why WB is so confident this time?

[sf2]

Superman Lives was about this close to get into production but got chopped away. Superman Flyby by JJ Abram was praised marvelously by WB but trashcan is it's destination. Superman vs Batman, WB and Peterson are so in love with it and having all the casting in mind, but it still didn't materialised.

finally...

SUPERMAN RETURNS!!!

why is WB so confident this time and invest in an amount of $250mil into it, making it as one of the most expensive movies in the filming history?

you can sing all you want to now... :)

[Chaos Bringer]

I do not know either. But I am going to the movie regardless.

[Zorex]

I'm guessing they have faith in Singer as a filmmaker, and probably liked his pitch fairly well, or at least enough to deviate from their previous, more MTV-aimed or reinvention attempts .

[nosebleed.]

Because they have Mr X2 behind it and they know he has a fanbase from it. I think that's the major reason.

[Motown Marvel]

because bryan singer is the f**king man and you know it!

[TheBat812]

I'm fairly confident this will be a great movie. Just the premise sells it. Then add the fact that Singer has two successful comic moives, and an amazing movie like Usual Suspects under his belt. I can't wait to see this damn movie!

[CConn]

Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.

Secondly, and definitely more importantly, Bryan Singer himself. Before you even talk about Singer's Superman concept, you have Singer himself. A director who has to his credit just not (what is generally thought of as) one of the greatest movies ever in The Usual Suspects, but also two excellently made blockbusters in X-Men 1 & 2.

Lastly, there's Singer's Superman movie concept itself. While many of us have lambasted it for just being another sequel, in truth it's really a rather original concept. Despite what we may say, this is the first film in a new series. Yet, it's not an origin, it's introduction, it's a return. With that return, it not only opens differently any other superhero franchise, it also delves deeper into sociological question than any superhero film before it. Does the world need Superman? Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.

I think it was those three main things that really sold it to WB.

[nosebleed.]

Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.

Secondly, and definitely more importantly, Bryan Singer himself. Before you even talk about Singer's Superman concept, you have Singer himself. A director who has to his credit just not (what is generally thought of as) one of the greatest movies ever in The Usual Suspects, but also two excellently made blockbusters in X-Men 1 & 2.

Lastly, there's Singer's Superman movie concept itself. While many of us have lambasted it for just being another sequel, in truth it's really a rather original concept. Despite what we may say, this is the first film in a new series. Yet, it's not an origin, it's introduction, it's a return. With that return, it not only opens differently any other superhero franchise, it also delves deeper into sociological question than any superhero film before it. Does the world need Superman? Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.

I think it was those three main things that really sold it to WB.

That gives me hope in the film...that he'll approach it from that point of view and take the material seriously.

[Octoberist]

I think that Warner Bros., after all of the trouble that they went through, finally found their man. They probably thought that Singer has THE vision to carry out this project. I'm glad that Alan Horn, the new head of WB, is in charge. With this and Batman Begins, DC is back in the market.

[sf2]

i think singer is really damn f**king good. MCG asking for $200mil, WB kicked him out of the room right away and said it is too expensive. but they give singer $250mil without sweat.

[Ita-KalEl]

sf2 why you are a troll?

[Octoberist]

Is he a troll? I mean, is he actually harrasing anyone here?

[nosebleed.]

suprafevra is not a troll. he just looks like one.

[Octoberist]

I still believe in the notion of just ignoring the ones that you don't get along with, ya know? It's not hard. :)

[nosebleed.]

I still believe in the notion of just ignoring the ones that you don't get along with, ya know? It's not hard. :)

where's the fun in that? it gets boring like this:

Guy1 "Supes is cool."

Guy2 "He sure is..."

Guy1 "........."

Guy2 "...so.......are you a virgin?"

and so forth.

[Kevin Roegele]

Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.

Secondly, and definitely more importantly, Bryan Singer himself. Before you even talk about Singer's Superman concept, you have Singer himself. A director who has to his credit just not (what is generally thought of as) one of the greatest movies ever in The Usual Suspects, but also two excellently made blockbusters in X-Men 1 & 2.

Lastly, there's Singer's Superman movie concept itself. While many of us have lambasted it for just being another sequel, in truth it's really a rather original concept. Despite what we may say, this is the first film in a new series. Yet, it's not an origin, it's introduction, it's a return. With that return, it not only opens differently any other superhero franchise, it also delves deeper into sociological question than any superhero film before it. Does the world need Superman? Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.

I think it was those three main things that really sold it to WB.

:up: Good points, well made.

Also, Warner Bros has been messing up Superman 5 for over a decade. There is no better time than to release it now, and they know it. If they stalled any longer they could miss the superhero movie craze altogether.

[Octoberist]

You HAVE to give the ULITMATE SUPERHERO OF THEM ALL the proper comeback party..JUST HAVE TO.

[nosebleed.]

You HAVE to give the ULITMATE SUPERHERO OF THEM ALL the proper comeback party..JUST HAVE TO.

Yeah, get him good n drunk.

[Octoberist]

That's Fing right!

[Kryptonite X]

In my opinion:

I think they had all these ideas wich turned into being a process that led up to SR.

They had their idea for the movie: Superman Lives - The fans hated it. Now, they know with a caracter such as Superman, they're sitting with a gold mine begging to start with production.

First of there was the fear of comic book movie as all the Batmans didn't turn out that well till the last one killed it. Then came Bryan Singer With X-men and made every studio invest in some kind of a superhero movie.

With Smallville and early on Lois and Clark being shows that was basicly market research and to check if the world still wants to see Superman.

When this turned out great for them, they wanted to find the right formula to play their biggest card.
With Catwoman and BB, they also got a fair idea of what people want to see and don't want to see in the world of today.

Then along came the director that blew new breath into comic-book adaptations and pich for their movie.
He must've blew the away with his ideas and being through a production hell for 10 years give and take, they must have realised why they always had been unsucsessfull and drop all pre production to give it to mr Singer.

I believe they had done their research over this period of time and believe they are confident in playing their final card in the Superhero-adaptation for the reasons I stated above.

[dark_b]

i also think that catwoman was a test. this movie was never ment to be big. this is just the way i am thinking.
and i stil think that changes are good.

[Oldguy]

why WB is so confident this time? Cause nobody does angst-ridden outcast misfit stories like Singer. WB knows teenagers eat that crap up. Make it a love story first and foremost, and the girlfriends will come as well. It's Superman, all the 10 year olds will be there. Lastly and most certainly least, most of the comic book fan base will go too, out of loyalty to the character.

With SR, WB has all there bases covered. Unfortuneatley the casual viewer is the target audience, otherwise I could be just as confident as WB.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I personally think thats how they shouldn't think about it...money..

It should be for the love of the craft and wanting to make a good movie..Thats why hollywood has lost it's way..money..

this movie has confidence because the Wb have something that we do not they have dailys..(footage from the day) they have oscar winner Kevin spacey, they have a great director and no doubt they must like what Brandon is doing.And the fact BB was the best movie of last year..well make your own conclusions.

[unknownuser]

my sentiments are exactly what everyone has already said--------> Bryan Singer is a very reliable filmmaker!

[Oldguy]

I personally think thats how they shouldn't think about it...money..

It should be for the love of the craft and wanting to make a good movie..Thats why hollywood has lost it's way..money..

this movie has confidence because the Wb have something that we do not they have dailys..(footage from the day) they have oscar winner Kevin spacey, they have a great director and no doubt they must like what Brandon is doing.And the fact BB was the best movie of last year..well make your own conclusions.
WAKE UP!
There's only one reason Hollywood makes movies anymore, $.
What would happen if they admitted this? Would it not hurt ticket sales? So don't expect Hollywood to admit it anytime soon.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

WAKE UP!
There's only one reason Hollywood makes movies anymore, $.
What would happen if they admitted this? Would it not hurt ticket sales? So don't expect Hollywood to admit it anytime soon.


Excuse me?

did you actully read what i typed?

:rolleyes:


I basicly said that. :up:

[dark_b]

yes they are making the movies because of money. everyyear they are making 100 of movies. some of them are good some of them are not. so what? if they wouldnt make movies for money they would never had money for a 250 mil budget.

i come on this boards because of ther pics and some info. but i will not cry if this movie is gona suck.

1. its just a movie.
2. get a life.

[Kryptonite X]

WAKE UP!
There's only one reason Hollywood makes movies anymore, $.
What would happen if they admitted this? Would it not hurt ticket sales? So don't expect Hollywood to admit it anytime soon.

Yes they want to make money, but they only can make money if they make a movie people want to watch.
Studios are in the game to make money. This is not a fan film and the fans are not even 5% of the people that write the studio's paychecks, and even if they for some reason disides to make a film for the fans, they never would be able to satisfy all the *****ing fanboys. (and they know that)

What are you complaining about?

[sf2]

the more i think about it, the more i think singer is incredibly superb.
MCG wanted $200mil and Ratner wanted an unknown got kicked right away, but singer just got everything he wants.

[dark_b]

the more i think about it, the more i think singer is incredibly superb.
MCG wanted $200mil and Ratner wanted an unknown got kicked right away, but singer just got everything he wants.
how do you know that singer wanted 200 mil of more ????????
how do you know that? what if singer just wanted to make a movie about superman with less money and WB gave him more money because they saw that singer is making the right thing?

[Kryptonite X]

^^

I fail to see your point?

[dark_b]

^^

I fail to see your point?my point?

[Super Kal]

I'm thinking the onely reason The WB are going with Singer is because he did so well with the XMen movies, and they feel that he can do just as well with DC's flagship character

[Kevin Roegele]

I personally think thats how they shouldn't think about it...money..

It should be for the love of the craft and wanting to make a good movie..Thats why hollywood has lost it's way..money...


Hollywood has always been a business. It's there for money.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Very true and of cause i agree..but what does that have to do with us as long as we want to see the movie.your going to pay anyway..I'm not really interested in how much money it makes just that i enjoy the movie.

:up:

[SuperFerret]

Not to be a troll, and my own personal feelings on the movie aside, the first post states explicitly that WB had full confidence in each and every other Superman 5 pitch up until the point when it failed, so it goes to show that they'd have confidence in Singer's movie, although in contrast to the previous pitches this one looks like it will definitely hit theatres.

[Nightwing1977]

Not to be a troll, and my own personal feelings on the movie aside, the first post states explicitly that WB had full confidence in each and every other Superman 5 pitch up until the point when it failed, so it goes to show that they'd have confidence in Singer's movie, although in contrast to the previous pitches this one looks like it will definitely hit theatres.

And it will be better than what Burton, Ratner, McG, & other try to do. Singer is known for using story more than action, which is why X-Men movies were fantastic. And so what about the money. How come no one said the same thing about Batman Begins? It always about money when it come to movies. Even Oscar type. People has to make a living somehow, you know. :p

[Alonsovich]

People has to make a living somehow, you know. :p

I wish that I made 1/10 of what a Hollywood studio hack makes... that's not making a living... that's making a fortune.

[Morg]

Superman Lives was about this close to get into production but got chopped away. Superman Flyby by JJ Abram was praised marvelously by WB but trashcan is it's destination. Superman vs Batman, WB and Peterson are so in love with it and having all the casting in mind, but it still didn't materialised.

finally...

SUPERMAN RETURNS!!!

why is WB so confident this time and invest in an amount of $250mil into it, making it as one of the most expensive movies in the filming history?

you can sing all you want to now... :)


WB saw my order of Superman stuff I placed I guess ;)

[Outsiderzedge]

WB saw my order of Superman stuff I placed I guess ;)

You're less than 9k away from having the most posts. :eek:

Want my posts? I could ask Dew or someone to add them to you. :D

[MatchesMalone]

WAKE UP!
There's only one reason Hollywood makes movies anymore, $.
What would happen if they admitted this? Would it not hurt ticket sales? So don't expect Hollywood to admit it anytime soon.

Oldguy, please, tell me the time when "Hollywood" (as in studios and distribution companies) were concerned about something OTHER than making money. I would love to know about this supposed "Hollywood". Was it in the 30's? the 20's? the 10's? When?

[Morg]

You're less than 9k away from having the most posts. :eek:

Want my posts? I could ask Dew or someone to add them to you. :D

what's the catch? I'm not giving any of my Superman collection to you :p

[rdh007]

Why is WB confident?

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/dvd_cover/x_men_dvd_klein.jpg

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/im_kino/2003/x_men_2_plakat_klein.jpg

http://www.thedvdreport.com/dvd_graphics/uvw/usual_suspects_dvd.jpg

[Dr. Fate]

Because they have Mr X2 behind it and they know he has a fanbase from it. I think that's the major reason.

Yeah more than likely, even though he still went and cast two MTV level actors to play the leads.

For all we know though it may turn out to be his 1941.

[JamalYIgle]

WAKE UP!
There's only one reason Hollywood makes movies anymore, $.
What would happen if they admitted this? Would it not hurt ticket sales? So don't expect Hollywood to admit it anytime soon.

ANYMORE?
Money is the only reason movies are ever made. Any one who tells you otherwise is deluded or lying. And before you start about Indy films every indy filmaker I've ever met would kill to have a major distributor handle their filem to what... say it with me class... MAKE A SHIATE LOAD OF CASH.

[Oldguy]

ANYMORE?
Money is the only reason movies are ever made. Any one who tells you otherwise is deluded or lying. And before you start about Indy films every indy filmaker I've ever met would kill to have a major distributor handle their filem to what... say it with me class... MAKE A SHIATE LOAD OF CASH.

Money wasn't the be all end all, like it is today until the corporations took over in the 70's. Now filmaking is a largely stangnant cesspool of remakes and sequels.

[Backdrifter]

I personally think thats how they shouldn't think about it...money..

It should be for the love of the craft and wanting to make a good movie..Thats why hollywood has lost it's way..money..

this movie has confidence because the Wb have something that we do not they have dailys..(footage from the day) they have oscar winner Kevin spacey, they have a great director and no doubt they must like what Brandon is doing.And the fact BB was the best movie of last year..well make your own conclusions.

The best movie of last year? BB came out THIS year...and FYI, it was NOT the best movie of the year...not at all. BB was deeply flawed, and I can name about 10 movies that came out this year that were better.

[JamalYIgle]

Money wasn't the be all end all, like it is today until the corporations took over in the 70's. Now filmaking is a largely stangnant cesspool of remakes and sequels.

Right, Jack Warner, Jonh D. Rockefeller and Sam Goldwyn all owned movies studios, but of course they didn't do it to make money, they did it for the art.
you should really take a look at some books on Hollywood during the 30's and 40's and rethink you're statement. i'll even give you a primer:
The films of the thirties by Jerry Vermilye (Citadel Press)

[Oldguy]

Excuse me?

did you actully read what i typed?

:rolleyes:


I basicly said that. :up:

LOL, my bad. I thought you meant you didn't think SR was going to fall into that trap as well.

[Oldguy]

Right, Jack Warner, Jonh D. Rockefeller and Sam Goldwyn all owned movies studios, but of course they didn't do it to make money, they did it for the art.
you should really take a look at some books on Hollywood during the 30's and 40's and rethink you're statement. i'll even give you a primer:
The films of the thirties by Jerry Vermilye (Citadel Press)

What part of Money wasn't the be all end all, don't you understand? I thought artists are supposed to be observant? Why don't you try actually observing what I type, instead of spinning my statements into your limited black and white view?

[Saint]

BB was the best movie of last year
it was NOT the best movie of the year...not at all. BB was deeply flawed, and I can name about 10 movies that came out this year that were better.

What is it with people on this forum and thinking their opinions are fact? It's like this place has some horrible disease that causes everyone to make up "facts."

As for the topic of this thread: I could care less if WB is confident. I think studios are breeding grounds for stupidity, and are often confident in crap. This studio greenlighted movies like Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and nearly put Jack Black in a Green Lantern costume. WB, in my opinion, is a cesspool of absolute idiocy, which is why DC is dragging it's feet as far as films are concerned. Batman Begins turned out great because WB left Nolan alone for the most part (As he said in interviews), thus removing the trademark WB-idiocy from the formula.

[Retroman]

Why is WB confident?

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/dvd_cover/x_men_dvd_klein.jpg

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/im_kino/2003/x_men_2_plakat_klein.jpg

http://www.thedvdreport.com/dvd_graphics/uvw/usual_suspects_dvd.jpg
:up: :up: :up: :)

[Oldguy]

What is it with people on this forum and thinking their opinions are fact? It's like this place has some horrible disease that causes everyone to make up "facts."

As for the topic of this thread: I could care less if WB is confident. I think studios are breeding grounds for stupidity, and are often confident in crap. This studio greenlighted movies like Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and nearly put Jack Black in a Green Lantern costume. WB, in my opinion, is a cesspool of absolute idiocy, which is why DC is dragging it's feet as far as films are concerned. Batman Begins turned out great because WB left Nolan alone for the most part (As he said in interviews), thus removing the trademark WB-idiocy from the formula.

:D :up:

[JamalYIgle]

What part of Money wasn't the be all end all, don't you understand? I thought artists are supposed to be observant? Why don't you try actually observing what I type, instead of spinning my statements into your limited black and white view?

Because my"limited Black and white view"Is based on facts and history which I can back up. I read you're statement and found it somewhat uninformed.

[antmanx68]

I think that WB really just thought, "Bryan Singer? Hell yea, he made X-Men and X2, those movies made lots of money, lets sign him." You could say they liked his pitch, or his take on the character or whatever but im not convinced that anyone with decision making power at WB would know a good story if it bit them in the ass. WB is probably thinking right now that Singer is doing wonderfully and this is going to be the best movie ever, but as Saint said "they are often confident in crap."

[Showtime]

I think that WB really just thought, "Bryan Singer? Hell yea, he made X-Men and X2, those movies made lots of money, lets sign him." You could say they liked his pitch, or his take on the character or whatever but im not convinced that anyone with decision making power at WB would know a good story if it bit them in the ass. WB is probably thinking right now that Singer is doing wonderfully and this is going to be the best movie ever, but as Saint said "they are often confident in crap."

Granted...WB has made some bad decisions in the past in regards to directors, actors, and movies. The development hell that Superman has gone through is a perfect example of that. What if Singer's story really is good? Most of us only know bits and pieces of the plot and are trying to put it together piece by piece. There are a small number of people on these boards that know a little bit more about the storyline and seem to be confident in it's direction. What if he pitched the story to WB and they were blown away. What if they are leaving him alone to direct this movie and it turns out to be an epic. This is all just as possible as it is that the movie will be a horrible representation of Superman.

[sf2]

The best movie of last year? BB came out THIS year...and FYI, it was NOT the best movie of the year...not at all. BB was deeply flawed, and I can name about 10 movies that came out this year that were better.
i agree that.

[sf2]

What is it with people on this forum and thinking their opinions are fact? It's like this place has some horrible disease that causes everyone to make up "facts."

As for the topic of this thread: I could care less if WB is confident. I think studios are breeding grounds for stupidity, and are often confident in crap. This studio greenlighted movies like Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and nearly put Jack Black in a Green Lantern costume. WB, in my opinion, is a cesspool of absolute idiocy, which is why DC is dragging it's feet as far as films are concerned. Batman Begins turned out great because WB left Nolan alone for the most part (As he said in interviews), thus removing the trademark WB-idiocy from the formula.

the trademark WB-idiocy from the formula.
briliant. :up:

[bauer power]

there are two reasons why

bryan singer is a quality director whose past films are very good. (cant imagine many would argue against that but bein on these boards i suppose...)

his concept was good enough to please those money grabbing execs at WB and make sure that it stayed faithful to the superman mythology so that it wouldnt p*ss us fans off !Those who argue against those little details/rumours/facts we have on the film all wish to god we would get a good superman film, and from the blogs and articles so far i believe that singer is goin to give us that film. if he even comes close to the donner film he will have done his job! lets face it.... superman returns could earn $9 billion at the box office and you would still find people on here praising donners vision and ridiculing brandon routh! all singer needs to do is give us a good story, one that is true to superman and his status as the worlds second biggest cultural icon! (behind elvis presley! who is a leg end!) just have faith.....

[The Game]

there are two reasons why

bryan singer is a quality director whose past films are very good. (cant imagine many would argue against that but bein on these boards i suppose...)


Ok Stan, thats your opinion not fact, while he is a good director Usual Suspect is the only film I think he has excelled, the X-Men series did nothing for me and Apt Pupil is WAY overated IMO

[MatchesMalone]

What is it with people on this forum and thinking their opinions are fact? It's like this place has some horrible disease that causes everyone to make up "facts."

As for the topic of this thread: I could care less if WB is confident. I think studios are breeding grounds for stupidity, and are often confident in crap. This studio greenlighted movies like Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and nearly put Jack Black in a Green Lantern costume. WB, in my opinion, is a cesspool of absolute idiocy, which is why DC is dragging it's feet as far as films are concerned. Batman Begins turned out great because WB left Nolan alone for the most part (As he said in interviews), thus removing the trademark WB-idiocy from the formula.

What is up with people needing "I think" or "In my humble opinion" before everything they read to a) distinguish it as opinion and b) protect their fragile sensibilities?

ANYTHING ANYBODY SAYS HERE THAT IS A VALUE JUDGEMENT IS AN OPINION BY DEFAULT.

[Saint]

What is up with people needing "I think" or "In my humble opinion" before everything they read to a) distinguish it as opinion and b) protect their fragile sensibilities?

ANYTHING ANYBODY SAYS HERE THAT IS A VALUE JUDGEMENT IS AN OPINION BY DEFAULT.
I placed those with my comments because I had no interest in being called a hypocrite after making a comment about people acting like their opinions are fact. You say that value judgement is an opinion by default, which is absolutely true, but many people on these forums refuse to acknowledge that. I was making a point.

Frankly, on these forums we have so many people pretending they're right about everything that it's become almost mandatory as far as I'm concerned. Few people around here seem to understand the concepts of opinion and preference, and I try not to aggrivate that condition.

As for "fragile snesibilities," I'm far more concerned with people arguing as if their opinions are fact (and that anyone who says otherwise is a) stupid or b) in denial) in an effort to prevent any doubt from creeping into their minds. They act like the fact that other people don't like something (the suit, for example) cheapens that particular thing for them, which is silly. It's like I keep saying: people just need to be reasonable.

[MatchesMalone]

I placed those with my comments because I had no interest in being called a hypocrite after making a comment about people acting like their opinions are fact. You say that value judgement is an opinion by default, which is absolutely true, but many people on these forums refuse to acknowledge that. I was making a point.

Frankly, on these forums we have so many people pretending they're right about everything that it's become almost mandatory as far as I'm concerned. Few people around here seem to understand the concepts of opinion and preference, and I try not to aggrivate that condition.

As for "fragile snesibilities," I'm far more concerned with people arguing as if their opinions are fact (and that anyone who says otherwise is a) stupid or b) in denial) in an effort to prevent any doubt from creeping into their minds. They act like the fact that other people don't like something (the suit, for example) cheapens that particular thing for them, which is silly. It's like I keep saying: people just need to be reasonable.

What is reasonable? Is reasonable debating an opinion? How is that reasonable, in any way? Opinions are not fragile things. They are beliefs held by somebody based on their preference and experience. Debating opinions is impossible. They are unchanging. And guess what - they are considered fact by those who hold them. If you wanted to really debate we would need empirical facts.

In other words, these forums would, in the world you envision, consist of nothing more than single posts by people stating their opinions, and nothing else. It is completely unreasonable to debate somebody's opinion.

That's what makes it so damn fun! These boards are entertainment. Why do you want people to cool off?

[Azrael24]

Maybe it's just me...I dunno...call me an optimist. But Singer did say he made his deal with WB in 72hrs. That's pretty damn good. This is also a story concept that he has had in his head for years now. Not too mention, it is a story that has NOT been told in comics or in film...making it quite unique. Could it be WB is confident because they have a good director. After all, Routh wasn't chosen by Rattner, when Singer saw him, he went to go meet with him then re-pitched Routh to WB.

Oh yeah, and the head-honcho in charge of WB is a new guy..it's not the same one who greenlighted B&R or Catwoman to my knowledge. In fact, he even commented about his own company's stupidity in doing so. I highly doubt they will make that mistake a 3RD time. Let's not talk about companies and their stupidity, all actors, directors, and companies have their moments. It just feels monumental to us because most of us are hardcore fans. General public doesn't feel the same way. CR was a great Superman, but also had some terrible movies. Donner isn't perfect...and ahem...Marvel Comics studios allowed DD, Elektra, FF, Hulk, and Punisher all to be made.

I think we need to have just a wee bit of confidence. Seriously, I think most of you WANT the movie to fail because Alex Ross didn't pick superman, Bryne didn't design the suit and Michael Bay isn't directing. If you want that...go watch Justice League on Toonami.

peace.

[sf2]

... Seriously, I think most of you WANT the movie to fail because Alex Ross didn't pick superman, Bryne didn't design the suit and Michael Bay isn't directing. If you want that...go watch Justice League on Toonami.

peace.

who will give a damn about those... f88kers???

[Saint]

What is reasonable? Is reasonable debating an opinion? How is that reasonable, in any way? Opinions are not fragile things. They are beliefs held by somebody based on their preference and experience. Debating opinions is impossible. They are unchanging. And guess what - they are considered fact by those who hold them. If you wanted to really debate we would need empirical facts.

In other words, these forums would, in the world you envision, consist of nothing more than single posts by people stating their opinions, and nothing else. It is completely unreasonable to debate somebody's opinion.
That's just so wrong it hurts. Opinions may be difficult to change, but it's far from impossible. I've had my opinions changed in debates here (The few good ones that occasionally role around) more than once.

I'm going to post the same thing here I did in another topic recently, regarding my stance on debate:

"You see, people on SHH do not debate: they try to disable debate. The members (All over the forum, not just here) tell everyone who disagrees that they are wrong and stupid. They pretend that their opinions are fact and uncontestable in an effort to halt discussion. Identifying opinions does not defeat the purpose of the forum. To the contrary, ignoring them does.

For example, on the previous page, one poster said outright that there are no Bat-books greater than DKR or YO. Another poster stated outright that there are better Bat-books. Both statements are opinion (Influenced by preference), but both were stated as if they were uncontestable (and we all know an opinion cannot be fact, and is thus always contestable). There was no debate, and there was certainly no support for either of these opinions. This display was simply members posting "I'm right and you're wrong," followed by "No, you're wrong and I'm right!" That is not debate. That's not even real discussion. That's nothing.

I would love nothing more than for a real debate to occur, where posters might explain why they feel A is better than B, and so on, without resorting to creating bogus facts or name-calling. Moreover, I would expect posters to comprehend the concept of preference, which would allow them simply to like A without pretending that B is inferior or without value."

See, there's a difference between a good debate and a bad one. We only get bad ones here, and they consist of people spewing unsupported, unreasonable bullsh** at each other. I've always viewed a good debate as an educational experience, more than anything else. A way of expanding your horizons by learning why people may or may not disagree with you, or like something you don't. Such situations often turn me on to movies, comics, or other media that I had not given a chance before.

[MatchesMalone]

That's just so wrong it hurts. Opinions may be difficult to change, but it's far from impossible. I've had my opinions changed in debates here (The few good ones that occasionally role around) more than once.

I'm going to post the same thing here I did in another topic recently, regarding my stance on debate:

"You see, people on SHH do not debate: they try to disable debate. The members (All over the forum, not just here) tell everyone who disagrees that they are wrong and stupid. They pretend that their opinions are fact and uncontestable in an effort to halt discussion. Identifying opinions does not defeat the purpose of the forum. To the contrary, ignoring them does.

For example, on the previous page, one poster said outright that there are no Bat-books greater than DKR or YO. Another poster stated outright that there are better Bat-books. Both statements are opinion (Influenced by preference), but both were stated as if they were uncontestable (and we all know an opinion cannot be fact, and is thus always contestable). There was no debate, and there was certainly no support for either of these opinions. This display was simply members posting "I'm right and you're wrong," followed by "No, you're wrong and I'm right!" That is not debate. That's not even real discussion. That's nothing.

I would love nothing more than for a real debate to occur, where posters might explain why they feel A is better than B, and so on, without resorting to creating bogus facts or name-calling. Moreover, I would expect posters to comprehend the concept of preference, which would allow them simply to like A without pretending that B is inferior or without value."

See, there's a difference between a good debate and a bad one. We only get bad ones here, and they consist of people spewing unsupported, unreasonable bullsh** at each other. I've always viewed a good debate as an educational experience, more than anything else. A way of expanding your horizons by learning why people may or may not disagree with you, or like something you don't. Such situations often turn me on to movies, comics, or other media that I had not given a chance before.

A real debate is one in which two people with opposite opinions do not argue to change each other's positions. They argue to change an impartial audience's opinions. That is real debate.

Your post above has one fatal flaw: "Both statements are opinion (Influenced by preference), but both were stated as if they were uncontestable (and we all know an opinion cannot be fact, and is thus always contestable)"

o·pin·ion (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

To a person who holds an opinion, they cannot be debated. They can only be converted to a different way of thinking, by whatever means. They change their entire paradigm of though for the subject of their opinion in order to change it.

To debate an opinion is about as useful as debating a religion. Can you maybe convert somebody? Sure. But it will not be through reasonable means. If you want to debate the merits of something, go ahead. But don't expect it to stay reasonable. There's no way it can, without a moderator. Even for presidents.

[Saint]

A real debate is one in which two people with opposite opinions do not argue to change each other's positions. They argue to change an impartial audience's opinions. That is real debate.

Your post above has one fatal flaw: "Both statements are opinion (Influenced by preference), but both were stated as if they were uncontestable (and we all know an opinion cannot be fact, and is thus always contestable)"

o·pin·ion (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

To a person who holds an opinion, they cannot be debated. They can only be converted to a different way of thinking, by whatever means. They change their entire paradigm of though for the subject of their opinion in order to change it.

To debate an opinion is about as useful as debating a religion. Can you maybe convert somebody? Sure. But it will not be through reasonable means. If you want to debate the merits of something, go ahead. But don't expect it to stay reasonable. There's no way it can, without a moderator. Even for presidents.
First, I don't see how your definition of opinion refuted anything I said.

Second, when you say an opinion can be changed but not debated, I see that as a contradiction. When you debate something, you question it's validity. You're saying "I don't believe that's the case." If you've converted somebody, you've made it so they are now saying "I no longer think that's the case either," and you can only do that by explaining why you originally took the position, which is an argument. It doesn't matter if it's the audience or your opponent, the result is the same: you're trying to influence an opinion.

And I also think saying it can't be done reasonably is false. In order to influence this person's opinion you support your own with other evidence, facts, conclusions, and the like. In a debate, you're exposing this evidence to a person who may have previously been unaware of it. If that happens, there's a chance their opinion will change after weighing this evidence against that knowledge the previously held. I see nothing unreasonable about that.

If you want to get technical, then no, the hypothetical person did not change the other person's opinion. The other person changed it by weighing the new information. But, since the first person provided said information, he or she did indirectly debate, refute, and alter the original opinion.

Like I said: I feel it's an educational experience. It should be about bring new information and new ideas to the table in the hopes that people will assimilate this information and change their mind about something as a result.

[MatchesMalone]

First, I don't see how your definition of opinion refuted anything I said.

Second, when you say an opinion can be changed but not debated, I see that as a contradiction. When you debate something, you question it's validity. You're saying "I don't believe that's the case." If you've converted somebody, you've made it so they are now saying "I no longer think that's the case either," and you can only do that by explaining why you originally took the position, which is an argument. It doesn't matter if it's the audience or your opponent, the result is the same: you're trying to influence an opinion.

You answer your own question below. A person changes their own opinion, unless they are converted through other means. Brainwashers and cults do it all the time.

And I also think saying it can't be done reasonably is false. In order to influence this person's opinion you support your own with other evidence, facts, conclusions, and the like. In a debate, you're exposing this evidence to a person who may have previously been unaware of it. If that happens, there's a chance their opinion will change after weighing this evidence against that knowledge the previously held. I see nothing unreasonable about that.

You cannot support an opinion with facts. An opinion is an opinion because facts are not present. If you have facts that support an opinion, the opinion becomes objective. It becomes a fact itself.

If I say Dean Cain is the best Superman (uggh), what facts can I present? There are no facts to validate that statement and make it true. But it is true for whoever believes it. Thus, an opinion is born.

"If that happens, there's a chance their opinion will change after weighing this evidence against that knowledge the previously held. I see nothing unreasonable about that."

Sure, if the person was impartial to begin with. But that, often, is not the case. People who have opposing positions will ARGUE the position. Like I said, debate does not mean arguing with an opponent. Debate means presenting a position to an impartial third party who will form THEIR opinion based on the opposing arguments.

If you want to get technical, then no, the hypothetical person did not change the other person's opinion. The other person changed it by weighing the new information. But, since the first person provided said information, he or she did indirectly debate, refute, and alter the original opinion.

There is no objective fact that can support an opinion. Opinions are subjective. Not objective. Any evidence would be subjective as well, which is ridiculous because then you have to debate the opinions of the evidence to back up your original opinion. Futile.

If you want to simply throw your opinions out there, and maybe convert somebody by presenting your opinion, then, like I said in my previous post, you are not arguing. You are not debating. You are presenting. No different than a pamphlet at a library about abortion or Christian values.

Like I said: I feel it's an educational experience. It should be about bring new information and new ideas to the table in the hopes that people will assimilate this information and change their mind about something as a result.

Since you feel it's an educational experience, I can't argue that. It's your opinion.

And it would be so damn boring around here if all we did was simply state our opinions and not argue them. That's what's fun.

[sf2]

is arguing human inborn behavior???

[Whack Arnolds]

Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.

Secondly, and definitely more importantly, Bryan Singer himself. Before you even talk about Singer's Superman concept, you have Singer himself. A director who has to his credit just not (what is generally thought of as) one of the greatest movies ever in The Usual Suspects, but also two excellently made blockbusters in X-Men 1 & 2.

Lastly, there's Singer's Superman movie concept itself. While many of us have lambasted it for just being another sequel, in truth it's really a rather original concept. Despite what we may say, this is the first film in a new series. Yet, it's not an origin, it's introduction, it's a return. With that return, it not only opens differently any other superhero franchise, it also delves deeper into sociological question than any superhero film before it. Does the world need Superman? Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.

I think it was those three main things that really sold it to WB.*cough* exactly *cough*

[Whack Arnolds]

but as Saint said "they are often confident in crap."And just as much as Saint likes to whine, *****, and moan about people stating their opinion as facts...this should be merely taken as someone's opinion as well. WB could very well have a hit on their hands.

[Saint]

You answer your own question below. A person changes their own opinion, unless they are converted through other means. Brainwashers and cults do it all the time.
My point was that the active role of the other person making the argument is what results in the change.

You cannot support an opinion with facts. An opinion is an opinion because facts are not present. If you have facts that support an opinion, the opinion becomes objective. It becomes a fact itself.

If I say Dean Cain is the best Superman (uggh), what facts can I present? There are no facts to validate that statement and make it true. But it is true for whoever believes it. Thus, an opinion is born.
But there is still a REASON you think this, and that's what I'm asking for: reason.

SHH Posters stomping around screaming "The suit is fine! it's my opinion and I have a right to it therefore you're all wrong and stupid and in denial!" is not a reason. It's nothing: it's a load of crap.

Opinions are supported by evidence; it's just that simple. Well, rather they SHOULD be, and often are. If it doesn't boil down to factual data eventually, it holds no weight. This is the error I see often on these forums. People who argue that because they like something, it must be the best, universally, and that anyone who says different is stupid, lying, or in denial. This is chiefly the mode of though I try to prevent. That is what I mean by being unreasonable. When someone argues something, they need to support their argument with something besides the fact that they "like it."

It would probably be more accurate to say my problem is with unreasonable arguments.

Sure, if the person was impartial to begin with. But that, often, is not the case. People who have opposing positions will ARGUE the position. Like I said, debate does not mean arguing with an opponent. Debate means presenting a position to an impartial third party who will form THEIR opinion based on the opposing arguments.
There is nothing unreasonable about arguing. The fact of the matter is that the only thing I've identified as "unreasonable" is pretending that your likes or dislikes dictate what is right or wrong, better or worse universally.

Furthermore:
de·bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

If I enter into a debate with the goal of strictly changing the viewpoint of my opponent, it is still a debate.

I also do not concede that someone has to be "impartial" to consider new evidence and change their mind about something. It certainly makes the process easier, though.

There is no objective fact that can support an opinion. Opinions are subjective. Not objective. Any evidence would be subjective as well, which is ridiculous because then you have to debate the opinions of the evidence to back up your original opinion. Futile.
I already addressed that above. But if you do want to get right down to it, I suppose it does end up being a loop. For example: Pre-Miller Batman is the proper interpretation of Batman (This does not represent my actual thoughts on the matter; it's just an example). Why? Because that material is greater in number than post-Miller Batman material. This would be based upon my secondary opinion that a larger amount of material constitutes the right interpretation of Batman and so on. So I suppose you're correct in that regard.

If you want to simply throw your opinions out there, and maybe convert somebody by presenting your opinion, then, like I said in my previous post, you are not arguing. You are not debating. You are presenting. No different than a pamphlet at a library about abortion or Christian values.
I'm beginning to see your point, but I would contend that a debate is little more than presenting arguments (Such as those found in a pamphlet), allowing the other person to present, then presenting a counter. Even an attempt to debunk an argument still boils down to a presentation of evidence in an attempt to perform the debunking.

And it would be so damn boring around here if all we did was simply state our opinions and not argue them. That's what's fun.
Whoever suggested we stop arguing? All I suggest is injecting a little reason into the debate, so we don't have people supporting their opinions with the fact that they're opinions, but instead people supporting their opinions with actual reasons (Which is to say reasons that extend beyond their own preferences).

You see, my problem with the posts I originally quoted in this thread (about Batman Begins) was that they made flat-out statements without even the slightest effort to qualify those statements with any actual reasons. It was simple "Batman Begins is awesome" opposed to "No it's not." That's crap. That goes nowhere. That's just two people pretending their statements are fact, with no reasoning behind them.

[Saint]

And just as much as Saint likes to whine, *****, and moan about people stating their opinion as facts...this should be merely taken as someone's opinion as well. WB could very well have a hit on their hands.
Perhaps if you had been paying attention you would have noticed I branded my comments as being strictly my thoughts and opinions when I made the post. Twice, actually, so your attempt to make me look like a hypocrite by suggesting I presented my thoughts as fact is fruitless.

As far as Superman Returns is concerned, I said nothing about the project itself, be that positive or negative. All I said was that I don't care if the studio is confident, then explained why.

[The Game]

Perhaps if you had been paying attention you would have noticed I branded my comments as being strictly my thoughts and opinions when I made the post. Twice, actually, so your attempt to make me look like a hypocrite by suggesting I presented my thoughts as fact is fruitless.

As far as Superman Returns is concerned, I said nothing about the project itself, be that positive or negative. All I said was that I don't care if the studio is confident, then explained why.

Thats the same thing I was thinking, so I dont why that dude tried to get at you with insults

[MatchesMalone]

My point was that the active role of the other person making the argument is what results in the change.


But there is still a REASON you think this, and that's what I'm asking for: reason.

SHH Posters stomping around screaming "The suit is fine! it's my opinion and I have a right to it therefore you're all wrong and stupid and in denial!" is not a reason. It's nothing: it's a load of crap.

Opinions are supported by evidence; it's just that simple. Well, rather they SHOULD be, and often are. If it doesn't boil down to factual data eventually, it holds no weight. This is the error I see often on these forums. People who argue that because they like something, it must be the best, universally, and that anyone who says different is stupid, lying, or in denial. This is chiefly the mode of though I try to prevent. That is what I mean by being unreasonable. When someone argues something, they need to support their argument with something besides the fact that they "like it."

It would probably be more accurate to say my problem is with unreasonable arguments.


There is nothing unreasonable about arguing. The fact of the matter is that the only thing I've identified as "unreasonable" is pretending that your likes or dislikes dictate what is right or wrong, better or worse universally.

Furthermore:
de·bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

If I enter into a debate with the goal of strictly changing the viewpoint of my opponent, it is still a debate.

I also do not concede that someone has to be "impartial" to consider new evidence and change their mind about something. It certainly makes the process easier, though.


I already addressed that above. But if you do want to get right down to it, I suppose it does end up being a loop. For example: Pre-Miller Batman is the proper interpretation of Batman (This does not represent my actual thoughts on the matter; it's just an example). Why? Because that material is greater in number than post-Miller Batman material. This would be based upon my secondary opinion that a larger amount of material constitutes the right interpretation of Batman and so on. So I suppose you're correct in that regard.


I'm beginning to see your point, but I would contend that a debate is little more than presenting arguments (Such as those found in a pamphlet), allowing the other person to present, then presenting a counter. Even an attempt to debunk an argument still boils down to a presentation of evidence in an attempt to perform the debunking.


Whoever suggested we stop arguing? All I suggest is injecting a little reason into the debate, so we don't have people supporting their opinions with the fact that they're opinions, but instead people supporting their opinions with actual reasons (Which is to say reasons that extend beyond their own preferences).

You see, my problem with the posts I originally quoted in this thread (about Batman Begins) was that they made flat-out statements without even the slightest effort to qualify those statements with any actual reasons. It was simple "Batman Begins is awesome" opposed to "No it's not." That's crap. That goes nowhere. That's just two people pretending their statements are fact, with no reasoning behind them.


I am going to let this stand, with the qualifier, once again, that "evidence" supporting opinion, as you agreed, is circular in nature, because any "evidence" is based on value judgement as well. While confrontation is never pretty, it is entertaining, which is why it happens so often around here. This is, like I said, nothing more than entertainment. If you wanted to be educated about superheroes and such, there are far better places to do it. Many books have been written about them.

However, since any opinion backed up with qualifiers like "Batman Begins is the best movie because it accurately portrays Batman from the comics" presents a giant cesspool of subjective opinion. Why is it accurate? What comics time period? Why is that the definitive Batman? The answer, ultimately and always, boils down to "because I like it." Never any other reason. So what's the point of using all that evidence when it will always boil down to the same ultimate qualifier? "Batman Begins is awesome because I like it." That's the only statement that is honest and accurate. And that is something that is not debateable. Not without lots of unreasonable argument.

The same is true with this movie, so far, or any artistic exercise. You either like it - or you don't. Providing qualifiers and "evidence" is merely supporting your opinion with further opinion. And if somebody changes their mind and agrees with your opinion, it is because they have either realized that they liked it all along, or have been converted by whatever means. But their opinion has changed, and there is no objective reason why.

[Whack Arnolds]

Perhaps if you had been paying attention you would have noticed I branded my comments as being strictly my thoughts and opinions when I made the post. Twice, actually, so your attempt to make me look like a hypocrite by suggesting I presented my thoughts as fact is fruitless.It still came across as condescending in tone, and I felt the need to point it out. I didn't have to try and make you look like a hypocrite, you were doing a fine job of it on your own. I also didn't have the urge to read all of your posts, I merely made my response in regards to what antaman said commenting on what you were saying in a previous post, I assume.

As far as Superman Returns is concerned, I said nothing about the project itself, be that positive or negative. All I said was that I don't care if the studio is confident, then explained why.Gotcha.

[Hunter Rider]

WOW there is some heavy post seperating debating going on here.I think WB are so confident this Time b/c Superman was the first of the comic book characters to ever make the transition and he has the appeal of Spidey with the mainstream and we all know how well those movies did
Also now they have singer who has proven he can make a superhero movie a hit

[Saint]

It still came across as condescending in tone, and I felt the need to point it out. I didn't have to try and make you look like a hypocrite, you were doing a fine job of it on your own. I also didn't have the urge to read all of your posts, I merely made my response in regards to what antaman said commenting on what you were saying in a previous post, I assume.
.
Unfortunately for you, I cannot be blamed when you read a portion of my comments in somebody's quote, then make false assumptions about my tone or implications in the post.

In the future, make sure you know what I'm saying before you start trying to nail me on it, because your comments about me looking like a hypocrite are baseless within the actual post.

[Saint]

I am going to let this stand, with the qualifier, once again, that "evidence" supporting opinion, as you agreed, is circular in nature, because any "evidence" is based on value judgement as well. While confrontation is never pretty, it is entertaining, which is why it happens so often around here. This is, like I said, nothing more than entertainment. If you wanted to be educated about superheroes and such, there are far better places to do it. Many books have been written about them.

However, since any opinion backed up with qualifiers like "Batman Begins is the best movie because it accurately portrays Batman from the comics" presents a giant cesspool of subjective opinion. Why is it accurate? What comics time period? Why is that the definitive Batman? The answer, ultimately and always, boils down to "because I like it." Never any other reason. So what's the point of using all that evidence when it will always boil down to the same ultimate qualifier? "Batman Begins is awesome because I like it." That's the only statement that is honest and accurate. And that is something that is not debateable. Not without lots of unreasonable argument.

The same is true with this movie, so far, or any artistic exercise. You either like it - or you don't. Providing qualifiers and "evidence" is merely supporting your opinion with further opinion. And if somebody changes their mind and agrees with your opinion, it is because they have either realized that they liked it all along, or have been converted by whatever means. But their opinion has changed, and there is no objective reason why.
To that I would as why somebody likes something.

[MatchesMalone]

To that I would ask why you like that which makes you like the original.

[Saint]

AND THEN THE MONKEYS WILL EXPLODE.



And I'll ask why.

[Whack Arnolds]

Unfortunately for you, I cannot be blamed when you read a portion of my comments in somebody's quote, then make false assumptions about my tone or implications in the post.

In the future, make sure you know what I'm saying before you start trying to nail me on it, because your comments about me looking like a hypocrite are baseless within the actual post.I was going by antaman's post..in which he paraphrased you, so I felt there was no need to read your actual post. I jumped the gun, but my intent wasn't to make you look bad or any of the sort. I just thought it was humerous, because you are generally the one who always lectures about the way people project their opinions as fact.

[MatchesMalone]

AND THEN THE MONKEYS WILL EXPLODE.



And I'll ask why.

http://www.gifs.net/animate/skinpop.gif

[Saint]

I was going by antaman's post..in which he paraphrased you, so I felt there was no need to read your actual post. I jumped the gun, but my intent wasn't to make you look bad or any of the sort. I just thought it was humerous, because you are generally the one who always lectures about the way people project their opinions as fact.
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you decided knowing what I was actually saying wasn't necessary, and decided instead to baselessly call me a hypocrite.

[Whack Arnolds]

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you decided knowing what I was actually saying wasn't necessary, and decided instead to baselessly call me a hypocrite.Dude, I wasn't "attacking" you. If I offended you, I'm sorry. If I could do something to promote the peace between us, I would... :(

[MatchesMalone]

This is like a WB show. I'm gonna go play a Dave Matthews cd.

[Whack Arnolds]

This is like a WB show. I'm gonna go play a Dave Matthews cd.My sister just met him at his most recent concert. :o :up:

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Batman Begins gives confidence...and perhaps the script is good.

[Showtime]

Batman Begins gives confidence...and perhaps the script is good.

The script is definately well written.

[Milkman95]

The script is definately well written.

And you know this how?

[The Game]

And you know this how?

He would know because he is a Singer Stan so it must be a great script :o

[Showtime]

And you know this how?

The Batman Begins script...not Returns.

[Milkman95]

^Okay, gotcha...........

[Showtime]

^Okay, gotcha...........

:up: Goyer...Harris and Dougherty are good though.

[Mr. Socko]

Don't know but this is kinda different. I'm more looking forward to this movie then I was for Batman Begins. Everyone'll want to see it and they're in the hands of a great director.

[sf2]

are you still thinking the same. ;)

[FanboyX_Returns]

Why is WB confident?

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/dvd_cover/x_men_dvd_klein.jpg

http://www.splashmovies.de/images/im_kino/2003/x_men_2_plakat_klein.jpg

http://www.thedvdreport.com/dvd_graphics/uvw/usual_suspects_dvd.jpg

:up: :)
+


http://www.unificationfrance.com/IMG/jpg/superman_returns_budget_8.jpg

=
http://i8.tinypic.com/24wwu3t.gif

[Pickle-El]

+


http://www.unificationfrance.com/IMG/jpg/superman_returns_budget_8.jpg

=
http://i8.tinypic.com/24wwu3t.gif

Sotra like 99% of your posts....:o

[FanboyX_Returns]

Sotra like 99% of your posts....:o

NOW THAT WAS ORIGINAL!

Good job Pickle_Fu**r you should work for Bryan Singer... :o

[Pickle-El]

NOW THAT WAS ORIGINAL!

Good job Pickle_Fu**r you should work for Bryan Singer... :o

You realize you have hardly scratched the surface of Pickle-El's vast Shhhhhhhhh...potential....:o

Talk dirty to me X-treme....do your worst.

It's a no wonder Dan Harris cut your AOL IM conversation short.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. :supes:

[Thunder Emperor]

and WB's stupidity continues again

[Kabuki_Jo]

hehehe...old thread...
what would the "Bryan is a great director" guys say?

[Anita18]

Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.
And again I'm left wondering...what went wrong with SR? WB saw that letting Nolan do what he wanted resulted in an awesome movie, and I can't really blame them for trusting Singer the same way. This was the guy who DID do X1 and X2, right? (Nevermind the fact that I personally think the X-men movies are overrated..) Yet, Singer went overboard with the budget and lost sight of what SR was supposed to be about. Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him? Hardly. The movie turned out to be about Supes finding his place in the life of a woman who doesn't need him.

I don't get it. On paper, Nolan should have been the one wasting money on special effects and unused sequences since he had never seen a budget even a THIRD as large as BB's. Nolan's biggest film before BB was Insomnia and even that cost less than $50 million. Singer had some experience with blockbusters- he had a tight leash on X1 ($75 million) but he was able to get a $100+ million budget for X2. But then something went terribly wrong when he was handed $200+ million for SR.

Is what happened with SR and Singer an anomaly, or is it the norm? I mean...you see it all the time in real life: guy gets a fat raise, and the next thing you know, he's buying luxury cars and designer clothes and crap that he simply doesn't need. But does that happen regularly with first-time big-budget directors? Or is Nolan the rare director who is able to keep perspective no matter what? (Ironic that during an interview for Memento, he described himself as a mainstream filmmaker. *snort* For a mainstream filmmaker, he sure doesn't operate like one.)

I just don't know. Singer did have some good ideas that jived with his original conflict of Supes returning to a world that doesn't need him, but that just got lost somewhere during production....

Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.
Just a general question...but what about The Incredibles? I thought that conveyed the "does the world need superheroes?" theme than anything I've ever seen. SR included, now that we've seen it and we know that it actually doesn't ask that question at all...

[XCharlieX]

This time, i think they had the respect for the past films while bringing it into a new age. Tim Burtons stuff even sounds like a losing formula, so I dont blame them for saying "hey, we'll wait until we get something that feels right."

Honestly i dont think superman couldve stood without acknowledging 78s. Its too iconic and people would have said "this is nothing compared to donner", so Singer stayed close, and he got some backlash for that too, but i think he made a good choice because he didnt RIP OFF Donner imo, he looked to the past to bridge to the future. It showed some humility i feel, and if that wasnt there, the fans and critics wouldve really went bonkers i think.

[WTFwuzThT]

IF WB wishes to dump more money down this dry hole and go the way of United Arists then let'em. If they thought this pos was a flop try making another one.

[dark_b]

This time, i think they had the respect for the past films while bringing it into a new age. Tim Burtons stuff even sounds like a losing formula, so I dont blame them for saying "hey, we'll wait until we get something that feels right."

Honestly i dont think superman couldve stood without acknowledging 78s. Its too iconic and people would have said "this is nothing compared to donner", so Singer stayed close, and he got some backlash for that too, but i think he made a good choice because he didnt RIP OFF Donner imo, he looked to the past to bridge to the future. It showed some humility i feel, and if that wasnt there, the fans and critics wouldve really went bonkers i think.you know the difference between a vague sequel and a requel?
what singer did was not just a sequel. there were to many homages. they even copyed the lines.

[Excel]

And again I'm left wondering...what went wrong with SR? WB saw that letting Nolan do what he wanted resulted in an awesome movie, and I can't really blame them for trusting Singer the same way. This was the guy who DID do X1 and X2, right? (Nevermind the fact that I personally think the X-men movies are overrated..) Yet, Singer went overboard with the budget and lost sight of what SR was supposed to be about. Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him? Hardly. The movie turned out to be about Supes finding his place in the life of a woman who doesn't need him.

I don't get it. On paper, Nolan should have been the one wasting money on special effects and unused sequences since he had never seen a budget even a THIRD as large as BB's. Nolan's biggest film before BB was Insomnia and even that cost less than $50 million. Singer had some experience with blockbusters- he had a tight leash on X1 ($75 million) but he was able to get a $100+ million budget for X2. But then something went terribly wrong when he was handed $200+ million for SR.

Is what happened with SR and Singer an anomaly, or is it the norm? I mean...you see it all the time in real life: guy gets a fat raise, and the next thing you know, he's buying luxury cars and designer clothes and crap that he simply doesn't need. But does that happen regularly with first-time big-budget directors? Or is Nolan the rare director who is able to keep perspective no matter what? (Ironic that during an interview for Memento, he described himself as a mainstream filmmaker. *snort* For a mainstream filmmaker, he sure doesn't operate like one.)

I just don't know. Singer did have some good ideas that jived with his original conflict of Supes returning to a world that doesn't need him, but that just got lost somewhere during production....


Just a general question...but what about The Incredibles? I thought that conveyed the "does the world need superheroes?" theme than anything I've ever seen. SR included, now that we've seen it and we know that it actually doesn't ask that question at all...

what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.

[Hunter Rider]

what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.

How is it up there with Spidey,passion and Potter 1 ? they made much more in 3 days than SR did in 5


You can;t lay all the blame on Pirates and marketing

[xwolverine2]

WOW there is some heavy post seperating debating going on here.I think WB are so confident this Time b/c Superman was the first of the comic book characters to ever make the transition and he has the appeal of Spidey with the mainstream and we all know how well those movies did
Also now they have singer who has proven he can make a superhero movie a hit
his appeal is NOWHERE near spidey....... not these days....... (and thats not saying much considerig there was no spidey movies back then)

singer proved he can make x-men.....not supes

[Hunter Rider]

his appeal is NOWHERE near spidey....... not these days....... (and thats not saying much considerig there was no spidey movies back then)

singer proved he can make x-men.....not supes

That post you quoted is a year old,at the time there was no reason to believe Superman didn't still have a good chunk of popularity and that WB would obviously have faith in a director that had success in the genre prior to making SR

[Kabuki_Jo]

what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.

Did Singer brainwash you into believing that?
or did he simply bribe ya to come here and say it?

[xwolverine2]

That post you quoted is a year old,
superman is 50years old...... and shall now stay in the 60's:down

[FanboyX_Returns]

You realize you have hardly scratched the surface of Pickle-El's vast Shhhhhhhhh...potential....:o

Talk dirty to me X-treme....do your worst.

It's a no wonder Dan Harris cut your AOL IM conversation short.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. :supes:

Short? lol actually it was over 20mins long, and I am sure he's more pissed now that he witrnesses how right I was about the how the movro will do badly in theaters....

[KaptainKrypton]

what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.

[X-Maniac]

Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.

Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....

[KaptainKrypton]

Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....
Elaborate, please. Please don't tell me you mean fresh like in "Smallville" fresh...otherwise we have no point in conversing.

[Alonsovich]

Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....

DING, DING, DING!!! We have a winner...:up:

[matthooper]

Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.

Not true. SR had plenty of time before Pirates to make money. it didn't. It had a poor opening and a poor first week. The Pirates excuse is tired and irrelevant. There is plenty of room for 2 successful films. Only one was a success. A blockbuster can have a huge opening, have longevity, or both. If a film has longevity, other films don't matter one bit. People will make room for more than one film. SR didn't have a good opening or longevity. Why don't you people blame global warming on SR failures. It makes as much sense as blaming Pirates.

Spider-Man made 114 million in it's first 3 days.

MIB 2, a sequel made 87million in 3 days.

Even the "flop" Mission Impossible 3 made almost $50 million in 3 days


In Superman Returns first 3 days, it made 52 million, without ANY competition.

You're going to blame that on Pirates?

[KaptainKrypton]

Not true. SR had plenty of time before Pirates to make money. it didn't. It had a poor opening and a poor first week. The Pirates excuse is tired and irrelevant. There is plenty of room for 2 successful films. Only one was a success. A blockbuster can have a huge opening, have longevity, or both. If a film has longevity, other films don't matter one bit. People will make room for more than one film. SR didn't have a good opening or longevity. Why don't you people blame global warming on SR failures. It makes as much sense as blaming Pirates.

Spider-Man made 114 million in it's first 3 days.

MIB 2, a sequel made 87million in 3 days.

Even the "flop" Mission Impossible 3 made almost $50 million in 3 days


In Superman Returns first 3 days, it made 52 million, without ANY competition.

You're going to blame that on Pirates?
They weren't even competing in the first week, and Superman did decent numbers (not horrible...not great). And what did you expect to happen to any other movie in it's second week when Pirates eclipses the opening weekend record...OF ALL TIME. Even if SR was directed by Spielberg and edited by Jesus it wouldn't have been able to beat that. What I'm trying to get through to people is that it can't be expected to have any legs whatsoever when a titan like Pirates squashes EVERYTHING in its path (not just Superman). The box office take of SR would've likely been a bit different if Pirates was two weeks later. I know a lot of people who, when given the choice of which to see, went to Pirates instead (as evidenced by the opening take). People seemed to be frothing at the mouth to watch Jack Sparrow, but couldn't give a rat's ass about Kal-el.

[matthooper]

My point was that it had a full week before Pirates to do well. It didn't. MI:3 made almost as much in it's first 3 days.

Plus, a film with legs will do well despite the competition.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My point was that it had a full week before Pirates to do well. It didn't. MI:3 made almost as much in it's first 3 days.

Plus, a film with legs will do well despite the competition.Agreed.

[superion]

I thought that Returns was mediocre myself but it will make more money worldwide then Batman Begins. Begins only made $371 million total worldwide. Returns is at $348 million worldwide with the final openings in Japan, Germany and Italy it should have enough to surpass Begins and top out at around $400 million.

The movie did better then Begins it was only its bloated budget which makes it a failure. It just means WB needs to control the cost of the sequel and keep the budget in line with the Batman budgets.

[Lord Blackbolt]

Plus....I don't think any other WB movies this year even grossed more than 100 million??? So... overall...they've had a really bad year. lol. But again...people have to look at this at another angle. Did you see the amount of Superman related DVD's they released in conjunction with Superman returns this year. Almost a dozen. With all the merchandising alone it should give them 100 million alone. And for the sequel....you bet they will force Singer to put in a load of new villians just to amp up the toy merchandise again.


Smallville and Lois and Clark are both shows in syndication and DVD now...so they make the company 100's of million a year alone. They can afford Superman returns not making back it's budget. Cause their main goal is just to have Superman more aware in the world as a franchise right now.

All said and done.... WB will not lose in the end.

[XCharlieX]

you know the difference between a vague sequel and a requel?
what singer did was not just a sequel. there were to many homages. they even copyed the lines.

I know... i saw it like a remix. A remake with a respectful remix of Donners. I dont see a problem. "Too many" shows a lack of the right view of it imo. If you see it from a different perspective youre like "what was he doing?" So this cannot be helped.

[newwaveboy87]

they will, possibly, loose money off of SR if it doesn't make it's money back in DVD sales. Lois & Clark and Smallville do make money for the studio, but they make money for their television and home entertainment departments.

[newwaveboy87]

I know... i saw it like a remix. A remake with a respectful remix of Donners. I dont see a problem.
the problem is the storyline's setup was exactly like Donner's film.
open with Krypton, flight through space, 3D opening, crash land in Smallville, life on the farm, off to Metropolis, Daily Planet, Lois is on an aircraft, aircraft has trouble, Superman saves it and says the exact same lines as Donners. Luthor begins to make his plans known which are far too similar to Donner's film, he even has the campy sidekicks to go along with it. Kitty was Miss Tessmaucher - end of story.

plus, there's the whole improbable ending where somehow Superman is able to lift an entire continent out of the water while Kryptonite is growing all around him - he should've died sooner.

and the gaping lapse of logic that was Lois Lane, and her character was way off-base. but now, i'm just getting off topic.

[XCharlieX]

One point i find.. everyone likes bragging rights in the form of $$$$, but what i find true bragging rights is a film that stood on its own smarts and got a bit less than others. Thats honorable imo and i find that sucessful.

[newwaveboy87]

How is it up there with Spidey,passion and Potter 1 ? they made much more in 3 days than SR did in 5


You can;t lay all the blame on Pirates and marketing
DING DING DING!
this Pirates argument is tired. the point is this, if Singer's Superman film had shown itself to bring something new and interesting to the general public about the Superman mythos then it would've done stellar, it didn't. the public saw the clips, trailers, and tv spots and thought too much of it had a "been there, done that" feeling to it, and truth be told, it did.

[Anita18]

what went wrong with superman was release date.
That still doesn't excuse Singer's cutting of a $10 million sequence as well as other scenes which would have added a lot to the theme that he had been trying to focus on in the beginning. I felt that he completely lost sight of what the message of SR was supposed to be. People were saying that SR was about Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him. Tell me where it showed that, please, somebody. SR was all about Superman's feelings for Lois. And frankly, the marketing did its job for me. If I had known from the beginning that it was actually only about Supes and Lois, I wouldn't have bothered to see it in the theater in the first place. :p

We wouldn't be voicing extremely strong box office disappointments if SR had cost as much as BB to make. Yeah, somebody would still have gone, "Superman should have been the biggest thing this summer!" but if it had made its money back at the B.O., the situation wouldn't be so bad.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
I did like it, in general. It wasn't a bad movie. It just wasn't good enough for me to see again, or to recommend it whole-heartedly to other people. Even a relatively good movie can have bad word of mouth.

[newwaveboy87]

One point i find.. everyone likes bragging rights in the form of $$$$, but what i find true bragging rights is a film that stood on its own smarts and got a bit less than others. Thats honorable imo and i find that sucessful.
normally, yes. i would argee with you, but SR stood on the smarts/downfalls of Donner's Superman and not a true, unique, and original vision. that's the problem with the film.

it's a good character drama, but it's not a good Superman film. that's the difference.

[XCharlieX]

the problem is the storyline's setup was exactly like Donner's film.
open with Krypton, flight through space, 3D opening, crash land in Smallville, life on the farm, off to Metropolis, Daily Planet, Lois is on an aircraft, aircraft has trouble, Superman saves it and says the exact same lines as Donners. Luthor begins to make his plans known which are far too similar to Donner's film, he even has the campy sidekicks to go along with it. Kitty was Miss Tessmaucher - end of story.

But what you dont see is what he changed this time. The mythos were modernized this time, clarks not as bumbling comic as before, the plot is forefront of "god among men" and it took the material more serious than before. That noteworthy piece is what made the film a successful remix, because to some fans the ideas in superman were cool, it just needed some updating, and in this respect, Singer nailed it. The folks i see annoyed are people who think Routh was expressionless etc.... this is a trait of those who preferred Reeves comedic antics etc and not the more straight faced approach, so this is what I see went wrong with Returns to some.



it's a good character drama, but it's not a good Superman film. that's the difference.

So in comes the new fans like me lol

[newwaveboy87]

But what you dont see is what he changed this time. The mythos were modernized this time, clarks not as bumbling comic as before, the plot is forefront of "god among men" and it took the material more serious than before. That noteworthy piece is what made the film a successful remix, because to some fans the ideas in superman were cool, it just needed some updating, and in this respect, Singer nailed it. The folks i see annoyed are people who think Routh was expressionless etc.... this is a trait of those who preferred Reeves comedic antics etc and not the more straight faced approach, so this is what I see went wrong with Returns to some.



So in comes the new fans like me lol
but you fail to understand that Routh was a good Superman but a TERRIBLE Clark Kent. but, this isn't entirely his fault. most of this lies in Singer's hands. Lois Lane is supposed to be tough, smart, and sassy, she was rarely any of those things in the film. where was the spitfire from the comics? Kent is supposed to be an awe-shucks farmboy. where was this? Superman would NEVER EVER EVER leave the Earth for 5 years, not tell anybody, randomly return, and then discover that he had an illegitimate child. he would also never follow Lois Lane to her house, snoop around, and ease drop on her conversations.

Luthor was also completely off.

again, as a film it's fine. as a Superman film, it falls apart.

[XCharlieX]

but you fail to understand that Routh was a good Superman but a TERRIBLE Clark Kent. but, this isn't entirely his fault. most of this lies in Singer's hands. Lois Lane is supposed to be tough, smart, and sassy, she was rarely any of those things in the film. where was the spitfire from the comics? Kent is supposed to be an awe-shucks farmboy. where was this? Superman would NEVER EVER EVER leave the Earth for 5 years, not tell anybody, randomly return, and then discover that he had an illegitimate child. he would also never follow Lois Lane to her house, snoop around, and ease drop on her conversations.

Luthor was also completely off.

again, as a film it's fine. as a Superman film, it falls apart.

Well, not with the style hes made... see.. this is a strange phenominon... Singer has swung the pendulum more of my way, thats the more realistic approach. Existing fans dont like this but he tried to be a politician and give us an update at the same time. You may not understand it, but i do perfectly, and "off" is dead on to this style, even though from your perspective it IS off.

I wasnt expecting Singer to swing it my way as that was a surprise, it just happened heh.

[Visionary]

DING DING DING!
this Pirates argument is tired. the point is this, if Singer's Superman film had shown itself to bring something new and interesting to the general public about the Superman mythos then it would've done stellar, it didn't. the public saw the clips, trailers, and tv spots and thought too much of it had a "been there, done that" feeling to it, and truth be told, it did.
Wonderfully said.

[XCharlieX]

Oh and Lex Luthor, people from my side of the tracks appreciated that he didnt act silly, he was more of a calculated criminal with some fashion sense this time and a luxury car and sharp clothes to count for it heh. He reminded me of a don when he walked outside to his balcony and read the paper like a Big time crook. :up:

These are alterations that the classic fan might not appreciate, but others do. Fantastic remix imo.

[The Kid]

He was like a gameshow host.

What is Otisberg for BILLIONS Mr. Luthor?

WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG.

[newwaveboy87]

Well, not with the style hes made... see.. this is a strange phenominon... Singer has swung the pendulum more of my way, thats the more realistic approach. Existing fans dont like this but he tried to be a politician and give us an update at the same time. You may not understand it, but i do perfectly, and "off" is dead on to this style, even though from your perspective it IS off.

I wasnt expecting Singer to swing it my way as that was a surprise, it just happened heh.
you can do Superman realistically, but when you bastardize his character through your storyline, i have a problem with that. you obviously aren't understanding what i'm saying.

[newwaveboy87]

Oh and Lex Luthor, people from my side of the tracks appreciated that he didnt act silly, he was more of a calculated criminal with some fashion sense this time and a luxury car and sharp clothes to count for it heh. He reminded me of a don when he walked outside to his balcony and read the paper like a Big time crook. :up:

These are alterations that the classic fan might not appreciate, but others do. Fantastic remix imo.
except....at times, he WAS over-the-top. the now infamous "WRONG!" or when he was prancing around and saying "Kryptonite" in the wierdest, lamest, and gayest way imaginable.

Luthor was off...yet again. at least with Hackman he was having some fun with the role. Spacey just looked dead/bored half the time.

[XCharlieX]

except....at times, he WAS over-the-top. the now infamous "WRONG!" or when he was prancing around and saying "Kryptonite" in the wierdest, lamest, and gayest way imaginable.

Except that was a mere wink at the previous luthor and if you like to characterize it as "gay" then you said it not me lmao. Overall it was a new luthor. Those brief moments were noted.

Clark feeling wooden accounts for this realism approach, as does Luthor being done what some would describe as "wrong", but they did wink at the previous incarnations at times with the sillyness, but the volume of it was quite diminished and controlled this time around. For instance, the "WRONG!" was followed by a pause and reaction from lois, to play up his psycotic side, not just silly. Singer played politician but he IS Singer, who made X-Men with an authentic feel, as he always states in the dvds.

I can understand people being annoyed at the alterations. If someone did the reverse to Batman Begins id be annoyed also. But since Returns was to my liking and dropped in my lap, i will support it.

[newwaveboy87]

it was not a new Luthor by any stretch of the imagination. Spacey did his best Hackman Luthor impression. there was nothing commadning, scary, seductive, or intelligent about the new Luthor. he was just like Donner's. right down to his motivation and grand scheme. sidekicks included.

where and why did Singer go so off with his realization of Superman? that's the real question many fans are trying to ask themselves.

i think it also speaks volumes that Singer refuses to acknowledge that the movie hasn't made it's money back, wanted to use Zod, and blames Pirates for a less than stellar box office. i wonder how he felt when the fans at Comic Con told him that they had been Superman fans for years and years, looked forward to his Superman film, and in the end felt disappointed. which caused some of the crowd to cheer along....makes you think.

there's nothing wrong with wanting realism for a comic character's big screen transformation, but Superman had no sense of grandeur, fun, and none of the characters seemed like themselves.

thank god for Nolan fixing the Batman franchise, cause Superman isn't looking too good right now.

[XCharlieX]

it was not a new Luthor by any stretch of the imagination. Spacey did his best Hackman Luthor impression. there was nothing commadning, scary, seductive, or intelligent about the new Luthor. he was just like Donner's. right down to his motivation and grand scheme. sidekicks included.

And i 1000% disagree. It followed the same mold, but altered the overall mood, mostly due to singer.

Clark looking like he wants to slug Richard White wouldve never happened in Donners, so I find it just not acknowledging the fact that Singer has made this film different and more today. People will continue to slam the film as making no sense until they accept what changes were made.

[newwaveboy87]

it followed the same old of an out-dated Luthor. Singer didn't bring anything new to Luthor.

and, yes, Superman never would've slugged Richard in Donner's version, because at the time Donner FOLLOWED the comic characterizations. Singer abandonned them all completely. that is the difference. that is why fans are mad. you can't just come along and hollow out the characters and except the fans to be happy. i'm not even a Superman fan, but even i knew things just weren't right about the film.

he did bring something new to Lois and Superman, but in the end - should he have done that?

[The Kid]

Thank god for Nolan. Cheers

*raises glass*

[XCharlieX]

it followed the same old of an out-dated Luthor. Singer didn't bring anything new to Luthor.

Well have to agree to disagree... ive found the communication problem with the fans and the film as far as im concerned. Its slightly different, and because folks say its just like the others yet crappier, theyll continue to not get it. Thats their issue not the films imo.

[newwaveboy87]

...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!

[The Kid]

...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!

thank god for Nolan

[XCharlieX]

...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!

Well the fans say weird things dont they? All I know is that new school superman is lost on the fans. They dont get it. Its a tightrope with homaging previous movies, but with a new spin. Wooden acting etc are prominent complaints ive read on the boards as they elevate Hackman and Reeve, so it does exist and this part is obviously from the toning down of the larger than life personality side of the superman films imo. So while they categorize it as outdated, there are small things that they still miss ("hollowed out" shows this) and deem it a cheap knockoff because they do not and will never acknowledge this new slant put in the films, as manifested by you lol. Superman Returns is a politician type of film. It tries to please everyone. Its today while being yesterday at the same time. This is why Wb felt confident about this script and director.

[newwaveboy87]

so, you're ok with a Superman that fathered an illegitimate child, left the earth without telling anyone, comes back randomly, follows around a woman, ease drops on her conversations, and looks inside of her house?

you're ok with a Lois Lane who while supposedly being a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist takes her young son abroad a yacht where a dangerous black out was found to have been at the location that caused it? a Lois Lane that has lost of her spunk, liveliness, smarts, and tough girl attitude, and has been replaced with a really angry soccer mom?

a Lex Luthor that has yet to have a scheme that doesn't feel repetitive, has yet to build his empire, and yet to lay claim to Metropolis has his city? a Luthor that still keeps around people who will turn around and backstab him at any moment? a Luthor that keeps around campy, and useless sidekicks?

you're ok with a son being introduced that makes no plausible sense, and yes, i know he lost his powers. but Superman can never have children with Lois even if he lost his powers - he's not human. human's can't reproduce with other species, and seeing as how Superman is from a different planet - he's a different species.

you're ok with a Martha Kent that has been almost completely written out of his storyline? despite the fact that Martha Kent is as important to Superman, if not more so, than Aunt May is to Spider-Man? and what about Lana? we should've seen how Superman's return affected her as well - she's extremely important to the Superman mythos.

[The Kid]

hmmm, today while being yesterday

*explodes*

Thank god for Nolan

[newwaveboy87]

hmmm, today but being yesterday

*explodes*
...what now? :confused:

[newwaveboy87]

Thank god for Nolan. Cheers

*raises glass*
*chugs bottle*

[newwaveboy87]

effin' double post. :mad:

[The Kid]

...what now? :confused:

Now we go boldly where batman's gone before.:ghost::(

[newwaveboy87]

into a territory where his character is no longer correct and the fans are all confused as to how that happened? and why?

[XCharlieX]

so, you're ok with a Superman that fathered an illegitimate child, left the earth without telling anyone, comes back randomly, follows around a woman, ease drops on her conversations, and looks inside of her house?

Yeah for purists thats a death sentence, but there are other folks out there who wasnt bothered that much by these things lol. Superman was depicted as above the rules of regular mankind, and when he chooses to use this vip card, he can. Its the questionable issues that made it worth it imo. The goody superman of before, we can understand why they changed it for today. Why didnt Routh smile at the flyover at the end in space? Hes not reeves depiction completely, but they made enough homage to respect the past.


you're ok with a Lois Lane who while supposedly being a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist takes her young son abroad a yacht where a dangerous black out was found to have been at the location that caused it? a Lois Lane that has lost of her spunk, liveliness, smarts, and tough girl attitude, and has been replaced with a really angry soccer mom?

you're ok with a son being introduced that makes no plausible sense, and yes, i know he lost his powers. but Superman can never have children with Lois even if he lost his powers - he's not human. human's can't reproduce with other species, and seeing as how Superman is from a different planet - he's a different species.


Smarts is not just the Margot Kidder version of the character. This IS a slightly different universe, as even physically shown in the films. I thought that would be enough hint to show the alterations made with story and characters too. Kate Bosworth said anyway that this lois is different.

As for some technicality that comes from comic sense of how kryptonains breed, lol nobody cares about that in all honesty except die hards. I would think without being picky about comics, Kryptonians and Humans are similar enough to breed, if you even just look at them theyre identical. Once again the conception may have happened slightly differently in this universe, so the events of superman 2 may not be EXACTLY how it occured, but just enough to make a vague requel.


a Lex Luthor that has yet to have a scheme that doesn't feel repetitive, has yet to build his empire, and yet to lay claim to Metropolis has his city? a Luthor that still keeps around people who will turn around and backstab him at any moment? a Luthor that keeps around campy, and useless sidekicks?

At least there was no otis lol. Perhaps repetitive to you, but as a remix for a new generation, this was a stepping stone for future brand new adventures, to firstly say "everyone remember the past, now lets take what weve made modern here and bridge to the future."


you're ok with a Martha Kent that has been almost completely written out of his storyline? despite the fact that Martha Kent is as important to Superman, if not more so, than Aunt May is to Spider-Man? and what about Lana? we should've seen how Superman's return affected her as well - she's extremely important to the Superman mythos.

Saying Martha Kent had no reaction to clark coming home is a lie imo, and ... Lana? Who is that again? The point is there is ample time to delve into all of this if Singer sees fit, and if he doesnt then many would realize the smarts of doing it his way also, as he does have quite the instinct.

[The Kid]

into a territory where his character is no longer correct and the fans are all confused as to how that happened? and why?

ding ding ding ding!:up:

[XCharlieX]

Once again in every board i must say this... correct to comics doesnt mean not correct at all. It was a smart film, whether people like to be malicious toward it for being a new vision or not.

[XCharlieX]

you can do Superman realistically, but when you bastardize his character through your storyline, i have a problem with that. you obviously aren't understanding what i'm saying.

This is another point.. comic fans have this issue also... they say someone can fit it to a film of their desire, but then they give this cop out vague statement after: but dont go too far. Their too far isnt always your definition of too far. Understand I think some fans are better of just not torturing themselves with the films at all because this is a gray area and you are setting yourself up for dissapointment like this randomly.

[The Kid]

Once again in every board i must say this... correct to comics doesnt mean not correct at all. It was a smart film, whether people like to be malicious toward it for being a new vision or not.

:eek: what are you on about. The malicious haters hate it because it's not a new vision like batman begins. It's a twisted version of an old movie.

They don't realize Singer wants to make Superman more bizzar--o--ish in his new version of Donner's universe.

[XCharlieX]

:eek: what are you on about. The malicious haters hate it because it's not a new vision like batman begins. It's a twisted version of an old movie.

I already went over this. You want to call the alterations twisted thats the flaw in logic as far as im concerned.

[The Kid]

I already went over this. You want to call the alterations twisted thats the flaw in logic as far as im concerned.

Explain.

Singer said he wanted to "take the same journey"

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume he wanted to use STM and give it his own twist, is it not?

[XCharlieX]

Why didnt Routh smile at the flyover at the end in space? Hes not reeves depiction completely, but they made enough homage to respect the past.

this was a stepping stone for future brand new adventures, to firstly say "everyone remember the past, now lets take what weve made modern here and bridge to the future."

This IS a slightly different universe, as even physically shown in the films. I thought that would be enough hint to show the alterations made with story and characters too.

These subleties are lost on many die hards... the nature of die hards is that they feed their concept of the mythos so much and are proud o being stubborn that they are unwilling to understand how it has been done for the rest of us. Nobody told them to be so impossibly cartoonishly strict and one tract minded. This comment aout bizarr-o plainly shows this. Whatever the rest of us would see as updated, they see as crap and a bastardization. If theyd like to think so fine lol, but lets not pretend theres no craft in the brilliance o singer identifying the suble things to update while taking us on the same trip as before. Its kind of like the same pc with different parts here and there that make it run faster (for the rest of us). Once that is done, part 2 im sure will be quite a journey into the future more than homage.

[The Kid]

These subleties are lost on many die hards... the nature of die hards is that they feed their concept of the mythos so much and are proud o being stubborn that they are unwilling to understand how it has been done for the rest of us. Nobody told them to be so impossibly cartoonishly strict and one tract minded. This comment aout bizarr-o plainly shows this. Whatever the rest of us would see as updated, they see as crap and a bastardization. If theyd like to think so fine lol, but lets not pretend theres no craft in the brilliance o singer identifying the suble things to update while taking us on the same trip as before. Its kind of like the same pc with different parts here and there that make it run faster (for the rest of us). Once that is done, part 2 im sure will be quite a journey into the future more than homage.

He'll be more like modern superman in the next movie?

ok. Let's hope so.




















EVEN THOUGH THAT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE NOW.

[XCharlieX]

Without the stacked on homages ill bet. Its definitely time to get some new villains and not Luthor imo... Brainiac for example, but Supes may not act exactly how fanatics want him to still.. its still that new verse.

One thing that never ages imo is the opening credits and Marlon Brando as Jorel... thats now reinstated as a part of new school superman.

[The Kid]

Without the stacked on homages ill bet. Its definitely time to get some new villains and not Luthor imo... Brainiac for example.
LOL you say that now? It's been almost 30 years since STM. It's been time.

It's over Charlie. Any hope of seeing modern incarnations of superman are long gone after this film. He might as well throw a cellophane s in the next one or turn back time.

Thank

God

for

Nolan

[XCharlieX]

Id also like to add i loved the change they made with the catchphrases of superman. before Reeves Superman was a smiley guy who was "A friend". This one is a god who is "always around"...love it. :up:

So in short, whatever.

[saint sinner x]

In my opinion superman returns is complete garbage that movie sucked monkey balls on a hot summer sweaty day. Seriously the fact that I hated the movie so danm much is because well, They tried so hard to pay homage to the original but it failed miserably, Spiderman 2, X-men 2, V for venddetta and of course the legendary BATMAN BEGINS now those are movies that kicked and rock major ass. Superman is dead and has been dead since the early 70's just look at the box office numbers and as for WB arrogance in the man of steel well they're in for a huge surprise because i'm positive that the sequel to superman returns will fail just like it's predeccesor. YEA I KNOW I MISSPELLED THAT OH WELL...

[The Kid]

Id also like to add i loved the change they made with the catchphrases of superman. before Reeves Superman was a smiley guy who was "A friend". This one is a god who is "always around"...love it. :up:

So in short, whatever.

:confused:whatever?

Well there must be a lot of gods in the DC universe.

A LOT. OF GODS. I'm talking Jesus level Gods here. Mirical Workers. Goddesses too.

[XCharlieX]

:confused:whatever?

Well there must be a lot of gods in the DC universe.

A LOT. OF GODS. I'm talking Jesus level Gods here. Mirical Workers. Goddesses too.

And yet its all in the execution whether i see it as comedic entertainment or authentic feeling. Comic fans have a big ego for their comics... but the rest of us often need tweaking to buy its fantastical ideas.

I enjoyed superman 1 and 2... but as action comedy. Especially Superman 2. The criminals were hillarious. If they kept the tone of the first half of superman 1..id watch it in a different way. That was brilliant.

[The Kid]

And yet its all in the execution whether i see it as comedic entertainment or authentic feeling.

It's over Charlie.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1563890976.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[XCharlieX]

lol then folks smeared a good remake to death then.. i know who to blame. ;)

I know what I saw, and I saw a good film.. whether superman is not profitable or not.

If no more films are made ill go back to my original franchises. No sweat.

[The Kid]

lol then folks smeared a good remake to death then.. i know who to blame. ;)

I know what I saw, and I saw a good film.. whether superman is not profitable or not.

It's over for our beloved Superman.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/174/supermanch0.gif

[Triligors]

Superman Returns was one of the one of my favorite films of the summer and one of my favorite superhero films. And it is anything, BUT the death of Superman. So continue to fight the good fight Charlie. Others are just furious about the news announced by Horn earlier in the day.

Our and Ways. Superman ruled- Jason sucked. (Charlie, even though you're pro SR- go with this, you'll see)

[XCharlieX]

Booyah. lol :up:

[The Kid]

lol then folks smeared a good remake to death then.. i know who to blame. ;)

I know what I saw, and I saw a good film.. whether superman is not profitable or not.

If no more films are made ill go back to my original franchises. No sweat.

Oh there'll be more films. Just not of Superman, but the New/old superman hybrid father thing.

It's over for this guy

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9531/supermanrv6.jpg

[Triligors]

Hey, Weyseed alot on here hate Jason. Guess like Jason ruins everything. Lol. Down with Jason! Down with Jason!

[XCharlieX]

A new beginning... lose some, win the others.

[Triligors]

Oh, I see what Charlie means above now. Yep, SR lost some- but who cares? Charlie, from your posts- you thought it was a great film. I thought it was a great film. And the majority (outside of these boards) thought it was a good/average or great film. So, kudos for SR. Let them wallow in a hole and be left behind- it's their choice. There is no winning with them, just like there is no winning for anti-SR with pro-SR...

[The Kid]

Hey, Weyseed alot on here hate Jason. Guess like Jason ruins everything. Lol. Down with Jason! Down with Jason!

Bite your tounge. Jason Roxorz!!!!1111:o:mad:

"So long, Superman"

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7571/lexluthor00d3ei3.jpg

[XCharlieX]

Yes i enjoyed SR.. see previous posts.


Superman ruled- Jason sucked. (Charlie, even though you're pro SR- go with this, you'll see)

Well thats the thing.. it was used once, whos to say it has to be used again..ever? It was a good idea and gave dimension to the character, and now... 2 3 etc dont even have to mention it.

[Triligors]

Jason sucked. He completely ruined the film. Worst character ever! Down with the kid! Superman Returns was a really really great film, but you can't just look past it- the kid sucked. The kid should DIE!!!!!

Superman Returns- awesome film, one of the best of the summer.

Wey- didn't you hear yet? Singer's plan for 2009 is to kill Jason in the first act. Good riddens Superkid!

[XCharlieX]

Although I will say i can see the idea of a superkid being corny.. if he went and was his sidekick for the sequels thatd be very bad lol ;)

[The Kid]

Jason sucked. He completely ruined the film. Worst character ever! Down with the kid! Superman Returns was a really really great film, but you can't just look past it- the kid sucked. The kid should DIE!!!!!

:mad: YOU ARE SUCH A HATER. THAT'S IT. I'm going to bluetihgts!!!!!1111111111111111111111 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bye.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1779/sittingonacloudbt2.jpg

[Triligors]

Face it weyseed, everyone hates the kid. Everyone loves Superman. But, Jason? Jason will burn for ETERNITY!!!! Lol. hahahahahaha.

Superman Returns- imo, 10/10 definitely. Only thing holding it back from 11? JASON!!!

Face it, Wey- if pro and anti agree on one thing it's that we don't want Superkid! Down with Jason.

We want NOTHING with this:

http://www.halloweencostumes4u.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000003/882302xla.jpg

The best part of SR was Superman. Not Jason, Jason is the new young Anakin! Oh no, Weyseed- don't have any more pictures?!

[The Kid]

Face it weyseed, everyone hates the kid. Everyone loves Superman. But, Jason? Jason will burn for ETERNITY!!!! Lol. hahahahahaha.

Superman Returns- imo, 10/10 definitely. Only thing holding it back from 11? JASON!!!

Face it, Wey- if pro and anti agree on one thing it's that we don't want Superkid! Down with Jason.

We want NOTHING with this:

http://www.halloweencostumes4u.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000003/882302xla.jpg

The best part of SR was Superman. Not Jason, Jason is the new young Anakin! Oh no, Weyseed- don't have any more pictures?!

Plenty more.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4057/snemesislexluthorvb1.jpg

And don't you dare request that my favorite character ever in the history of life burn in hell for eternity. I will find you.

[Triligors]

Look- I'm trembling. Lol. Burn Jason!!!! Burn In Hell For All Eternity! Jason Was The Worst Part Of Sr!!!! Down With Jason! Down With Jason!!!!

Angry Yet Weyseed?!!!!!!!!

[batboy99]

because bryan singer is the f**king man and you know it!u got that right

[batboy99]

Bite your tounge. Joson Roxorz!!!!1111:o:mad:

"So long, Superman"

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7571/lexluthor00d3ei3.jpgi agree jason rox my sox!

[Triligors]

Oh no, wey- I just got word from an inside source, Wey- Bryan Singer is going to kill Jason in the first act of SR II!!!! How does that make you feel?!

[The Kid]

Look- I'm trembling. Lol. Burn Jason!!!! Burn In Hell For All Eternity! Jason Was The Worst Part Of Sr!!!! Down With Jason! Down With Jason!!!!

Angry Yet Weyseed?!!!!!!!!

Yes. I wanna kill you, but your just a bunch of text. arrgh...

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8364/flagmq5.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7074/superman1dw1.jpg

[Triligors]

Jason sucks. Jason is the new young Anakin! Lol. Please Singer, jump forward five years- get rid of young Jason and find a better teenage Jason. But, in the second act- kill Jason just for the heck of it. Wey would just love that.

Superman Returns- great movie. Superman Returns WITHOUT Jason- perfect movie. Isn't that right Wey?

SR 10/10. SR without Jason- 100/1.

[Triligors]

Now you know what it feels like. I thought SR was one of the best films of the summer and definitely one of the best superhero films.

And yes, I liked Jason. Interesting character. But, the only way to 'turn the tables' with YOU is to nag on Jason. So, that's what I did. By, the way- your manips are horrible.

[The Kid]

Now you know what it feels like. I thought SR was one of the best films of the summer and definitely one of the best superhero films.

And yes, I liked Jason. Interesting character. But, the only way to 'turn the tables' with YOU is to nag on Jason. So, that's what I did. By, the way- your manips are horrible.

without Jason it'd have been a complete waste of time for me. I already saw the Notebook on HBO.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9555/grabtf6.jpg

[Triligors]

Don't know how this whole thing started with the manips- but saw you calling another posters' opinions wrong. And I think you remember from before how much that pisses me off. So, just thought I would vent some anger.

[The Kid]

Don't know how this whole thing started with the manips- but saw you calling another posters' opinions wrong. And I think you remember from before how much that pisses me off. So, just thought I would vent some anger.

Huh? I don't remember saying someone's opinion was wrong. All opinion's usually right to somebody.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/shire/2545/th0001.jpeg Lois is a momma! Forever!

[Triligors]

Must have just glanced at the top page manip quickly and everything around it and assumed then.

[The Kid]

Maybe.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3807/mythologysupermanzh0.jpg

[Triligors]

Just hit my eye. Why am I getting dizzy? I see stars88-8 gkhbkmjn ab,mn

http://www.youcom.nl/images/news/2002-11/SeeingStars.jpg

[The Kid]

We're back in the 70s maaaaaan. it's time to get down and boogie... brother

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3753/250pxsupermanuj8.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7964/b000b73gye02lzzzzzzzzn7.jpg

[Super-Bats]

hey wesy.....those manips.......a peek inside Singer's thought process.....lol

[xwolverine2]

Rotfl!!!!

[xwolverine2]

poor bryan:( .....


http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9384/crouch2gq6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3625/nohurt2zg2.png (http://imageshack.us)

[The Kid]

hey wesy.....those manips.......a peek inside Singer's thought process.....lol

INDEED. I love google image search, such a wonderful invention.

:eek:

Just finished another
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1561/superman214tm4.jpg

[Steelsheen]

LOL at this Paintshop war :D

[The Kid]

poor bryan:( .....


http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9384/crouch2gq6.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3625/nohurt2zg2.png (http://imageshack.us)

LOL, not bad...

now how about this! :cool:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1489/crisis7p4ve3.gif

[xwolverine2]

^
LOL!! wtf!


http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8080/byby2nb8.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6330/fightscene2bd2.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Triligors]

Are you two (anti-SR posters) actually trying to be funny? Because if you are-you're both failing miserably.

And you said you searched google? Lol. If you did you would have been able to find something alot better than what you posted above. Heck, as a Pro SR guy I saw a missed 'pot shot' opportunity that you guys didn't see- lol.

[The Kid]

Are you two (anti-SR posters) actually trying to be funny? Because if you are-you're both failing miserably.

Nope. And I'm not an anti-SR poster. I'll fight till my last breath until the day everyone agrees that Jason's awesome and will be a great help to his father in his fight for truth and justice and all that American Stuff.

This I do because it's true.
:)
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3776/ddremarkwo3.jpg

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1860/630584205101lzzzzzzzxk1.jpg

[Dr. Fate]

Those manips are hilarious! :up:

[xwolverine2]

lol!!.... brilliant!

[Triligors]

Personally don't find the manips funny at all. Not because I'm pro SR, I loved MAD spoofs of movies that I like that poke fun. These just aren't funny.

[Kabuki_Jo]

They are...lol

[Triligors]

Not clever or funny in my opinion, personally the below pic (from a comic) makes me laugh while the above make me think "wtf? is that supposed to be funny?"

Take into account how anti-SR state that the movie didn't have enough action, also read it sarcastically:

http://nightwing.superman.ws/artists/deadman.gif

As I said, I love jokes- at the expense of some things I like. I'm a SW fan and liked LOTR, but that didn't prevent me from laughing out loud when SW and LOTR were "made fun of" in Clerks II.

[xwolverine2]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1225/planegrabca9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
hows this for funny

[Triligors]

Um, all I see is Superman catching a plane and a scene that I think was in Charlie's Angels (looks like another catching a plane- while sky diving?-). Verdict: Not funny.

[xwolverine2]

wow

[Triligors]

I'll give that 'joke' 1/2 though. Because what you had set up- not funny. The expression on Drew Barrymore's face on the other hand<- THAT part was good.

If any of you caught Zev's 'two minute' parody of Superman Returns- now THAT was funny.

[xwolverine2]

nonono.....i think you've said enough

[Triligors]

So, if you're looking for an actual funny SR- catch Zev's 'parody' of Superman Returns. Now THAT made me laugh.

Zev's: Five Minutes SUPERMAN RETURNS (http://superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241291)

[The Kid]

A few more!!!!!!!!

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/507/adventruesofsuperman43hf5.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4241/nwcomlg2xa7.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9998/super2ky4.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5420/startrekef1.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2918/jamesmarsdenhv9.jpg
My favorite:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6155/superclicheah9.gif

[Triligors]

Now the very last one- now, THAT'S well done. Made me laugh.

[xwolverine2]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2918/jamesmarsdenhv9.jpg
My favorite:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6155/superclicheah9.gif
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah i argued that they ripped off all those indiana jones plane drops.....hhhh...


but lol!!!.............and he was willing to kill his entire family just to listen to lois and try and save supes.

[Triligors]

That 'plane scene' seems to be used in just about every action movie with a plane- even a space ship (a la 'Lost in Space')....

Audience: Pull up!!! Pull up!
Plane: Not enough time, plunging out of sight!
Audience: Oh, we know you're not a goner- cut the act already
Plane: Alright, going to fly straight back up into the air, guess you didn't see that one coming.
Audience: Actually...

[xwolverine2]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/525/soap2ek4.png (http://imageshack.us)
...or

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5397/soap3qk1.png (http://imageshack.us)

[newwaveboy87]

these manips are cracking me up!

[The Kid]

I quite enjoy these.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/975/jasonisawesomeip8.gif

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3594/kumarreturnsxm5.gif

[xwolverine2]

w................t....................f?

LMAO!

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, it is entertaining.

I guess.

[The Kid]

Ok these are the last, I promise. That's enough spa... er... silly postings for one day, lollllllllllllolololollllllllllol

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/557/etod5.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8981/170152wp2.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5840/notebooksp8.jpg

[xwolverine2]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...hahahahhaahahaha!!

[XCharlieX]

lol many complaints of the film, but i see nothing in bright ideas offered.

[buggs0268]

lol many complaints of the film, but i see nothing in bright ideas offered.
That is because we have been offering them for 2 years now but Singer thinks he knows all. The internet is a buzz with no Zod, but if you believe the rumors online, and his Kahn statement, Zod will be in the sequel. Singer and WB isnt listening to us.

[XCharlieX]

That is because we have been offering them for 2 years now but Singer thinks he knows all. Singer and WB isnt listening to us.

Excellent lol Nah jk.. really you know superman wasnt supposed to be swung my way really. Id give the franchise back if they decided to redo it. But i want this one in my dvd collection :up:

[FanboyX_Returns]

That is because we have been offering them for 2 years now but Singer thinks he knows all. The internet is a buzz with no Zod, but if you believe the rumors online, and his Kahn statement, Zod will be in the sequel. Singer and WB isnt listening to us.

The internet can tell a studio, and director alot of how the majority of the fans feel, and since day one when this movie was fully cast that got a terrible buzz going online, and they didnt listen.. The story of the film started to leak online, and the buzz got worse... Again they didnt listen.

The first pictures of the superman suit got online, and again they did not listen to the fans... The result is a major bomb in Superman Returns.

Now they speak of ZOD for the sequel, and again the fans have started a bad buzz online about that idea because again NOBODY wants to see Zod again, and most dont want a sequel or Singer involved in the next Superman movie... But again the WB turns a def ear to us... THE FANS!

But if the sequel gets made I bet all the tea in china that again it will bomb, and again we will all go on the hype, and say "man they should have listened..." Sadly the WB waits til they finally kill a franchise to death before they listen.

We had to sit thru a few bad BATMAN movies before we got the excellent BATMAN BEGINS, and that was only good because THEY LISTENED!
With Superman they refuse to care about the fans, and myfriend this is where they fail...

To be honest they should NEVER make a sequel to this train wreck of Singermans, and just reboot the whole thing in 10years with a real director, and not some hollywood hack who doesnt know a thing about the material he's directing but has a love of some old movies which were very flawed themself's, and a cast of actors who actually look the part!

But then again what do I know??? I was only right about everything I said in Superman Returns without having watched the movie many months ago!
Yea I know im crazy I don't know squat.. This maybe true but I sure was proven right in all accounts by Bryan Singer. So Month's later, and all I can do is say "I told you so WB..."

[buggs0268]

Warner's, if you have any brains in your head, you will stop listening to the kiss asses at Bluetights.net and listen to the people that will tell you it straight.

[Pickle-El]

Warner's, if you have any brains in your head, you will stop listening to the kiss asses at Bluetights.net and listen to the people that will tell you it straight.


That's quite a stupid thing to say. :up:

I could think of far worse things to say of people who incessantly badger every decision made....because we all know how much responsibility those particular people make on an everyday level.

Oh the daily executive multi-million dollar decisions us fanboys face everyday....At least I got a hot secretary. :o

Who says that big fights, a brighter costume, and even Steven Spielberg would have meant for cash for a new Superman film? Any of you ever consider that this just isn't the right audience for Superman? And not every dubious little decision WB makes?

The times they are a changin.

Even Batman didn't get close to the reception he received in 89'. And that was with a 'PERECT' Batman origin tale starring Christian Bale.

Maybe the audiences just don't find Superman and Batman the way they once did. It's sad to say it being a Superman fan, but it's a very strong possibility when you put their performances next to each other in terms of general audience reception and popularity. Some of you say the numbers don't lie right?

Though, I'm sure some more elaborate explosions would help.

[WormyT]

lol many complaints of the film, but i see nothing in bright ideas offered.
Are you kidding!?
Take a look around the boards, it's filled with ideas by fans. We want a good SuperMAN movie. NOT superchickflick.

[Thunder Emperor]

I can't believe WB is confident, considering this weekend the Superman is not among the top 37 movies, disgraceful to say the least.

p.s mojo has budgjet now at 270 million

[Pickle-El]

I can't believe WB is confident, considering this weekend the Superman is not among the top 37 movies, disgraceful to say the least.

p.s mojo has budgjet now at 270 million

The figures aren't in yet for SR....won't know till tomorrow.

I never knew you for jumping to conclusions.....:o

[WormyT]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/417/supe2eg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[XCharlieX]

Are you kidding!?
Take a look around the boards

Oh I have.. thoroughly lol

[newwaveboy87]

Yeah for purists thats a death sentence, but there are other folks out there who wasnt bothered that much by these things lol. Superman was depicted as above the rules of regular mankind, and when he chooses to use this vip card, he can. Its the questionable issues that made it worth it imo. The goody superman of before, we can understand why they changed it for today. Why didnt Routh smile at the flyover at the end in space? Hes not reeves depiction completely, but they made enough homage to respect the past.
Superman has been/always will be a "goody." he's the ultimate good boy. there's a reason he's called The Big Boy Scout. Superman Returns had an out-of-character Superman. what do you not understand about this? there's nothing wrong with updating his storyline, but there's a problem with changing him into someone/something else. i'm not even a purist, or that big of a Superman fan, my interest in him stems from Bruce Timm's series, the Fleischer Superman, and the first film. i've read only one graphic novel, but even i knew that Superman was off/wrong/not himself.


Smarts is not just the Margot Kidder version of the character. This IS a slightly different universe, as even physically shown in the films. I thought that would be enough hint to show the alterations made with story and characters too. Kate Bosworth said anyway that this lois is different.
yes, this was a different Lois Lane. so different that it wasn't even Lois Lane. i saw a character named Lois Lane, but it wasn't her. there was nothing intelligent about her, there was nothing feisty, there was nothing terribly likeable about her. she was a consistent damsel-in-distress, and angry-soccer-mom. these are not ways to describe Lois Lane.

As for some technicality that comes from comic sense of how kryptonains breed, lol nobody cares about that in all honesty except die hards. I would think without being picky about comics, Kryptonians and Humans are similar enough to breed, if you even just look at them theyre identical. Once again the conception may have happened slightly differently in this universe, so the events of superman 2 may not be EXACTLY how it occured, but just enough to make a vague requel.
Kryptonians and Humans resemblance is purely superficial. we're told that Kal-El will look like them, but he will not be one of them. it is safe to assume then that he's a completely different species. it's fairly simple when you think about basic biology. even though he lost his powers in Superman II, which the fact that they allowed that to happen is so wrong it's not even funny, he shouldn't/couldn't have reproduced with Lois.

At least there was no otis lol. Perhaps repetitive to you, but as a remix for a new generation, this was a stepping stone for future brand new adventures, to firstly say "everyone remember the past, now lets take what weve made modern here and bridge to the future."
there was NOTHING modern about his henchmen. Kal Penn was this films Otis, all of his lines were cut, but that's EXACTLY what he was. Parker Posey was Miss Tessmaucher. there was nothing new presented about either of their characters. the rest of henchmen made no sense and served no purpose either. what was with one of them being stupid enough to play piano with the kid while Lois was next to a fax machine? her ONE moment of intelligence was couple with something incredibly camp. and not in a good way. or the other guy who walked around filming everything. why? what was the poitn of that?? Singer said he removed the campy sidekicks. Singer lied.

Saying Martha Kent had no reaction to clark coming home is a lie imo, and ... Lana? Who is that again? The point is there is ample time to delve into all of this if Singer sees fit, and if he doesnt then many would realize the smarts of doing it his way also, as he does have quite the instinct.
i didn't say Martha had no reaction to Kent coming back, i said she was a glorified cameo. that is just wrong to do. Martha Kent is so important to Superman and for her to have two scenes and do nothing is so wrong. the movie was about Superman's return and yet the most important person in his life is regulated to five minutes of screentime? yeah, i don't think so. and the fact that you don't even know who Lana is is highly worrisome. even the horrible show, to me anyway, that is Smallville acknowledges Lana's importance. Lana Lang is the smalltown girl who Clark fell in love with when he was younger, they've remained the best of friends even to this very day. Lana is to Superman what Gwen Stacy is to Spider-Man, except Lana never died.

[Triligors]

Martha Kent was in the movie more, but was cut from thee movie due to pacing reasons.

[Neto Magnus]

hey i wanna join in on the fun...
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2632/sonnylucifersupergayha8.jpg

[newwaveboy87]

Martha Kent was in the movie more, but was cut from thee movie due to pacing reasons.
yeah, i know, but i was talking about the final product. in the final product she has about 5 mintues of screentime. give or take.

[XCharlieX]

Net Magnus Oh my god.....


lol!

(newwaveboy87, delayed response there, im not debating ;))

[Pickle-El]

You guys are the reason this place is what it is these days.....

[XCharlieX]

Oh man thats so wrong lol

I believe Weyseed started this after I replied to his posts with actual words :down:

[newwaveboy87]

Net Magnus Oh my god.....


lol!

(newwaveboy87, delayed response there, im not debating ;))
i would've done it last night, but i didn't look back to see if you said anything. i did today, but that's mostly because lots of new pages have happened since then.