Official Superman Returns Review Thread (SPOILERS)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate Superman Returns?

10
20
16%
9
18
15%
8
35
28%
7
19
15%
6
12
10%
5
4
3%
4
3
2%
3
0
No votes
2
1
1%
1
5
4%
I will not be seeing this
6
5%
 
Total votes : 123

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:43 pm

look, you can't get around budget when discussing how much money a film makes. especially a blockbuster/tentpole movie like SR. when you spend as much $ as they did to make SR, high expectations are going to be there. just breaking even isn't what the studio was going for when they gave the greenlight. i maintain that SR underperformed at the box office. to Routh's credit, it wasn't his fault, and he was a big quation mark going in, and from the publicity stills looked to be the biggest weakness. fact is, the one player who people were considering as a lock to help the movie succeed, in fact, imo, was the one guy who is mainly responsible for its underperformance.

Singer.

it was the story and tone which prevented the movie from doing as well, from capturing the excitement of summer moviegoers. Singer was the one responsible for that. he is the one who decided to create a movie so slavish to Donner's two Superman movies, yet without the lightness and fun they had. he had a clean slate, he could have totally restarted the franchise, or worked with an established hero dealing with opponents worthy of testing the Man of Steel in a visually spectacular means. in this day and age, when people are used to seeing orcs and Gollum and Shelob, and X-Men and giant gorialls that look real, they have certain expectations when going to see a movie about a superhero, and the tests that hero will face. Singer went to the Lex Luthor kryptonite bank instead. same old same old, what people had already seen over 20 years ago, and thats why it didn't generate the word of mouth needed to stay in the top 10 beyond the 4 week of release.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:15 pm

Peven wrote:look, you can't get around budget when discussing how much money a film makes. especially a blockbuster/tentpole movie like SR. when you spend as much $ as they did to make SR, high expectations are going to be there. just breaking even isn't what the studio was going for when they gave the greenlight. i maintain that SR underperformed at the box office. to Routh's credit, it wasn't his fault, and he was a big quation mark going in, and from the publicity stills looked to be the biggest weakness. fact is, the one player who people were considering as a lock to help the movie succeed, in fact, imo, was the one guy who is mainly responsible for its underperformance.

Singer.

it was the story and tone which prevented the movie from doing as well, from capturing the excitement of summer moviegoers. Singer was the one responsible for that. he is the one who decided to create a movie so slavish to Donner's two Superman movies, yet without the lightness and fun they had. he had a clean slate, he could have totally restarted the franchise, or worked with an established hero dealing with opponents worthy of testing the Man of Steel in a visually spectacular means. in this day and age, when people are used to seeing orcs and Gollum and Shelob, and X-Men and giant gorialls that look real, they have certain expectations when going to see a movie about a superhero, and the tests that hero will face. Singer went to the Lex Luthor kryptonite bank instead. same old same old, what people had already seen over 20 years ago, and thats why it didn't generate the word of mouth needed to stay in the top 10 beyond the 4 week of release.


But Peven, it did do well, it did as well as Batman Begins, better in fact. Roughly the same amount of people went to BB as went to SR and no-one says BB didn't do well.

SR's budget was huge, I'd say too much for any movie. I think I even had a moan that at least 50 mil of it probably went on huge trailers and uber gourmet catering. No one is arguing with you that it didn't make a big profit for WB. What we are taking issue with, is your insistence that it didn't do well or resonate or that people were underwhelmed. By your own logic that means BB didn't do well, didn't resonate and people were underwhelmed.

So Peven, before you go any further - do you think Batman Begins, didn't do well, didn't resonate and was underwhelming?

Because according to you, if a movie only attracts however many people it takes to get a 200mil domestic gross; it doesn't capture people's imaginations, it doesn't excite them and there is some fault with the director.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:44 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
Peven wrote:look, you can't get around budget when discussing how much money a film makes. especially a blockbuster/tentpole movie like SR. when you spend as much $ as they did to make SR, high expectations are going to be there. just breaking even isn't what the studio was going for when they gave the greenlight. i maintain that SR underperformed at the box office. to Routh's credit, it wasn't his fault, and he was a big quation mark going in, and from the publicity stills looked to be the biggest weakness. fact is, the one player who people were considering as a lock to help the movie succeed, in fact, imo, was the one guy who is mainly responsible for its underperformance.

Singer.

it was the story and tone which prevented the movie from doing as well, from capturing the excitement of summer moviegoers. Singer was the one responsible for that. he is the one who decided to create a movie so slavish to Donner's two Superman movies, yet without the lightness and fun they had. he had a clean slate, he could have totally restarted the franchise, or worked with an established hero dealing with opponents worthy of testing the Man of Steel in a visually spectacular means. in this day and age, when people are used to seeing orcs and Gollum and Shelob, and X-Men and giant gorialls that look real, they have certain expectations when going to see a movie about a superhero, and the tests that hero will face. Singer went to the Lex Luthor kryptonite bank instead. same old same old, what people had already seen over 20 years ago, and thats why it didn't generate the word of mouth needed to stay in the top 10 beyond the 4 week of release.


But Peven, it did do well, it did as well as Batman Begins, better in fact. Roughly the same amount of people went to BB as went to SR and no-one says BB didn't do well.

SR's budget was huge, I'd say too much for any movie. I think I even had a moan that at least 50 mil of it probably went on huge trailers and uber gourmet catering. No one is arguing with you that it didn't make a big profit for WB. What we are taking issue with, is your insistence that it didn't do well or resonate or that people were underwhelmed. By your own logic that means BB didn't do well, didn't resonate and people were underwhelmed.

So Peven, before you go any further - do you think Batman Begins, didn't do well, didn't resonate and was underwhelming?

Because according to you, if a movie only attracts however many people it takes to get a 200mil domestic gross; it doesn't capture people's imaginations, it doesn't excite them and there is some fault with the director.



actually, i do see BB as clearly being a more successful movie than SR. it had a production budget of $150 million, before promotional costs, while SR had a budget of somewhere between $200-$210 million before promotional costs. i would also bet good money that the promotional costs of SR were higher than BB's too. BB grossed $205 million domestic, which is more than SR is likely to reach. in fact, SR may very well NOT even break the $200 million mark. so, BB cost at least $50 million less to make, and made at least $5 million more. you do the math.

plus, regardless of the revisionism attempted here, the expectations were not as high for BB as they were for SR. the failure and horridness of the last couple Batman movies was still somewhat fresh in peoples' minds, and since he was new to the genre, Nolan's reboot concept did not receive the same faith as Singer got for how succesful his Superman would be, following the success of X2.


now, as for trying to put words in my mouth about how i only regard films that make over $200 million a success...thats assinine. i clearly stated that budget was a major part of the equation when determining the box office/financial success of a film. and i also made it clear i was refering to blockbuster/tentpole movies. anybody with half a brain should understand that if a movie like "Little Miss Sunshine" makes $100 million it is much more successful than a movie like SR that makes $200 million. and guess what, i believe "Little Miss Sunshine" will also leave its audience feeling more satisfied in paying their $10 after they see it than SR's audience felt.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:57 pm

So by your rationale Peven only movies that are financially successful are good movies (ie movies audiences and critics enjoy)? Everything else is both a failure financially and as art.
Last edited by Chairman Kaga on Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:57 pm

Peven, it's customary to address the points the other person made when you have a debate. Give it a go, huh?

Let me explain this again. 20 million people went to see BB paying 10 dollars each that gives it a 200 million dollar B.O.
It achieved that after being on release for 130 days.

SR has been on release for under half that time and made 195 million.

Superman isn't being pulled from all cinemas yet just as BB wasn't pulled at this time last year.

You do the math.

But the real point is that roughly the SAME AMOUNT of people went to see BB as went to see SR.

You understand that right?

The fact that SR cost more has no bearing on how many people went to see it, or how much they enjoyed it or whether they would pay to see it.

You are using SR's B.O performance to try and prove that Singer's film didn't "capture the excitement of the summer audience" because only 20 million people went to see it.

But only 20 million people went to see BB so by your own bizzare douchelogic that film also failed to capture the audiences excitement.


As I've said before no-one is disputing that SR isn't a profit maker for the studio, what they continue to disprove is your, now clearly beligerent insistence, that the film didn't strike a chord with the audience and that the audience was underwhelmed. You have no proof for this. It's box office take is the same as Batmans, the budgets of either film don't make the tiniest bit of difference when calcualting how many people went to see a movie and by your reasoning how much they enjoyed it.

It's an obvious thing Peven, I'm suprised you seem so blind to it.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:16 pm

Thanks Tony for getting my point and the point of many others here.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:44 pm

"douchelogic"? isn't that a telecommunications company out of Texas?

look, i get tired explaining the same thing over and over in varying terms while you guys seem determined to play some sort of 3rd grade, "i know what you are, but what am i" game. on the one hand, you want to say that SR made so much money, and thats evidence of how good it is, then you turn around and question box office as having any bearing on a movie's quality. total situational logic. whatever particular argument fits the need at the time, regardless if it contradicts a previous point.

all i can say is, read what i wrote again, only this time without your preconcieved notion of what you think i am saying before i say it. if you can do that, honestly, maturely, you'll see i don't call SR a failure, just that it did not live up to audience expectations, or it would have made more $, nor do i state in any way that a movie's inherent quality is based on box office numbers. when i use the term successful, i expect it to be understood as "how well the movie did at the box office, compared to its budget and expectations", just like the word would be understood in any other context in this reality. not in regard to a movie's artistic/aesthetic quality. "success" would not be the correct word to use in that context. there are movies i think are great, but were not successful. there are movies it think suck ass, but are immensely successful. get it?
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:49 pm

You're talking about profit then, Peven, or, I suppose, "box office success." A film can be successful or unsuccessful based solely on its artistic merit.

I realize you know this, I just thought it was worth clarifying for the discussion.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:55 pm

Peven wrote: on the one hand, you want to say that SR made so much money, and thats evidence of how good it is, then you turn around and question box office as having any bearing on a movie's quality. total situational logic.

Who said "it made so much money it was good". I was disputing your statement that the movie failed to generate interest or audience appreciation and did not live up to the material by pointing out it interested more people (asses in the seats) than any previous Superman film (in fact more than 3 of them combined).
Peven wrote:why is it so hard for people to admit that Singer dropped the ball on this one? he failed to produce a movie that lived up to the potential of the material, to expectations of the public, and to expectations of the industry. plain and simple.

The bold section is what I am arguing against. Obviously the industry ie WB expected more money. The Public doesn't care about a movie's Box Office take. They care about a movie's content and obviously alot of people went to see it compared to the earlier films thus alot of people must have been interested in Singer's take on the material. So then Singer did not drop the ball with regards to those two statements by you. If you want to squarely blame him solely for the financial mediocrity of the film then so be it but that doesn't mean he made a movie people did not generally like.
Last edited by Chairman Kaga on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:57 pm

Wow, you still miss what I'm saying by a mile.

You are the one who says that it didn't resonate with the audience, that it didn't capture they're excitement and your ONLY evidence for this is the box office take. However it has the same box office take as BB yet you don't say that movie failed to capture the audiences excitement or resonate with them.

If you could actually admit to having made an error in your reasoning you'd be abale to conjure enough magnamity to see that people are agreeing that the film isn't a success in financial terms for WB.

However you keep repeating that fact, as if it's something I or others are not conceding, when we make every effort to clearly state that we are.

What you are not acknowledging is that you need you need to judge films on a equal scale. By that I mean a big budget summer movie vs another big budget summer movie.

Fact 1) BB and SR made the same amount or very close to.

Fact 2) Regardless of how much they cost to make or market, about 20 million people went to see them.

You argument is that because one film cost more than the other, the people who went to see them were less excited by the more expensive one, as if the cost somehow relates to an audience members enjoyment of a movie.

But that supposition is totally false, the cost of a movie has NO absolute bearing on how excited someone is when watching it.

Could you PLEASE try to prove why you think differently about it?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:55 pm

i honestly think that you can't put SR and BB in the same catagory. the are related, cousins, genre-wise, but not brothers, not apples and apples. i explained earlier that BB was a dark, new, take on the franchise, by a director most were unfamiliar with. by its very construct i wouldn't apeal as wide a demographic as SR was supposed to. even more fundamental than that, i would say that the characters themselves are not equal in their apeal to audiences, with Batman being a dark, violent, pseudo-neurotic character, having less apeal to little kids, women, you know, the obligatory "family friendly" demographic. meanwhile, Superman is apple pie, America, girl scout cookies, the boy next door, a hero's hero. which means Batman's potential audience is smaller than Superman's potential audience, so if they each draw the same real number of people, then Batman has actually done a better job of pleasing and drawing in its potential audience.

the way SR tracked it is more typical of what people complain about these days with big budget movies; a big opening week, then quickly tailing off due to lack of substance to provide good word of mouth and "legs". while SR may have satisfied some of you 20-30 yr old male fans, the fact is, the potential audience for SR was the same as for POTC:2, the whole family. and as much as the general publics' taste is denegrated these days, they actually do respond to a good movie that is made for multiple demographics. now, sure, you could defend Singer by saying that he didn't make a disappointing movie, just one that had limited demographic appeal. fair enough. i would accept that argument. but no one has tried to say that.


now, as for the subjective realm of how good it was, where its simply a matter of an individual's opinion, i'd say Singer made as much money as a movie as flat as SR was could realistically make. i don't care for the remake/sequel-hybrid storyline, Luthor's land scheme, yet again going to the 'ol kryptonite well as a threat to Supes, Lois was weak as hell compared to Donner's, the whole mopey, stalker Superman thing, and have no use for the superkid or the plot holes his existance creates. but, i will say Routh makes a much better Superman than i thought he would, and if given a good story and direction in a future movie he should do well.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:16 pm

And yet a dark brooding X-Men 1 and 2 did fantastically and they weren't even super well known like Supes or Bats, a conflicted darkish Spiderman did amazingly well too. The original Batman was a fucking MEGA smash and that was darker and weirder than BB.

In fact the dark brooding characters are clearly in fashion at the moment.

Audiences are clearly well up for darker charaters, hell even films like the matrix which are dark sci-fi noirs find a huge audience.

Your point that the potential audiences are not equal is spurious to say the least. You can't really claim with any amount of authority what something's potential audience is. Certainly not with enough authority to describe 20 million people liking the film as proof that Singer was at fault when compared to 20 million people loving BB is proof that it's a great film that resonated with audiences.
Check out the fave Superhero thread, Batman is damn high on a lot of lists he's a hugely popular icon - the Batman insignia is probably just as recognisable as the Superman badge.

But basically what you are trying to say is that because Superman is less angsty he should make much much more than 200mil and that 20 million people having their excitement captured by a movie isn't good enough for you.

Wow, that's something fucked up troll logic going on right there.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Peven on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:20 pm

look, Toney, its clear that anything other than praise for SR and Singer will be considered trolling by you, so why am i wasting my time trying to make a well-thought point? seriously, take a step back and get a bit of objectivity. its clear you are too big a fan to have any at this point. notwithstanding that, i'm done.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:28 pm

Duck Season!
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:38 pm

Peven wrote:look, Toney, its clear that anything other than praise for SR and Singer will be considered trolling by you, so why am i wasting my time trying to make a well-thought point? seriously, take a step back and get a bit of objectivity. its clear you are too big a fan to have any at this point. notwithstanding that, i'm done.


'pamp.

:roll:




As it stands I was reading through the zone's archives, looking over the rules and statutes, the by laws and rulings and I found something really very appropriate for me and others to remember when dealing with you.




















Image






You could have just admitted to some faulty logic on your part regarding BB's and SR's performance. But y'know whatever. At least allow me to explain why you keep seeing people talk about strawman arguments so much...can you guess? It's because... you keep FUCKING making them
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Doc Holliday on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Do you know what...is there a full moon tonight or something? Its kicking off all over the place tonight.

Mea Culpa too I'm afraid. :oops:

Breaks bread. Gets out acoustic guitar. Clears throat.

"I gaaaaaveeeee my love a chicken,

...it haaad no bone...."
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby magicmonkey on Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:13 pm

Doc Holliday wrote:Do you know what...is there a full moon tonight or something? Its kicking off all over the place tonight.

Mea Culpa too I'm afraid. :oops:

Breaks bread. Gets out acoustic guitar. Clears throat.

"I gaaaaaveeeee my love a chicken,

...it haaad no bone...."


*Laughs insanely*
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:04 am

Looking at Superman Returns strictly from a financial point of view, yes, it underperformed. It will not see the black until the ancillary revenues start pouring in. But $375 - $400 million worldwide is nothing to sneeze at. How many superhero flicks cracked that number? Four? And two of them were Spider-man movies? And the other two were X-Men movies? Warner Bros. should be disappointed because they overestimated the market for this film. They were hoping it'd be the next Spider-man. Was that a realistic expectation? That's up for debate.

More than 30 million tickets have been sold for SR domestically. So about 5 million more tickets were sold for X3. Is that the magic number that qualifies for "the masses"? 31 million isn't wide appeal, but 36 million is? Do you know how crazy that sounds? Not to mention that SR was generally well received whereas X3 was not. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but what film is?

I can admit the film underperformed. But who knows how it would have performed if it had another week before the onslaught of POTC2? Timing does account for a portion of the box office. Everyone was looking forward to POTC2. Mainly old school Supes fans and Singer-devouts were anticipating SR. And you know, outside of the first week, its weekend percentage drops have been less than 50%. You're telling me people aren't responding to this movie? They may be unsuccessful in getting other butts in theaters, but people are definitely seeing this movie.

Call it a "disappointment." Call it an "underperformer." But you can't say it flopped. You can't say there wasn't an audience for it. You can't say it wasn't a successful relaunch of the series. It tastefully got the brand out in the public again, just like Batman Begins did. The b.o. proves there was an audience. Now all Warner Bros. has to do is figure out how to expand it and turn a nice profit the next time around. You know, the same job they have for Batman Begins which apparently was a successful relaunch of a series, though it's b.o. and critical response is on par with SR. (wacky)
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby MasterWhedon on Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:49 pm

This article was posted today, focuses a bit more on Singer and Superman than X3:

Anne Thompson, Hollywood Reporter wrote:Fox got bigger hit, but WB happy with Singer

As summer nears its end, "X-Men: The Last Stand," which nabbed middling reviews, seems to have exceeded expectations with a $441 million worldwide gross, while "Superman Returns" -- though it earned a strong, positive ranking of 76% on RottenTomatoes.com -- has yet to break the $200 million mark domestically. Although "Superman" is still playing overseas with a $347 million worldwide gross to date, it has failed to return on its lofty expectations. The drama behind Bryan Singer's departure from 20th Century Fox's "X-Men" franchise to direct "Superman" for Warner Bros. Pictures left much Sturm und Drang in its wake. But who were the real winners and losers on this deal?

Warners was delighted to poach Singer -- a proven tentpole director with a canny understanding of the action-adventure universe -- from Fox. He was available because Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairman Tom Rothman had been playing a game of chicken with him on his "Last Stand" deal: Singer wanted to cash in on the final installment of the "X-Men" saga. When Warners lured Singer away with the chance to direct "Superman" and a top-dollar deal -- sources say it was $10 million vs. 7% of the gross -- Rothman was livid. He promptly shut down Singer's Bad Hat Harry Prods. office on the Fox lot -- though Singer returned the next day to the Fox set of his TV series "House."

"We were in a heightened emotional state of mind," Fox president Hutch Parker says. "We believed that Bryan was going to do 'X-Men 3,' and when he made a different choice, it was scary and daunting to be losing someone so essential to the expression of the franchise. We had to rethink how to approach this. There was a lot of anxiety for everybody."

Rather than wait for Singer, Fox made the decision to go full steam ahead. "We needed the movie," Parker says, "and it was critical that it get made in that window. We were wary about where the comic movie would be in the larger cycle."

Fox first proceeded with director Matthew Vaughn and then Brett Ratner to meet the tentpole's original May 26 release date. But it cost the studio to make that target. (According to sources close to the movie, "Last Stand" cost about $168 million after tax rebates.) Producer Lauren Shuler Donner shouldered the burden of wrestling the movie into submission; the studio rushed two pricey screenwriters, Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg, to complete their scripts; and the studio paid dearly to get elaborate visual effects from about six FX houses, including Weta Digital, finished in time. In the short term, the studio clearly won the summer 2006 battle with Warners. But where is the "X-Men" franchise going forward?

Singer was the creative force behind the "X-Men" franchise, and now he's gone. Ratner is not in the picture; the sense in Hollywood is that Fox scored with "Last Stand" despite the director, not because of him. With its "X-Men" actors now too expensive to reassemble, Fox is proceeding with development on two "X-Men" spinoffs, starring Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (David Benioff and David Ayer have written drafts) and Ian McKellen as Magneto. The bloom is definitely off the "X-Men" rose. One could argue that in the long term, the studio would have been better off paying Singer to keep him or waiting to get him back. (Rothman and Singer eventually buried the hatchet over lunch.)

Freed from Fox's tough budget controls ("X-Men" cost $80 million and "X-Men 2" $120 million), Singer was ecstatic to be moving to a studio like Warners, which was willing to let him spend. But at the July 2005 Comic-Con International in San Diego, perhaps in a heady state of jet lag from his long flight from the "Superman" set in Australia, Singer launched the film's marketing campaign on a spectacularly wrong foot, happily proclaiming that the movie he was shooting was the studio's most expensive movie ever and might cost $250 million. From that moment on, Warners marketing tried to manage that number.

In fact, Warners failed to get out from behind that disastrous budget. The Internet ran rampant with reports that the movie was in the $300 million range. When the studio admitted to writing off about $60 million in costs from all the previous iterations of "Superman," some reporters added that to the studio's official $209 million budget -- a figure no one ever believed. If Warners had convinced Singer from the start to make a movie closer to two hours, it might have saved some money and come out ahead, instead of leaving entire $10 million sequences on the cutting-room floor.

"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."

But what really mattered to Warners was the successful relaunch of its franchise, and to that end they wanted to keep their director happy -- even if it meant letting him deliver a two-hour, 40-minute movie. "If Warners goes ahead with the 'Superman Returns' sequel," says producer Swell Dude ("From Hell"), "then they've ended up well because they've gone from having a wannabe franchise to a real franchise."

Returning to Comic-Con in July, Singer announced that he and Warners are in discussions about doing the sequel for 2009. But Singer said he "had certain issues" with Warners' marketing campaign. He also acknowledged his film's competition. "We had a little 'Pirates' and a little 'Prada.' It is a chick flick to some degree; it is a love story."

As challenging as it was for Singer to re-establish "Superman" by building on Richard Donner's 1978 classic, he also was working with a decidedly retro hero from a bygone time. There was little that Warners marketing could do to make Superman seem less square, wholesome and, finally, old-fashioned. (The "X-Men" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchises do seem younger, hipper and more dangerous.) Choosing to reprise Lex Luthor might have been a too-familiar choice as well. "Bryan kicked ass," journalist Cheo Hodari Coker says. "But the principal argument does hold: Does the world really need Superman? Clark is a big blue Boy Scout. I wonder if this generation really has any heroes. Everyone is pushing in some way to be unheroic."

But Singer does know where he has to go with the sequel. He told Comic-Can fans that he would add more "scary sci-fi in the next movie." "We can now go to into the action realm."

While some "Superman Returns" viewers objected to the addition of an illegitimate child of Lois Lane and Superman (which never appeared in any of the comic books), Singer intends to proceed with that story arc. "There's a lot of room to go with that character and his upbringing and human background and Krypton heritage," he says. "He's the genetic material of both parents. Superman doesn't have that. It's hard to write for Superman. He's a tough character to create insurmountable obstacles for. This one is unique and insurmountable." For the sequel, Singer will be able to expand and play around with what he's introduced, and "bring in more of the energy" of the contemporary comics, he promised.

Singer likely will do another movie before the sequel to "Superman Returns," according to sources, possibly Warner Independent's "The Mayor of Castro Street" or "Logan's Run" at the big studio. Finally, though, Warners president Alan Horn and production chief Jeff Robinov want this tentpole director to be making movies on their lot -- and not Fox's. And that may, in the long run, be the real payoff to their "Superman Returns" investment.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Peven on Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:34 pm

wow. so Supe's son is going to be written and grown into a full blown "super" character all his own, outside comic canon. that shows some real creative cajones on Singer's part, and might be just the kind of thing to give the sequel the sense of novelty and excitement SR needed more of. if Singer can take things up a notch or two the way he did with X2, from X1, the SR sequel should do well.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby MasterWhedon on Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:51 pm

There's an article in the LA Times in which Alan Horn talks about Warner Bros.' rare down year and the SR sequel. He's planning for 2009.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Peven on Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:11 pm

that would give Singer about a year to get a storyline worked out since you'd think he would need to start shooting in late '07 or early'08 for a spring/summer '09 release of the sequel.

i wonder how far, chronologically, he plans to go in telling the story in the sequel? will it be a coming of age story for Supe's son with the whole, "finding an indentity" teen rebellion thing? he can tell an origin story of his own, in a way. showing how the son of Superman grows into his powers, finds his own path to fit in with humanity, since after all, unlike his dad he is part human, and then how he decides to use whatever powers he has inherited from dear old dad, whether for personal gain or selfless pursuit of "truth, justice and yada yad yada".


maybe when the sequel comes out SR, in retrospect, it will be seen as a needed starting point for Singer's grander vision.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby Chairman Kaga on Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:18 pm

I'm glad they are sticking with Singer and sticking with the kid.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Peven on Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:51 pm

i hope Singer decides to do Logan's Run next. i can still vividly remember the night it first aired on tv, my little brother and i loved it though we were disappointed Farrah had such a small part in it, and watched the tv series religiously, while it lasted. i just hope he gets the kind of budget needed to do it justice.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby monorail77 on Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:59 pm

Logan's Run would be great. I remember that thing on his hand and those masks people wore during Carousel scared the crap out of me as a kid.
"All we have is language; that's the one tool that enables us to grasp hold of our lives and transcend our fate by understanding it."
-Harlan Ellison

Image
User avatar
monorail77
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Location, Location

Postby DennisMM on Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:28 pm

I'd like to see Logan's Run done more faithfully to the book, but it's unlikely. They won't want to play the piece as young as it was written, with all the main characters teenagers.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:05 pm

I fully expect Singer to take the foundation he created in SR and really build up the mythology in the sequel, a la X2. He might have to shoot a tighter script (to keep that budget in check), but I don't really see anything wrong with that. Why spend $200 million on a movie if only $160 million worth of stuff is going to end up in the final product?
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Shane on Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:39 am

User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Leckomaniac on Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:52 am

"I'm Batman"

"Dude you say that A LOT"

That made me laugh.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Shane on Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:03 am

User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Leckomaniac on Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:13 am

That is my favorite part of the Kevin Smith DVD.

"Did he bring up the giant spider?"

"YEAH! What's with that?!?!?"

Classic
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Doc Holliday on Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:10 am

Peven wrote:i wonder how far, chronologically, he plans to go in telling the story in the sequel? will it be a coming of age story for Supe's son with the whole, "finding an indentity" teen rebellion thing? he can tell an origin story of his own, in a way. showing how the son of Superman grows into his powers, finds his own path to fit in with humanity, since after all, unlike his dad he is part human, and then how he decides to use whatever powers he has inherited from dear old dad, whether for personal gain or selfless pursuit of "truth, justice and yada yad yada".


Do you know what? fuck that shit. I'm sorry - I have no interest in Superman becoming a frustrated teen drama. This is exactly why the arse fell out of my world when that sneeze took place in SR. Yet again Singer takes a superhero title and reveals the "tender" side - without being fucking asked to. Will SuperDad understand? Who does the boy relate to more? He never asked for any of this...why can't he be like the other kids?

Fuck off, all of it...just fuck right off.

I want them all to kneel, kneel before Zod.

Instead we get "Thirteen - now with laser eyes".

Brilliant.
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby Peven on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:23 am

Doc Holliday wrote:
Peven wrote:i wonder how far, chronologically, he plans to go in telling the story in the sequel? will it be a coming of age story for Supe's son with the whole, "finding an indentity" teen rebellion thing? he can tell an origin story of his own, in a way. showing how the son of Superman grows into his powers, finds his own path to fit in with humanity, since after all, unlike his dad he is part human, and then how he decides to use whatever powers he has inherited from dear old dad, whether for personal gain or selfless pursuit of "truth, justice and yada yad yada".


Do you know what? fuck that shit. I'm sorry - I have no interest in Superman becoming a frustrated teen drama. This is exactly why the arse fell out of my world when that sneeze took place in SR. Yet again Singer takes a superhero title and reveals the "tender" side - without being fucking asked to. Will SuperDad understand? Who does the boy relate to more? He never asked for any of this...why can't he be like the other kids?

Fuck off, all of it...just fuck right off.

I want them all to kneel, kneel before Zod.

Instead we get "Thirteen - now with laser eyes".

Brilliant.


:lol: :lol: did you read Quint's interview with Shia Labeouf? he was talking about comic movies, how Bay makes action movies, how he is making Transformers an action movie, not like Singer who makes romantic movies with an action element. i think Singer follows the paycheck, since he isn't really an action/comic guy, but became marketable due to X-Men, and since then that has been the genre he can get paid the most for working in. as long as studios have him classified as an fx/action guy, and will only pay him big money for those types of films, then i think Singer will continue to make them, and you can't really blame him for that. its a job, and he wants to get paid as much as possible. you don't become considered a particularly artistic or accomplished director that way, but you can become quite wealthy. kind of like Ratner. :P
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:34 am

Should Raimi drop the melodrama in the Spidey flicks? Should Ang Lee have dropped the pathos of Hulk? Did the strong character work in the first two X-flicks lessen your enjoyment? Face it: the most successful superhero flicks of the modern era all have that "tender side." It's what people relate to. I don't see how you can fault Singer for this when all the main movies are riding the same train.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby TonyWilson on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:38 am

:shock: I wasn't here. I swear.
Last edited by TonyWilson on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:39 am

But in the context of those films, the pathos worked. Having the kid as part of Superman's world felt, and some would say is, unnecessary in the context of the story. I don't think Doc is rallying against using emotion in superhero flicks more than pointing out something that felt contrived in a movie that many complain was already part remake/part sequel... and yet neither of both.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Peven on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:44 am

the fact is, though, that you don't hear people talking about Spiderman 1 or 2 being romance, angst filled movies with some action thrown in, like you hear people say about Singer's movies. and you don't hear people saying that about Hulk either. you hear that people wanted more Hulk smash action, or that the ending of Hulk was bizarre, or that Spidey didn't crack wise enough, or that the Green Goblin's costume looked like Power Rangers. the issue isn't about your, or my own, perception. its about how others see these films, and when even an actor like LaBeuof singles out Singer as making romance movies that have some action in them you can't ignore that. or maybe you can, if your loyalty to Singer is strong and blind enough. :roll:
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14536
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby DennisMM on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:47 am

I'd agree that the kid turning out to have erratic abilities was unnecessary. Just make him Clark's son, half-Kryptonian and powerless, ignorant of his father's identity. That would work for me.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:47 pm

I thought him having a son was very necessary in the context of the story Singer told. And I imagine it will be necessary in any future Superman stories Singer tells as well. I think some people are just plain against the idea of Superman (or even Lois Lane for that matter) having a son. To me, it opens up possibilities. I don't see how it limits the story in the least.

If Singer does something stupid with Jason in the next movie, I'll be the first one to call him on it. But he hasn't done anything yet so I'm not getting all worried about what could go wrong and instead I'm hoping for what could go right.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Chairman Kaga on Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:39 pm

Ribbons wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:And I imagine it will be necessary in any future Superman stories Singer tells as well.


Don't know about there. I could very easily be mistaken, but I sort of assumed that the kid was brought in so that Superman placing him in the hands of an adoptive family could parallel the decision his father made for his sake; not necessarily for anything else in particular, though.

Just like Jesus......wait......
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:40 pm

We'll see. For me, there's other family drama movies that're a little more weighty.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Doc Holliday on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:34 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:But in the context of those films, the pathos worked. Having the kid as part of Superman's world felt, and some would say is, unnecessary in the context of the story. I don't think Doc is rallying against using emotion in superhero flicks more than pointing out something that felt contrived in a movie that many complain was already part remake/part sequel... and yet neither of both.


Quite right - thank you :D

And I will declare my subjectivity for all to see as well - because I'm not trying to assert any kind of right or wrong here, at all.

I, personally, am not interested in seeing a kids story in Superman. Not one bit. Its not the story I want to see. So all I'm saying is I can't look forward too much to the next Supes film before its even begun shooting because of what a substantial part of it is going to be about.

This news took the jam from my donut, if you will.

Its just a taste thing - I think of all the other stories they could have done in its place - I mean, really we've only had Supes I & II and now SR worthy of a place in the canon....and now we get SuperBrat on the scene. And whatever way you cut it...the next story will heavily revolve around the dynamic between Superman and a kid.

Most peoples complaints about SR is where was the action....and this plot development hardly inspires me.

Don't mean I'm right, don't mean I'm wrong. Don't mean Singer's good, don't mean Singer's bad. He's a talented Director...but I liken the feeling his actions scenes give me to that underwhelming sensation you get when that sneeze just never comes......

ah.......ah.......ah.....ah......AH.......


.............



.........


oh.
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby thebostonlocksmith on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:43 pm

Snatch? am i right?
User avatar
thebostonlocksmith
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:31 am

Postby Doc Holliday on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:45 pm

Could well be....but the first time I ever saw it....well, credit has to go to none other than Colonel Lugz himself.

I always promised myself I'd steal it....Gabrielle was right, dreams really can come true....
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby Doc Holliday on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:48 pm

BWA-HA! BWA-HA-HA! BWA....oh, you get the gist.... :wink:
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby Doc Holliday on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:53 pm

Heh!

Hmm. I wonder....maybe Supes could send his kid to the same school as Zod Jnr?

I'm just looking for the compromise.... :D
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby thebostonlocksmith on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:53 pm

Gabrielle - dreams can come true...

Didn't she only have one eye? and didn't her boyfriend go to prison for murder? and didn't she get engaged to one of the blokes from east17, the one who ran HIMSELF over in his car...

damn,she must have some proper crazy arsed dreams...
User avatar
thebostonlocksmith
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:31 am

Postby Lady Sheridan on Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:25 am

I'm embarressed to say that I am the last Zoner to see Superman Returns.

I didn't like it. It's hard for me to remember the Christopher Reeve Supermans (long past time to see them again) so I can't compare them without majorly bullshitting. So consider me a Superman newcomer and for basis of comparison, I'll use Singer's X1.

Now, I usually think it is really cheesy when films kowtow to the uninitiated--it's unfair to those who are familiar with the story and characters. But Superman Returns needed some of that--it's not that I don't know who Superman is, but this movie starts you in the middle of a story. And it leaves you in the middle of a story. I felt I was in the middle of a story arc, rather than at the start of a new one.

In contrast, the first X-Men really set a newcomer up well. I knew the characters from the old cartoon, but not that well. I liked getting introduced to everyone again and I never felt lost. I shouldn't walk out of a movie needing to hit up Wikipedia. Maybe to longtime X-Men fans the movie was painfully simplistic that way and they would have preferred a Superman Returns.

As Adam Balm said in his brilliant review, more time should have been spent on the farm. Superman needed to re-establish who he was, not only for himself, but for this new audience. You don't need to painfully tread over the obvious (he gets his powers from our yellow sun!) but it would have been nice to get a bit of backstory, especially in regards to the Fortress of Solitude.

For that matter, how DID Lex Luthor know where it was and how to work the crystals? If I don't know how it works, how does he? Hmm. His whole plot was completely confusing. I'm glad Luthor understood about Krypton crystals and water but it would have been nice if he shared it with his henchmen and thus, his audience...

Lois Lane was a really really weak point. I don't want to do the popular fanboy/girl thing and rip on the love interest--but she was either a bitch or a blank. It's like the only way Singer could write a "career woman" was to make her snappish and a lousy mother. How are you supposed to understand Superman if you can't see why he loves Lois? Ironically, the character I liked the most was Richard...although all I kept thinking was how much it sucked to lose your girls to Wolverine and Superman, respectively. ;)

I'm neither here nor there on Routh which is a bad thing. The character of Superman shouldn't inspire indifference. I need to go back and watch Christopher Reeve again. I can really only remember the scene where he takes Lois flying. I think Routh came off too serious--I know Superman is one of the most humorless of action heroes, but Reeve had a certain dashing twinkle that I don't think Routh managed.

How much was the acting of Routh and Bosworth and how much was the script and Singer? I'm not sure who to blame. Except for the god-awful Halle Berry, I was hooked on all the X-Men by the first movie and thought they did a great job. I didn't walk out indifferent on Cyclops and Wolverine. Was that because of James Marsters and Hugh Jackman being more talented (given the performance Marsters turns in here, I might have to say yes) or because the script was better?

All and all, I thought it was a dull ride. Except for the costumes. Man, did I want Kate Bosworth's clothes, especially her 40's shoes. And Superman had the coolest boots ever.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby RogueScribner on Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:27 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:Now, I usually think it is really cheesy when films kowtow to the uninitiated--it's unfair to those who are familiar with the story and characters. But Superman Returns needed some of that--it's not that I don't know who Superman is, but this movie starts you in the middle of a story. And it leaves you in the middle of a story. I felt I was in the middle of a story arc, rather than at the start of a new one.


This was the challenge Singer was faced with: acknowledge the Reeve films or start completely over. I don't think it was a bad decision to acknowledge the Reeve films, but then I love Reeve as Superman. It's a vague history and I think we know everything we need to know by the end of the first act. I too would have liked more time on the Kent farm, but the film was already running long. I don't think too many people would have been jazzed to see a 3 hour Superman movie. There were enough complaints about the 3 hour King Kong movie!


In contrast, the first X-Men really set a newcomer up well. I knew the characters from the old cartoon, but not that well. I liked getting introduced to everyone again and I never felt lost. I shouldn't walk out of a movie needing to hit up Wikipedia. Maybe to longtime X-Men fans the movie was painfully simplistic that way and they would have preferred a Superman Returns.


I think more people knew the broad strokes of Superman lore before SR than people who knew the broad strokes of X-Men lore prior to X1. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. If Singer took a similar approach to the material, people would be whining about covering old ground (which some people still whine about anyway).


For that matter, how DID Lex Luthor know where it was and how to work the crystals? If I don't know how it works, how does he? Hmm. His whole plot was completely confusing. I'm glad Luthor understood about Krypton crystals and water but it would have been nice if he shared it with his henchmen and thus, his audience...


It was implied in the film that Lex had been to the FoS before, which is why he knew where to look for it and how to activate the crystals. i didn't really have a problem with the way it was presented. What I was more confused about was what Lex was planning on doing once New Krypton was formed. It's always bugged me that after Superman was disposed of, we cut back to Lex looking pensive and his henchmen playing cards.


Lois Lane was a really really weak point. I don't want to do the popular fanboy/girl thing and rip on the love interest--but she was either a bitch or a blank. It's like the only way Singer could write a "career woman" was to make her snappish and a lousy mother. How are you supposed to understand Superman if you can't see why he loves Lois? Ironically, the character I liked the most was Richard...although all I kept thinking was how much it sucked to lose your girls to Wolverine and Superman, respectively. ;)


I'll concede this point, but while Lois didn't add to my enjoyment of the film, I didn't really mind her all that much either. I think it's Kate Bosworth's performance. I really think if someone a bit more mature and personable played the role it would have gone a long way to making Lois a true match for Superman. As it stands, the relationship does seem a bit lopsided.


I'm neither here nor there on Routh which is a bad thing. The character of Superman shouldn't inspire indifference. I need to go back and watch Christopher Reeve again. I can really only remember the scene where he takes Lois flying. I think Routh came off too serious--I know Superman is one of the most humorless of action heroes, but Reeve had a certain dashing twinkle that I don't think Routh managed.


I think Routh acquitted himself just fine. His Superman was rather serious, but that was the Superman Singer was presenting us with. I think Routh has presented us with a great Clark Kent and his Superman should lighten up a little now that he's found what he was looking for. Superman left Earth because he was desperate for a familial connection, something more tangible than old photographs of Pa Kent or the holograms of Jor-El. He sought out a piece of his heritage and he found it in Jason. Now that Superman has a personal investment in something (rather than a mere obligation of duty to the world) he should be a happier superhero. There were glimmers of something deeper in Routh's performance, but Superman was keeping himself in check, trying to keep that stoic facade up in front of others. Routh is no Reeve, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I took to him in the role.


All and all, I thought it was a dull ride. Except for the costumes. Man, did I want Kate Bosworth's clothes, especially her 40's shoes. And Superman had the coolest boots ever.


I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie more. My first viewing was spent comparing everything to the Reeve films and assimilating the new information. My second viewing peeled back the layers of the film and I ate up all the little flourishes and bits of subtext Singer and his writers laid into the story. I liked SR the first time I saw it, but I loved it the second time. I'm not saying you should watch the movie again, LS, but only that I missed a lot of stuff my first time around and it took another viewing to truly appreciate Singer's work.

I can understand some people's reservations with this movie. What I can't understand is how POTC:DMC was so popular. That was a mindnumbing experience.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Lady Sheridan on Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:47 am

RogueScribner wrote:

I think more people knew the broad strokes of Superman lore before SR than people who knew the broad strokes of X-Men lore prior to X1. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. If Singer took a similar approach to the material, people would be whining about covering old ground (which some people still whine about anyway).

It was implied in the film that Lex had been to the FoS before, which is why he knew where to look for it and how to activate the crystals. i didn't really have a problem with the way it was presented. What I was more confused about was what Lex was planning on doing once New Krypton was formed. It's always bugged me that after Superman was disposed of, we cut back to Lex looking pensive and his henchmen playing cards.



But MOST people is not all people. Look, I'm a pretty big geek and if I am confused by the finer mythological points of Superman Returns...what's your general, non-comic book, haven't seen the movies since the 80's audience going to think? I can really see why it didn't do well at the box office--it was just a tad too cryptic to get enough popular buzz. I think that's where my comparing it to X1 is spot on...that movie managed to capture alot of non X-Men fans. The only people SR really really has struck a chord with are longtime Superman fans. That's not who you need to win over--you need to be winning over a younger set so you can keep winning Superman an audience.

And yes, it was implied that Lex Luther had been there before--but frankly, when it comes to a plot point such as that...I want more than implication. I want a reason, even if it's just a line or two. When a secondary character asks "How'd you know, Lex?" and Lex just looks meaningfully into the camera...that just says to me that the writers couldn't really think of a reason. When I have to sit and fill in the story--a'la "How come Leia remembers Padme?" that's just a plot hole, not a deeper meaning.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests