder Woman is in some stage of preproduction are they doing anything with The Flash or Green Lantern etc? If Spidey 3's numbers are low and the craze seems to be winding down then perhaps they may not throw any money at another Supes film but otherwise I think it would be worse financially in the long term not to try and take advantage of the current surge in comic films by making a sequel.

[Peven]

I think most of the blame can easily be heaped upon the awful ad campaign. Aside from the first trailer nothing in the ads was remotely interesting or Superman-ish especially the complete disregard for Williams' score wherein they substitued crap-pop-rock-rap...

i think you're scapegoating. really, the complaint among those who didn't care much for SR was that the movie itself wasn't interesting or Superman-ish enough. the fact is, even if the ad campaign was weak, enough people went to see it the first week to generate enough buzz on word of mouth to give it the legs to make more than it has, BUT that didn't happen. as much as some people love SR, they have to accept that its performance at the BO can't be blamed on anything but the movie, its writers and director.

[Chairman Kaga]

I think most of the blame can easily be heaped upon the awful ad campaign. Aside from the first trailer nothing in the ads was remotely interesting or Superman-ish especially the complete disregard for Williams' score wherein they substitued crap-pop-rock-rap...

i think you're scapegoating. really, the complaint among those who didn't care much for SR was that the movie itself wasn't interesting or Superman-ish enough. the fact is, even if the ad campaign was weak, enough people went to see it the first week to generate enough buzz on word of mouth to give it the legs to make more than it has, BUT that didn't happen. as much as some people love SR, they have to accept that its performance at the BO can't be blamed on anything but the movie, its writers and director.

That's quite the specious assumption considering obviously neither you nor I really know what everyone who saw SR thought of it or what people who didn't see SR thought of it and thus why they didn't see it. I was merely stating what could have caused it not what definitely caused it.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

as much as some people love SR, they have to accept that its performance at the BO can't be blamed on anything but the movie, its writers and director.

Blamed? Or credited? Hasn't it made over $300m worldwide by now? If I were the writer or director of a film that grossed 300 million dollars in the world, that would be a personal accomplishment, not a failure.

[Peven]

I think most of the blame can easily be heaped upon the awful ad campaign. Aside from the first trailer nothing in the ads was remotely interesting or Superman-ish especially the complete disregard for Williams' score wherein they substitued crap-pop-rock-rap...

i think you're scapegoating. really, the complaint among those who didn't care much for SR was that the movie itself wasn't interesting or Superman-ish enough. the fact is, even if the ad campaign was weak, enough people went to see it the first week to generate enough buzz on word of mouth to give it the legs to make more than it has, BUT that didn't happen. as much as some people love SR, they have to accept that its performance at the BO can't be blamed on anything but the movie, its writers and director.

That's quite the specious assumption considering obviously neither you nor I really know what everyone who saw SR thought of it or what people who didn't see SR thought of it and thus why they didn't see it. I was merely stating what could have caused it not what definitely caused it.

well, i am commenting on what i have read from reviewers who weren't all that thrilled with it, people on here, and who i know personally. i mean, does ANYONE know what EVERYONE who saw it, or didn't see it, think? we discuss what we percieve as the general public's perception is about movies here all the time without having to back it up by proving we KNOW what each person out there thinks. i mean, if you want to remove supposition and deduction from movie discussion here you may as well shut half the place down.

[Chairman Kaga]

well, i am commenting on what i have read from reviewers who weren't all that thrilled with it, people on here, and who i know personally. i mean, does ANYONE know what EVERYONE who saw it, or didn't see it, think? we discuss what we percieve as the general public's perception is about movies here all the time without having to back it up by proving we KNOW what each person out there thinks. i mean, if you want to remove supposition and deduction from movie discussion here you may as well shut half the place down.

That's fair enough but the reviews I have read and my peer's reaction was mostly good to great. So obviously our experiences differ thus how are we to resolve this. You will state something like "most people find it underwhelming" and I state "most people found it to be a good or great film" based on or individual perceptions neither of us is really correct. So how are we supposed to agree? For example the 76% of the Zoners who voted here think the movie is a 7/10 or better. That seems to be a good to great rating but obviously that sample is only indicative of the hardcore nerds who come to this board. So by what guage am I supposed to judge the average person's opinion? The IMDB which draws more people than here but is still only limited to internet savy film fans rates it on average 7.2/10 based off almost 32,000 votes still in the "good" range. So why wasn't word of mouth generated? I think the answer is more complex then The audience didn't like it because it seems alot of people did.

[Peven]

as much as some people love SR, they have to accept that its performance at the BO can't be blamed on anything but the movie, its writers and director.

Blamed? Or credited? Hasn't it made over $300m worldwide by now? If I were the writer or director of a film that grossed 300 million dollars in the world, that would be a personal accomplishment, not a failure.

oh geez, are you kidding me? do we have to play this silly game again here? the fact is that studio expectations were that SR would make more than it has. and not just a couple million more, but much more, along the lines of what POTC:DMC is making, meaning a hundred million more. thats a lot of dough. and $300 million does sound like a lot, until you subtract the production and promotional costs, and then it ends up seeming much less impressive. like i pointed out in another SR thread, the Fantastic Four had a production budget of only $100 million, and grossed over $150 million domestically, and over $300 million worldwide. it actually pocketed its studio a lot more money than what SR will for its studio, and i'm not talking %, but dollar to dollar profit comparison. WB was expecting SR to be a big money maker for them, not just a "hey we made a few bucks" movie. so, when discussing the BO performance of SR, i'd say "blame" is an appropriate term.

[Peven]

well, i am commenting on what i have read from reviewers who weren't all that thrilled with it, people on here, and who i know personally. i mean, does ANYONE know what EVERYONE who saw it, or didn't see it, think? we discuss what we percieve as the general public's perception is about movies here all the time without having to back it up by proving we KNOW what each person out there thinks. i mean, if you want to remove supposition and deduction from movie discussion here you may as well shut half the place down.

That's fair enough but the reviews I have read and my peer's reaction was mostly good to great. So obviously our experiences differ thus how are we to resolve this. You will state something like "most people find it underwhelming" and I state "most people found it to be a good or great film" based on or individual perceptions neither of us is really correct. So how are we supposed to agree? For example the 76% of the Zoners who voted here think the movie is a 7/10 or better. That seems to be a good to great rating but obviously that sample is only indicative of the hardcore nerds who come to this board. So by what guage am I supposed to judge the average person's opinion?

Kaga, you need to read what i write more carefully. i didn't say "most people find it underwhelming", what i said was that most people who found SR underwhelming felt that way because it wasn't Superman-ish enough. big difference, wouldn't you say?

[Chairman Kaga]

well, i am commenting on what i have read from reviewers who weren't all that thrilled with it, people on here, and who i know personally. i mean, does ANYONE know what EVERYONE who saw it, or didn't see it, think? we discuss what we percieve as the general public's perception is about movies here all the time without having to back it up by proving we KNOW what each person out there thinks. i mean, if you want to remove supposition and deduction from movie discussion here you may as well shut half the place down.

That's fair enough but the reviews I have read and my peer's reaction was mostly good to great. So obviously our experiences differ thus how are we to resolve this? You will state something like "most people find it underwhelming" and I state "most people found it to be a good or great film" based on or individual perceptions neither of us is really correct. So how are we supposed to agree? For example the 76% of the Zoners who voted here think the movie is a 7/10 or better. That seems to be a good to great rating but obviously that sample is only indicative of the hardcore nerds who come to this board. So by what guage am I supposed to judge the average person's opinion?

Kaga, you need to read what i write more carefully. i didn't say "most people find it underwhelming", what i said was that most people who found SR underwhelming felt that way because it wasn't Superman-ish enough. big difference, wouldn't you say?

Obviously.
My quotes were refering to what you would hypothetically respond with in a back and forth argument that would be based on nothing more than our opinions of what we each thought people think of the film. Notice the word will. If you are going to chastise me for reading what you write at least extend me the same courtesy.

All I am trying to get at is by what external guage are we supposed to judge people's reaction to the film that isn't tainted by our own opinion/perception.....obviously aside from Box Office since this started as a way of trying to explain the lower than expected box office or is Box Office the only true gauge of public opinion of a film? Does Variety run polls or something?

[Peven]

well, i am commenting on what i have read from reviewers who weren't all that thrilled with it, people on here, and who i know personally. i mean, does ANYONE know what EVERYONE who saw it, or didn't see it, think? we discuss what we percieve as the general public's perception is about movies here all the time without having to back it up by proving we KNOW what each person out there thinks. i mean, if you want to remove supposition and deduction from movie discussion here you may as well shut half the place down.

That's fair enough but the reviews I have read and my peer's reaction was mostly good to great. So obviously our experiences differ thus how are we to resolve this? You will state something like "most people find it underwhelming" and I state "most people found it to be a good or great film" based on or individual perceptions neither of us is really correct. So how are we supposed to agree? For example the 76% of the Zoners who voted here think the movie is a 7/10 or better. That seems to be a good to great rating but obviously that sample is only indicative of the hardcore nerds who come to this board. So by what guage am I supposed to judge the average person's opinion?

Kaga, you need to read what i write more carefully. i didn't say "most people find it underwhelming", what i said was that most people who found SR underwhelming felt that way because it wasn't Superman-ish enough. big difference, wouldn't you say?

Obviously.
My quotes were refering to what you would hypothetically respond with in a back and forth argument that would be based on nothing more than our opinions of what we each thought people think of the film. Notice the word will. If you are going to chastise me for reading what you write at least extend me the same courtesy.

All I am trying to get at is by what external guage are we supposed to judge people's reaction to the film that isn't tainted by our own opinion/perception.....obviously aside from Box Office since this started as a way of trying to explain the lower than expected box office or is Box Office the only true gauge of public opinion of a film? Does Variety run polls or something?

ok, i buy your explanation of "will", though i think you could see where i might have interpreted it to mean "will" as in a description of something i had already done/said. you do pose a good question in regard to public opinion about a film. i think there are a couple different variations, depending on what genre, niche, the movie is shooting for. with a movie like SR, where the intended market is pretty wide, covering many demographics, i think the over-all general public is what you gauge, and gross BO is a fair way to measure it. if it was a independent or genre movie like Memento, or Shaun of the Dead, then i think you have to scale back the scope of what you are considering as "public opinion" to the public that is expected to potentially appreciate the movie.

[Chairman Kaga]

I think that whole section of my post was jumbled and confusing.

[AtomicHyperbole]

You guys lost me when you reran my points off the previous page.

[TheButcher]

Everywhere I look the majority wants to see Braniac, not Zod, and I agree with this majority. Go to SHH now, they even have a poll on who the villain should be, and Braniac is dominating. Darkseid would be nice, but save him for New Gods. Now with that being said, We should have the Braniac Casting Thread..

Braniac needs to be more of a great thespian than a run of the mill actor.

so my suggestions....

Terrance Stamp
Gary Oldman
William Defoe
Ian McKellen
Christopher Lee
David Caradine

Not bad, not bad at all.
Here are my suggestions:

Joe Pesci as Mr. Mxyzptlk
Nic Cage as Bizarro
Edward Norton as Brianiac
Steve Austin as Lobo
Johnny Depp as Dr. Quintum

***EDIT***

If Singer does come back for the sequel then Hugh Laurie will be Brainiac.

[TheButcher]

Well it looks like Singer will be back for Superman II.

[RogueScribner]

Nic Cage as Bizarro

You a funny, funny man!

[Chairman Kaga]

I actually prefer the idea of a different actor for Bizarro rather than Routh playing Supes and Bizarro.......

[TheButcher]

Thanks.

[ONeillSG1]

I actually prefer the idea of a different actor for Bizarro rather than Routh playing Supes and Bizarro.......

Though the idea is interesting, I rather see different actors. Let's not hang too much on Routh's undoubtedly broad shoulders.

[Peven]

Singer recently said that he intends on continuing the story arc of Supes jr as a significant part of the sequel's storyline. he also said something about going "Wrath of Khan" with it. a studio exec has said he thinks the lack of action is what kept SR from making as much as it could have. considering these factors, what do you Superman afficionado's out there think that recipe will cook up for the sequel?

[Chairman Kaga]

I actually prefer the idea of a different actor for Bizarro rather than Routh playing Supes and Bizarro.......

Though the idea is interesting, I rather see different actors. Let's not hang too much on Routh's undoubtedly broad shoulders.

You know your idea is intriguing but I think what they should do is have Routh play Superman and get another actor to play Bizarro.

[havocSchultz]

Main Page has a story posted up that apparentely was originally on Dark Horizons and IESB...

It states that the Sequel is a go...and talks about a couple of things that have already been talked about...

If you don't feel like clicking - this is the article that appeared on the other sites (without Mori's intro though...you'll have to click the link for that...)

The following was taken from Dark Horizons with a confirmed report by IESB. I guess pretty much every naysayer who didn't like the film were proved wrong. The sequel is coming, Singer is back, and it's going to start production in a year. SR wasn't a perfect film, but it stayed true to the character and was a great start. Can't wait for the more action packed flick!

Warner Bros. has kept "Superman Returns" playing long enough that this past weekend it finally cracked the $200 million mark domestically and so the studio will move forward with a sequel.

The IESB has learned that Bryan Singer has finalized a deal to move forward with the sequel this past weekend and the studio is planning to start production sometime as early as next September with much of the same team behind "Returns". This would indicate shooting would probably begin early 2008 for a Summer 2009 release.

In a very smart move as well, the two big criticisms thrown against the film are being directly addressed - the budget and the lack of action & fun in the film. The action quotient will be strongly ramped up and a non-Lex DC villain looks like it will be the main villain of the piece.

In regards to the cost, 'Returns' had an official budget around $204-208 million, plus tens of millions in development costs over the years. No development costs this time around, and the production budget will be set at a perfectly sound $140-175 million.

[RogueScribner]

Good news!

[Chairman Kaga]

Huzzah!!

[Peven]

now THIS is a "diificult topic".

[RogueScribner]

The budget doesn't concern me. Singer being back is a good thing, IMO. X1 was good (great character stuff, mediocre action), but X2 was great (great character stuff, cool as shit action). The leap to SR was even greater, though I can see everyone's point about there not being enough action or enough variance in the action (how many times can Superman lift stuff up?). I fully expect Singer to up the action ante in the next one without sacrificing any of the great character work he's laid the foundation for already.

Woo hoo!

[doglips]

Yeah, good news. I loved SR and desperately want to see what Singer has in store for No 2.

[mushookie]

Villian or hero, he needs to remember the Miranda Rights.

[underscore]

It'd be interesting to see Superman's child get killed by a villain in maybe the third movie or something. I'd go see a sequel if it were more action and less pretenciousness.

BUT THEY HAVE GOT TO CAST A NEW LOIS. I mean SERIOUSLY. Someone like Sandra Bullock or Courtney Cox would've been a million times better.

[ONeillSG1]

Villian or hero, he needs to remember the Miranda Rights.

ZING!

[Shane]

Everywhere I look the majority wants to see Braniac, not Zod, and I agree with this majority. Go to SHH now, they even have a poll on who the villain should be, and Braniac is dominating. Darkseid would be nice, but save him for New Gods. Now with that being said, We should have the Braniac Casting Thread..

Braniac needs to be more of a great thespian than a run of the mill actor.

so my suggestions....

Terrance Stamp
Gary Oldman
William Defoe
Ian McKellen
Christopher Lee
David Caradine

Not bad, not bad at all.
Here are my suggestions:

Joe Pesci as Mr. Mxyzptlk
Nic Cage as Bizarro
Edward Norton as Brianiac
Steve Austin as Lobo
Johnny Depp as Dr. Quintum

***EDIT***

If Singer does come back for the sequel then Hugh Laurie will be Brainiac.

yes

It'd be interesting to see Superman's child get killed by a villain in maybe the third movie or something. I'd go see a sequel if it were more action and less pretenciousness.

BUT THEY HAVE GOT TO CAST A NEW LOIS. I mean SERIOUSLY. Someone like Sandra Bullock or Courtney Cox would've been a million times better.

no




Can you think of worse actresses? The only one I can think of is Julia Goulia Roberts. Robert Denero would be better in the part.

[Freefinger]

...how Zod be the villian again? Bringing him back from the dead seems beneath the franchise...

Have you seen Superman Returns??? Right now Superman beating up a pop-tart is not beneath this new turn on Singer's franchise...

Anyone hear about Kevin Smith giving out his opinion on the flick?? I saw the "Silent Bob Speaks" dvd and he explained his really weird script going around the internet, made me laugh when WB brought him like 5 times before a committee of suits to tell them how bad another script was then sending him to fu**ing Peters who in fact turned any good storyline Smith could've brought in right down the toilet - No suit, No flying, Needs to fit a big fu**ing Spider, needs polar bears, need a Dumbledore souding robot to accompany Braniac, and all the rest of the shitty things that were in his script... -

Like Smith said, Peters is the best examples of how in Hollywood you fail upwards...

I just wonder on the take he has on this one. Oh, and I heard that John Byrne's head turned 360 when he saw this movie, anyone has a link to the story or interview???

God.. at least I still have my Freefinger id here...

Promise I won't post my Password here!

[RogueScribner]

Kevin Smith thought SR was okay, but not as cool as the X-Men films. He said the Dumbledore metaphor worked great for X-Men but SR was a hetero movie through and through (basically a chick flick) and maybe it needed a giant spider after all.

[Freefinger]

Guess he didn't want to get to political on the film in case WB comes in and asks him to do some work for future films...

Thanks RogueScribner...

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

YOu know , sometimes I DO wonder what Supes Returns would be like with the likes of McG and Brett Ratner doing it,after all. I bet it's be more enjoyable thatn Singer's overserious, stuck up furrowbrowed approach to it.

Wonder if it would make more money? Giant Spiders though? BOOOOO!!!! Spiders are our friends. Don't kill them.

[MonsieurReynard]

"Jason, let the United Nations go, we'll play it off as a prank!"

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

What film's that from again? And why are you saying it here?

[MonsieurReynard]

What film's that from again? And why are you saying it here?

It's paraphrased from Anchorman (Originally it's Ed to his son Chris). I just thought the parallel was funny (Superman as concerned parent with troubled child). But like so many things, it was funnier in my head.

Drink and think, Monsieur...

[Leckomaniac]

The Dark Horizon story has now been officially confirmed by Variety. This is from Newsarama

As he as much as announced at the San Diego Comic-Con, Bryan Singer has signed on to direct a sequel to this summer’s Superman Returns, this according to Variety - confirming rumors that were flying at the end of last week.

The sequel, though not greenlit by the studio, is expected to be released in summer of 2009, although, according to the trade, there is no script or budget as of yet.

As Variety interprets the pacting between Singer and the studio for a sequel – though Superman Returns didn’t perform as the studio had hoped, it’s not about to walk away from the Superman film franchise. The trade reported Warner Bros. and co-financer/co-producer Legendary Pictures as saying that they will still turn a profit on Superman Returns, noting that the film has just crossed $200 million domestically, and more than $390 worldwide.

The budget for the sequel, reportedly, will be under $200 million, with Warners put at $209 million after tax rebates and incentives, although, as has been previously noted, when factoring in all the development costs to get Superman Returns to theaters (multiple scripts, directors and lead actors), the total costs for the film over the years to Warners has been nearly $250 million – though the $40 million in development previous to this specific version of the film, as been absorbed.

Warners has an option on Brandon Routh for the sequel, which, according to Singer when speaking at Comic-Con, will be more action-oriented, as the director said that while Superman Returns allowed him to introduce the cast, the sequel would allow him to, “Go Wrath of Khan on it." While Singer didn't name any particular villains that would be in the sequel, he teased - more than once – of an alien threat.

It is pretty much everything that has been said already, however, there is no mention of a specific budget.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

Would it be a stretch to do Doomsday one day? That's have to bea few sequels down the line eh?

[The Ginger Man]

Ugh....color me unexcited (which I think kinda looks tan). SR bored me to tears. Not necessarily the lack of action (though I think I've now seen Supes lift enough heavy things to last a lifetime), but just the characters. Nothing and no one to relate to. Supes never tells the woman he loves who he really is, sleeps with her, leaves for 5 years w/o telling her because "it hurts to much," then has the balls to be hearbroken when he finds out she's moved on. Singer turned Superman into a flying Emo kid. And now we're saddled with the kid. The kid that kills people w/ pianos.

Superman Returns should have had Brainiac follow Supes back to Earth. Brainiac teams with the recently freed Luthor. That would get both villains out of the way so SR2 could give us something space oriented....Darkseid.

But nope. Sigh....Can't wait for the villain to kidnap the Superkid in order to lead Superman into a kryptonite based trap. And if we're lucky, the screenwriters can fit in all the dialogue from Donner's Superman that didn't get used in SR.

[Doc Holliday]

If we're lucky the kid gets killed in the next movie....providing Supes with that age old test...his own rage and lust for vengeance against truth, justice and what he knows to be the right thing to do.

Superkid....ugh. ugh ugh ugh fucking ugh. Whatever next - Supergran? Super-Fido? Supercalafrajalisticexialadocious?

Singer you arse.