The Official Start/Release Date & Location Thread

[Venom'sDad]

300 is a damn good movie, but eros is right, it vastly different from a potential JLA or SR sequel.

300 does not require the same type of SFX that JLA and SR sequel would require. 300 is basically fight scenes in slow motion, in front of a green screen. How much money do they need for that. Come on... that's vastly different format from was JLA or SR sequel will need.

[redcaped]

The JL team will fit better in a sequel, is just one moment/place to fight which means less time/money.

[Angeloz]

Dear DeepThroatWB,

Please tell WB that they must leave Nolan alone and allow him to do at least 3 Batman films. And while you're at it, mention that they should allow Singer to complete his 3 Superman movies as well. Thank you. :yay:

Regards,
FlawlessVictory

Well said. I agree with what you've written. :up: :)

Though I think DeepThroatWB is just some joker making up stuff. This same thing used to occur on the "Angel" board I was on 3-6 years ago.

Angeloz

[dude love]

300 is a damn good movie, but eros is right, it vastly different from a potential JLA or SR sequel.

300 does not require the same type of SFX that JLA and SR sequel would require. 300 is basically fight scenes in slow motion, in front of a green screen. How much money do they need for that. Come on... that's vastly different format from was JLA or SR sequel will need.

Look how great the action was in Revenge of the Sith. That movie was all Greenscreen too, it's just that 300 and Sin City where purposely stylised like that.

[dark_b]

Look what was done with 300 on a 60 million budget. It is becoming more and more probable.and since the technology is every month better it will be soon when the CGI enviorments will look even more real with that kind of budget.

so if you think about it the movies should get cheaper. but they wont :cwink:

[superbaby]

The concept of the film is Batman Vs. Superman with other heros. Take X-men 1 or 2, or even 3, and replace Logan & Xavier's rolls with Bruce Wayne/Batman, and make Superman into Storm & Scotts/Jeans rolls combined, and you have the screen time Batman and Superman have. The other heros are planned to be mere supporting characters, who would branch off into their own films based on popularity(aside from they see it reigniting the Batman and Superman franchises, which would be in their post-Nolan/Bale-Singer/Routh stages at this point). The plan is for Justice League to be made as the next Superman/Batman sequel after the 3rd or 4th of each series, and would introduce new actors. Like how Casino Royale opened small due to a new actor as Bond, Warners fears when Routh and Bale are done, the franchises may be done to. So, by combining "forces", the box office potential inceases a lot. An aweful lot.
ha, another WB wishful & greedy thinking.

[Showtime]

300 is vastly different then a pontential Justice League film.

There was an article that came out about a week ago pointing to movies leaning more towards 300 style directing including alot omre green screen work. Why wouldn't they be able to to a JLA movie with more green screen work to save money?

[Showtime]

300 is a damn good movie, but eros is right, it vastly different from a potential JLA or SR sequel.

300 does not require the same type of SFX that JLA and SR sequel would require. 300 is basically fight scenes in slow motion, in front of a green screen. How much money do they need for that. Come on... that's vastly different format from was JLA or SR sequel will need.

You don't think there were SFX in 300? I don't know what makes you think they can't use the same process of filming to reduce some costs. Think about it, instead of building lavish sets they can do as 300 and the Star War's prequel did to cut costs. You act as if Superman Returns didn't use alot of green screen.

[Venom'sDad]

Of course they used SFX in 300... what are you talking about??? Of course they used a lot of green screen for SR... what are you talking about???

I said I agree with Eros insertion of a vastly different type of SFX(as far as style and use). Come on .... lol.

[Showtime]

Of course they used SFX in 300... what are you talking about??? Of course they used a lot of green screen for SR... what are you talking about???

I said I agree with Eros insertion of a vastly different type of SFX(as far as style and use). Come on .... lol.

So you're saying by incorporating a similar type of filmaking as was found in 300, they couldn't save money on production, and it would be impossible to incorporate said style of filmaking in JLA or MOS? Not sure what you are drawing your conclusions from.

[dark_b]

i agree with showtime here 100%.

[Venom'sDad]

So you're saying by incorporating a similar type of filmaking as was found in 300, they couldn't save money on production, and it would be impossible to incorporate said style of filmaking in JLA or MOS? Not sure what you are drawing your conclusions from.

NO..... that's what you're saying. LOL... nice try. ;)

[Eros]

There was an article that came out about a week ago pointing to movies leaning more towards 300 style directing including alot omre green screen work. Why wouldn't they be able to to a JLA movie with more green screen work to save money?


Know, I thought you said they should do the entire movie in front a green screen, like they did 300.

[Showtime]

NO..... that's what you're saying. LOL... nice try. ;)

I am not saying that, I am saying the opposite. That they could save money by incorporating some of what 300 brought to the table.

[Showtime]

Know, I thought you said they should do the entire movie in front a green screen, like they did 300.

Understood. I meant that they could incoporate this type of filmaking. For instance, in Returns they built over 80 different sets, I figure using more of what 300 brought to the table would lessen the sets therefore cutting some of the cost. Just a thought.

[C. Lee]

I see many movies going for the maximun CGI effects for a while in the future (it will be the new "trendy" thing).....then it will level out back to a sometime thing with people wanting more actual "real" locations again.

[Showtime]

I see many movies going for the maximun CGI effects for a while in the future (it will be the new "trendy" thing).....then it will level out back to a sometime thing with people wanting more actual "real" locations again.

I agree that it will be a trend, I think if it cuts cost for WB it will be a viable option in the near future for epic movies that are grand in scale. I think Singer wanted to film on set more to give it more of a realistic feel. Although some have said it looks extremely unrealistic and they can tell they are just sets.

[Venom'sDad]

I am not saying that, I am saying the opposite. That they could save money by incorporating some of what 300 brought to the table.

OK, fair enough...

[Antonello Blueberry]

Understood. I meant that they could incoporate this type of filmaking. For instance, in Returns they built over 80 different sets, I figure using more of what 300 brought to the table would lessen the sets therefore cutting some of the cost. Just a thought.
Digital sets are not always cheaper than real ones. And they do not work well for all kind of movies.

[Showtime]

OK, fair enough...


:heart: :dry: :heart:

[Showtime]

Digital sets are not always cheaper than real ones. And they do not work well for all kind of movies.

Still could be a viable option and it could cut costs on any project. Troy could have benefited from this type of filmmaking. Whether it would fit for a Superman sequel is certainly debatable, but since WB made 300 they have to be thinking about the possibilities. They seem to be keeping their options open.

[DeepThroatWB]

Well as long was the big fx films keep not doing big numbers, theyll become cheaper as unlike 96-02, big fx are not a big hit maker alone. That is why some good does come out of Poseidon's or Stealth's flops. Their prices are supposably on the decline.

[Maze]

Good.

the key is there.

and of course good filmmalkers.

any names director's name mentionned for Jla Deep?

[Lighthouse]

I think I'm one of the few people that really doesn't want to see a JLA movie. I find these characters much more compelling when they all have their own stories and don't interact much. JLA works well for an animated series but for a movie I think it will be just way too much and crowded. The only collaboration picture I can see working is a Superman/Batman movie because of their complicated relationship.

[Retroman]

Interesting developments in the past week.
That WW2 thriller is shaping up nicely with Cruise on board. And it certainly still looks like Singer will be directing the sequel (Rob Burnett filmed him signing the deal) and i'm glad he is because i loved SR.Having said that, deep down, the thought of a Wachowski Superman movie is pretty darn exciting i must say.:ninja:

[Retroman]

UPDATE

Bryan Singer is now in Santa Monica (http://www.flickr.com/photos/authornyse/427368465/), California directing the ABC tv pilot Football Wives with a cast incl Gabrielle Union, Ving Rhames, Eddie Cibrian, Holly Robinson Peete, Lucy Lawless and James Van Der Beek. Lawless says the following on her blog; ''I am just so thrilled to be working with this amazing director (Bryan Singer) and cast. I really dig working with Bryan, what a pleasure.''
Source: http://www.lucylawlessfanclub.com/

Filming started earlier this month (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=61471064&blogID=238381501).

[Lightning54SC]

Having said that, deep down, the thought of a Wachowski Superman movie is pretty darn exciting i must say.:ninja:

very interested as well

[Dino Pollard]

Singer is gonna get the ax. Trust me! I was the VERY first person to say that Kevin Spacey would be cast as Lex Luthor. Which I have prove of, BTW, and now I'm gonna predict that Singer is getting the ax.
Just because you got lucky with one prediction doesn't mean every prediction you make is going to be right.

And please, no Wachowskis. If people think Singer's unoriginal, what do they expect from the biggest pair of unoriginal hacks Hollywood has ever laid eyes on?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

How is that even a prediction when we knew 2 things.

BEFORE SINGER was on board people were lobbying for Spacey as Lex.

After SINGER is on board we know he's worked with Spacey and hires people he's worked with.

It was not one person speculating this would happen it was near everyone :rolleyes: NO PREDICTION was made.

[dude love]

Like I said, calling Spacey is like calling Bale. It was inevitable.

[dark_b]

Just because you got lucky with one prediction doesn't mean every prediction you make is going to be right.

And please, no Wachowskis. If people think Singer's unoriginal, what do they expect from the biggest pair of unoriginal hacks Hollywood has ever laid eyes on?you will have to explain this. and please show me some facts not your opinion. :o

[dude love]

Maybe he means this court case?

Source Wikipedia:

Sophia Stewart legal case

On April 24, 2003 Sophia Stewart filed suit against Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Joel Silver and the Wachowski Brothers claiming that the stories of The Matrix and Terminator franchises were based on a manuscript she wrote titled "The Third Eye". She allegedly submitted the manuscript to the Wachowskis in response to an advertisement. On October 4, 2004, a California court granted Stewart leave to continue her case. One account misreported the October 4 decision as Stewart winning her lawsuit, rather than simply winning permission to continue with the case. The case was dismissed in June 2005 on the basis that "Stewart and her attorneys had not entered any evidence to bolster its key claims or demonstrated any striking similarity between her work and the accused directors' films".[30]

[Justice Bringer]

Not to mention Spacey was tied to this project long before Singer.

[superbaby]

I think I'm one of the few people that really doesn't want to see a JLA movie. I find these characters much more compelling when they all have their own stories and don't interact much. JLA works well for an animated series but for a movie I think it will be just way too much and crowded. The only collaboration picture I can see working is a Superman/Batman movie because of their complicated relationship.
i'm with you.

[Showtime]

http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/hillsrunred4.jpg

Production has begun on The Hills Run Red, a joint horror venture from Robert (Free Enterprise) Burnett's Ludovico Technique Productions and Fever Dream Films. What is most notable about this fright feature is that it marks the return of director Dave Parker who has, sadly, long been absent from the genre scene since The Dead Hate the Living.

Over the last few years he's been involved in a number of projects including the 2002 documentary "Masters of Horror" (not associated with the Showtime series) and, under Ludovico Technique, a few premiere DVD documentaries for blockbusters such as Superman Returns and X2: X-Men United.

Parker's sophomore effort - which began rolling in Hollywood last night with creature character actor Nick Principe playing the film's axe-happy killer - harkens back to '80s body count slasher fare as it follows a group of folks trying to unlock the mysteries of a nefarious can of celluloid entitled "The Hills Run Red" and its director. For help, they enlist the film's only surviving cast member to take them through its remote backwoods locations.

Genre vet David J. Schow (The Crow, "Masters of Horror") is serving as Hills' consulting producer.

Your trusted writer ventured down to the film's Vine Theater set on Hollywood Blvd. to check out how things were going...and to participate as a "bludgeoned gym coach" for one scene. The blood ran thick throughout the evening and screams of desperation from one female victim reverberated regularly throughout this archaic grindhouse setting. More importantly, the footage Parker was getting looked amazing.

Highlights of the night (in addition to seeing Principe wrench a hatchet out of one of the many "theater" corpses) was spying Superman Returns' Bryan Singer and producer Gil Adler (no stranger to horror) check in on Parker's violent happenings.
Interestingly enough Gil Adler was a producer on Returns, but even more interesting is that Stephan Bender is also in attendence, more flashback sequences maybe?

[Matt]

any updates?

[Maze]

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/776/776969p1.html


Singer Talks Valkyrie
Helmer on getting the WW2 thriller green-lit.
by Stax

US, March 29, 2007 - Bryan Singer is preparing to direct his next film this summer, the World War II thriller Valkyrie. Tom Cruise is set to star in the fact-based pic as German officer Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, the ringleader of the failed "July Plot" that attempted to kill Adolf Hitler.

Valkyrie was scripted by Nathan Alexander and Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie, who also penned Singer's breakthrough film, The Usual Suspects.

Singer spoke to Variety columnist Liz Smith about how quickly the project came together at United Artists, which is now run by Cruise. "Originally, Chris and Nathan and I brought the project to UA because it seemed like a good match. UA was founded as an artist-based studio. Tom and Paula Wagner were clearly carrying on the tradition. The film was greenlit quickly."

Singer continued, "I admit in the back of my mind I always thought Tom would be a great fit for this role, beyond his physical resemblance. We met a few times about production and my desire to offer the part to him crystallized."

Smith said the Valkyrie script "is described as excellent with suspense, honor, horror and history all mixed in together." The columnist also added that Singer is still set to direct the Superman sequel for Warners following Valkyrie

thanks to Hunter rider :hyper:

[Showtime]

WB has a Supergirl script that they might possibly be casting for. This could be related to the Superman sequel.

[Antonello Blueberry]

I really don't get why people don't go to the original source.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961983.html?categoryid=2062&cs=1

How do a nation's elite rid themselves of a deranged chief executive or commander who is bent on leading the country astray? No, we're not talking here about our own life and times. We're talking Nazi Germany. United Artists announced last week that Tom Cruise will be starring in a World War II thriller just acquired. But no details as to exactly what that meant. We're here to tell you now. Movie projects are famous for dragging on, for rewrites, revisions, re-thinking. A great project may languish for years. But only a few months ago, writers Chris McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander got together with "X-Men" director Bryan Singer. They had all worked together on the critically acclaimed movie "The Usual Suspects," which starred Kevin Spacey. And then they went to UA with their project titled "Valkyrie." At UA, Bryan met with none other than Tom Cruise and just in the last month, Tom has been set to play the lead as a heroic German colonel, Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, the man who led the "July Plot" to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Singer says: "Originally, Chris and Nathan and I brought the project to UA because it seemed like a good match. UA was founded as an artist-based studio. Tom and Paula Wagner were clearly carrying on the tradition. The film was greenlit quickly. I admit in the back of my mind I always thought Tom would be a great fit for this role, beyond his physical resemblance. We met a few times about production and my desire to offer the part to him crystallized." This seems to be one of those adventures that happen only rarely. UA will forge ahead and make the movie early this summer because Bryan is set to go ahead on "Superman" at Warner Bros. The McQuarrie-Alexander script is described as excellent with suspense, honor, horror and history all mixed in together. To some of us it will be heroic history, to youngsters it will be a thriller. Tom and his partner Paula are very positive and excited about their new professional life at UA. They are already working on their first effort there -- "Lions for Lambs," to star Tom, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro and Robert Redford. The latter also directs.

[El Payaso]

Well well well

[FlawlessVictory]

Thanks Antonello. This sounds good for SR fans. And "Valkyrie" sounds like it has a lot of potential to be something really good.

[Maze]

Because sometimes , you don't have the time to see that indeed there is an original source? (that said it is noted , in the Ign article )

thanks for the help Antonello ;)

[Showtime]

At least the movie has a working title...

[Justice Bringer]

I really don't get why people don't go to the original source.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961983.html?categoryid=2062&cs=1

It'd be amusing if they name the movie "Superman"

[AssMan]

I guess this thread can be locked now but should be saved for memories as this is the thread lexlives got banned in :woot:

[JamalYIgle]

I guess this thread can be locked now but should be saved for memories as this is the thread lexlives got banned in :woot:

I wish I could honestly say I was surprised, I just knew it would happen eventually.

[Matt]

I don't think anything is official yet. Variety reports only facts as they heard them. A lot of what we KNOW is going on is behind the scenes and could change at a moments notice. We know WB asked for a JLA script. If it blows them out of the water, everything can change. Singer left himself vaulnerable by taking Valkyre. There is a good chance nothing will come of the vaulnerability, but there is also a chance someone might slip in and take over.

[Maze]

Agreed on some points matt..

yup (and i know you think that Singer is an overrated Director , but that is not the subject) if Warner let Singer go , in the idea that he wants to give them a Superman with more action , among others they have a good chance of having a bigger hit based on X2 results.

more money with another director is not garanteed.why?

Now we are going in my educated guess area :D ;) Superman returns has garnered a fan base from what i know, and the majority imo of the intial fan base will be back .

from what i know, generally, there is interest ,don't get me wrong, not a great interest, but interest.the buzz could grow from there if the first teaser give audience what they wan't.

on the others hand with another director ,"continuity " (meaning a minimum of tone consistancy) is not so garanteed.. and above all a better director is not garanteed.not every quality director wan't to follow in the foostep of another if it is a direct sequel..

more money with "another director" is not so garanteed.

this is not an Xmen situation where the franchise was very well established.and i think that is one of the more important reasons of X3 box office success..

Imo this would be a big business mistake decision to let Singer go now.

[Matt]

I think the initial flaw in your logic is comparing Superman to X-men. Superman should be putting up Spider-Man numbers, not X-Men numbers.

[Maze]

I think the initial flaw in your logic is comparing Superman to X-men. Superman should be putting up Spider-Man numbers, not X-Men numbers.

It Should yes.

but i don't think that in this era it is possible.

i mean do the Superman comics do Spiderman numbers Matt ?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think the initial flaw in your logic is comparing Superman to X-men. Superman should be putting up Spider-Man numbers, not X-Men numbers.


The only way Superman could put up Spidey numbers is too have a mindless MTV generation style romp. Where you get all the teens on board for popcorn fest. Not the kind of movie I want.

[Matt]

The only way Superman could put up Spidey numbers is too have a mindless MTV generation style romp. Where you get all the teens on board for popcorn fest. Not the kind of movie I want.

I don't think so. The Spider-Man movies have had two or three action scenes. Thats it. Sure, a little action would help, but being a mindless romp is not necessary. The problem is the lack of relation to the characters. People like characterization they can RELATE to. Singer went out of his way to show how alienated Superman is. That alienates him from the audience. Then Lois, she was an ice queen. that is why this movie didn't put up Spider-Man numbers. In Spider-man, you feel for every character from Peter to Mj, from Harry to Norman. You understand them, you care about them, you feel for them. The only character I felt anything for in SR was Richard White. That is the problem. Not the lack of action.

[Matt]

It Should yes.

but i don't think that in this era it is possible.

i mean do the Superman comics do Spiderman numbers Matt ?

Not to sound like a broken record, but comic sales to movie sales is apples and oranges.

[Darth Elektra]

Glad to hear that the sequel to Returns hasnt been pushed back.

[mego joe]

The only way Superman could put up Spidey numbers is too have a mindless MTV generation style romp. Where you get all the teens on board for popcorn fest. Not the kind of movie I want.

So do you feel the SPider-Man films are "mindless MTV generation style romp(s)" ?

[Maze]

Not to sound like a broken record, but comic sales to movie sales is apples and oranges.

Well to my knowledge comics sales reflect often ( but not every times) pubic tendancy.

Anyways , you know what do i hear about Superman most of the time?

what did i heard sometimes before Sr release? (i remember Superman the movie was shown anew on nationnal television ) Superman is boring , too clear cut ,he is outdated .

incidentally , i know a number of people who changed a little thier mind after Sr.they even started to like him.

But most of the people that i know did not.

those people didn't wan't to see Sr based on the idea that they have of the character.

[dark_b]

I don't think so. The Spider-Man movies have had two or three action scenes. Thats it. Sure, a little action would help, but being a mindless romp is not necessary. The problem is the lack of relation to the characters. People like characterization they can RELATE to. Singer went out of his way to show how alienated Superman is. That alienates him from the audience. Then Lois, she was an ice queen. that is why this movie didn't put up Spider-Man numbers. In Spider-man, you feel for every character from Peter to Mj, from Harry to Norman. You understand them, you care about them, you feel for them. The only character I felt anything for in SR was Richard White. That is the problem. Not the lack of action.you see i can not agree with that.
1. i think that that you dont make that big numbers because peopel are going in the theater because of the character. i think the word col is how you make bug numbers and spidey was just and still is cool and has cool shots.
2. i think what singer did with superman is that he put him closer to us not far far away.

[Justice Bringer]

I have to agree that Singer's universe of Superman was the closest attempt I've ever seen to Superman existing in our real world.

It made it seem like Superman was real.

I kinda prefer that over a more comicbook-like approach personally.

[El Payaso]

I have to agree that Singer's universe of Superman was the closest attempt I've ever seen to Superman existing in our real world.

It made it seem like Superman was real.

I kinda prefer that over a more comicbook-like approach personally.

It was time for a change. We already got too much Superman - and other characters like Spiderman - with the easy way, where everything happens like a carbon copy of comics but limiting themselves to explore what thge 'real' character is beyond the cliches.

[Maze]

I agree totally.

[Justice Bringer]

Plus it makes SR fit with BB's universe and look more easily.

This is why it was prolly best Brandon wasnt running around in the bright Chris Reeve tights. That just wouldnt look right next to Nolan's Batman.

I think the look for the film visually in the sequel will be closer to Kakorot's manips, a subtle change.

[darkseid26]

your right about the costume thing JB superman in bright costume would not look cool to badass batman

[Antonello Blueberry]

I think the initial flaw in your logic is comparing Superman to X-men. Superman should be putting up Spider-Man numbers, not X-Men numbers.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Boxoffice gross adjusted for inflation (just USA)
Spider-Man $457,209,600
Superman (Richard Donner) $377,416,500
So even Donner's Superman wasn't as successful as Raimi's Spider-Man.

[bosef982]

I guess this thread can be locked now but should be saved for memories as this is the thread lexlives got banned in :woot:

How did he get banned?

[bosef982]

I think the initial flaw in your logic is comparing Superman to X-men. Superman should be putting up Spider-Man numbers, not X-Men numbers.

The initial flaw in HIS logic...what about yours?

Your assuming a huge correlation between Spider-Man and Superman simply because what...they are the most well-known Marvel/DC icons? Um...how did you come to that conclusion?

There is no relevance or basis whatsoever for a belief that Superman should produce Spider-Man level numbers. None. What. So. Ever.

Point me to where it says that beyond your subjective opinion?

Spider-Man has a unique set of variables and standards that made it the hit that it was...not to say that Superman Returns bombed at the box office. Its universally accepted by almost anyone with a brain that WB had unrealistic expectations since Superman pulled more money that Batman Begins, which is considered a success.

Are you the lone one who is going to stick to the outdated belief that somehow this movie tanked?

And I think Maze brought up a terrific point by asking if Superman comics over the past ten years have done as well as Spider-Man comics?

If the answer is yes, then you're right.
If the answer is no, then you're "logic" has several flaws.
If the answer is "I don't know," then your logic is based on unfounded reasoning.

So, please explain this to us.

[bosef982]

Not to sound like a broken record, but comic sales to movie sales is apples and oranges.

Wiat, so now there's no relevance between the two?

Then how the heck are you making this association? Superman should make Spider-Man numbers...WHY? You still haven't answered that?

Because its a comic book movie? Then why aren't you running aruond harping on X-Men, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, etc.?

You have failed to tell us where there is a similarity between Spider-Man and Superman that makes their box office numbers expectations simliar? What characteristic do they share that no other ecomic book movie has that alone makes Superman have to perform like Spider-Man?

When you've answered this question, your logic will make sense. Until then, the only one we can presume is that Spider-Man and Superman -- in their comic realms -- are just as popular as one another. But then this does introduce comic book sales numbers into the equation, which you would inevitabily find are not comparable as Spider-Man has outperformed.

[Matt]

The similiarity is the iconic status. You ask anyone on the street to identify Spider-Man or Superman, they can. The same similiarity does not exisit with heroes like X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, etc. Superman has been an American icon who has been in existance for the better part of a century. He has had numerous top rated television programs, best selling books, and has appeared in countless other mediums. That is why he should be putting up ATLEAST Spider-Man numbers. In fact Bosef, I can find posts made by you a year ago, arguing these exact points as to why Superman would win the box-office over Pirates.

[darkseid26]

Dammn!

[bosef982]

The similiarity is the iconic status. You ask anyone on the street to identify Spider-Man or Superman, they can. The same similiarity does not exisit with heroes like X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, etc. Superman has been an American icon who has been in existance for the better part of a century. He has had numerous top rated television programs, best selling books, and has appeared in countless other mediums. That is why he should be putting up ATLEAST Spider-Man numbers. In fact Bosef, I can find posts made by you a year ago, arguing these exact points as to why Superman would win the box-office over Pirates.

Please do.

[The Incredible Hulk]

With a great budget comes great expectations. Even Alan Horn was quoted as saying they were expecting at least $500 million worldwide.

[Freddy_Krueger]

With a great budget comes great expectations. Even Alan Horn was quoted as saying they were expecting at least $500 million worldwide.

No one is saying that WB wasn't disappointed. But considering that they signed Singer aboard for the sequel right after the film grossed $200 million shows that they trust him to bring in a huge money maker next time 'round.



Superman has been an American icon who has been in existance for the better part of a century. He has had numerous top rated television programs, best selling books, and has appeared in countless other mediums.

So has Batman, whose popularity rivals Superman's. And BB was only able to gross $205 million domestic, a far cry from Spider-man numbers himself (and, yes, Warner Brothers was most certainly hoping for Spider-man numbers with Batman Begins as well).

[Matt]

No one is saying that WB wasn't disappointed. But considering that they signed Singer aboard for the sequel right after the film grossed $200 million shows that they trust him to bring in a huge money maker next time 'round.


Or they were just so desperate to recoup some of their losses that they signed Singer and planned to limit his budget in order to FORCE a profit. Thats also a possibility, but the fact is none of us know what WB executives were thinking so lets not be so foolish to think we do.



So has Batman, whose popularity rivals Superman's. And BB was only able to gross $205 million domestic, a far cry from Spider-man numbers himself (and, yes, Warner Brothers was most certainly hoping for Spider-man numbers with Batman Begins as well).

Nonsense. Batman Begins was made for teenagers/adults and practically neglected the child demographic. Marketing proved that as did the lack of merchandising. SR on the other hand was meant from day one to appeal to the youth demographic as can be seen through merchandising and marketing. WB knows that it is the kiddie market that brings in Spider-Man numbers, therefore if they did not sell BB to that market, it is unrealistic to believe they would expect Spider-Man numbers from it.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Nonsense. Batman Begins was made for teenagers/adults and practically neglected the child demographic. Marketing proved that as did the lack of merchandising. SR on the other hand was meant from day one to appeal to the youth demographic as can be seen through merchandising and marketing. WB knows that it is the kiddie market that brings in Spider-Man numbers, therefore if they did not sell BB to that market, it is unrealistic to believe they would expect Spider-Man numbers from it.


Oh please. If Batman Begins wasn't aimed at kids then neither was the original Burton film. And guess what, as a child of the mid 80s and 90s, Burton's film was very much marketed to children. All comic book movies are. BB isn't an exception. Hell, Batman himself isn't an exception. He's always been marketed to children and always will be. And last I checked there were in fact plenty of Batman Begins toys and it ain't the adults buying them and playing with them.

WB was most certainly aiming for Spider-man numbers with Begins. But it didn't happen.

[Showtime]

The truth has to be faced by some of you, Spiderman has stolen Superman's post when it comes to iconic hero potrayed in film. You can blame WB for that. It took so long for them to get their act together through Burton, MCG, Ratner and so on; that Spiderman swung down and sent Superman back to Krypton.

Spiderman stole Superman's spotlight and was the all American hero in The Man of Steel's absence. After 9/11 the world needed a hero and Spiderman gladly accepted the mantle. From there everything Spiderman just kept rolling as Superman struggled in pre-production hell. By the time Superman had come back so many heroes had already graced the screen.

However this is no excuse, Superman should have still pulled in big numbers and should be able to go head to head with Spiderman on any day. Superman is DC's top hero and the movie failed against Marvel's top hero. It is what it is. You can't make excuses in the place of facts.

[Showtime]

OK...this is the craziest April Fools Joke. Pink and Green?

[C. Lee]

http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/LOL-Doggie.jpg

[Showtime]

That's a riot! I was going to just ask Matt why he changed his classic avatar to David Hasselhoff...now I know.

[Matt]

Oh please. If Batman Begins wasn't aimed at kids then neither was the original Burton film. And guess what, as a child of the mid 80s and 90s, Burton's film was very much marketed to children. All comic book movies are. BB isn't an exception. Hell, Batman himself isn't an exception. He's always been marketed to children and always will be. And last I checked there were in fact plenty of Batman Begins toys and it ain't the adults buying them and playing with them.

WB was most certainly aiming for Spider-man numbers with Begins. But it didn't happen.


There are to my knowledge a very limited ammount of toys dealing with Batman Begins, cartoons and comics...yes. Not the movie. It was NOT marketed to children. That is a fact. There are countless interviews with Nolan, Bale, Goyer and anyone else who did press on this film saying it is not meant for children. And even if it were, and even if it put up those numbers...bare with me here...because this is where it gets tricky...

BATMAN BEGINS WAS A MUCH SMALLER SCALE PRODUCTION WITH A BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN SUPERMAN RETURNS! FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN NOT USE ANOTHER MOVIE'S SHORTCOMINGS TO JUSTIFY SUPERMAN RETURNS OR BRYAN SINGER'S!

[Matt]

That's a riot! I was going to just ask Matt why he changed his classic avatar to David Hasselhoff...now I know.

How dare the Hype Hassel the Hoff :cmad:

[dude love]

There are to my knowledge a very limited ammount of toys dealing with Batman Begins, cartoons and comics...yes. Not the movie. It was NOT marketed to children. That is a fact. There are countless interviews with Nolan, Bale, Goyer and anyone else who did press on this film saying it is not meant for children. And even if it were, and even if it put up those numbers...bare with me here...because this is where it gets tricky...

BATMAN BEGINS WAS A MUCH SMALLER SCALE PRODUCTION WITH A BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN SUPERMAN RETURNS! FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN NOT USE ANOTHER MOVIE'S SHORTCOMINGS TO JUSTIFY SUPERMAN RETURNS OR BRYAN SINGER'S!

Wow, talk about touchy. I don't about wherever you're from but here's how the hype for Batman begins and Superman Returns played ou in Australia:

Batman Begins:
Teaser trailer hits. Reveals little about the film other than it's a Batman movie.

Teaser posters all over the place. Have Batman doing various Batmanesque poses infront of an amber sky.

Trailer comes out, reveals it's an origin film.

KFC tie in, with very goofy commercials with kids eating KFC while splicing in footage of Batman kicking various thugs in the ass. Blowing up half of the GCPD with his Tumbler, et all

Toys hit the stands cardboard cut outs of batman are in every toy shop.

Cartoon Network play a 48 hour Batman: TAS marathon on it's opening weekend.

Superman Returns:

Teaser hits, Marlon Brando voice over ending with Superman flying off into Metropolis.

Teaser posters, exactly like the Begins ones except the background is greeny - blue

Trailer, reveals is a sequel.

Coca Cola tie in, goofy ass coomercials of kids drinking coke while editing in footage of the plane scene, bullet in the eye, et all

Toys hit the stands, cardboard cut outs of Superman in every toy store.
Cartoon Network lays 48 hour Superman TAS weekend.

If they're marketed the same way, don't you think they'll do similar numbers? The entity to blame for both films short comings is WB.

[dude love]

How did he get banned?

For being himself :oldrazz:

His posts/threads generally resulted in fights so, the mods felt it best to throw him in the phantom zone.

[Freddy_Krueger]

There are to my knowledge a very limited ammount of toys dealing with Batman Begins, cartoons and comics...yes. Not the movie. It was NOT marketed to children. That is a fact. There are countless interviews with Nolan, Bale, Goyer and anyone else who did press on this film saying it is not meant for children. And even if it were, and even if it put up those numbers...bare with me here...because this is where it gets tricky...

BATMAN BEGINS WAS A MUCH SMALLER SCALE PRODUCTION WITH A BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN SUPERMAN RETURNS! FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN NOT USE ANOTHER MOVIE'S SHORTCOMINGS TO JUSTIFY SUPERMAN RETURNS OR BRYAN SINGER'S!

Ummm...did I touch a nerve? Look fella, again, as a kid who grew up watching Tim Burton's Batman--which looking back was certainly not a movie for a kid to be watching--it was most certainly aimed for kids in other areas of marketing. The exact same thing goes with Batman Begins. So your claim that BB wasn't aimed at kids is baseless.

And I still don't know who was buying those Tumbler toys or Batman action figures. According to you it wasn't kids, so I just have to imagine a 25 year old was buying them, taking them out of the box and playing with them.

[Maze]

The similiarity is the iconic status. You ask anyone on the street to identify Spider-Man or Superman, they can. The same similiarity does not exisit with heroes like X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, etc. Superman has been an American icon who has been in existance for the better part of a century. He has had numerous top rated television programs, best selling books, and has appeared in countless other mediums. That is why he should be putting up ATLEAST Spider-Man numbers. In fact Bosef, I can find posts made by you a year ago, arguing these exact points as to why Superman would win the box-office over Pirates.

Well the fact matt is that even Donner Superman made considerably less that Spiderman .

And that was in an era were the Super movie genre was a "new thing" .. not saturated like now.that was in an era more receptive to clear cut heroes.

Matt ,we will surely never agree , but it's a fact ; yes Superman is an iconic figure and a lot of people recognize who it is , but is not that popular anymore , just check with what the kids are playing right now.they even adressed the issue that Superman is not that popular anymore amusingly in the latest Dc crossover.

That you like or not Singer ,that you like or not the movie, even if yes he should have done more action scenes , and he should have fixed some things ( in the script area and acting wise) the movie made new Superman believers, Singer gave a chance to Superman to really soar again.:)

no? let's agree to disagree .. i give you rendez vous after The man of steel release.

[GreenKToo]

wow, I never thought about it before, but Hasselhoff for Brainiac dammit. It would do 200 mill in Germany alone if they would cast him. :D

[Freddy_Krueger]

wow, I never thought about it before, but Hasselhoff for Brainiac dammit. It would do 200 mill in Germany alone if they would cast him. :D

http://www.bitetv.ca/blog/archives/macdonald.jpg

"This just goes to prove my theory: Germans love David Hasselhoff!"

[Matt]

Well the fact matt is that even Donner Superman made considerably less that Spiderman .

And that was in an era were the Super movie genre was a "new thing" .. not saturated like now.that was in an era more receptive to clear cut heroes.

Matt ,we will surely never agree , but it's a fact ; yes Superman is an iconic figure and a lot of people recognize who it is , but is not that popular anymore , just check with what the kids are playing right now.they even adressed the issue that Superman is not that popular anymore amusingly in the latest Dc crossover.

That you like or not Singer ,that you like or not the movie, even if yes he should have done more action scenes , and he should have fixed some things ( in the script area and acting wise) the movie made new Superman believers, Singer gave a chance to Superman to really soar again.:)

no? let's agree to disagree .. i give you rendez vous after The man of steel release.

When adjusted for inflation, Superman 78s numbers are as impressive if not more impressive as Spider-Man. Hell, its domestic gross was 135 million. It was 65 million short of Superman Return's numbers in a time when ticket prices were 80 % less than they are worth now. I think that is an incredibly telling statistic.

[Matt]

Freddy, Dude...I am not going to argue the intended demographics of Batman Begins with you, because you both know as well as I do that it was intended for an older demographic than the Spider-Man audience and you know it. To say WB expected Spider-Man numbers for it is absurd. And again, there is no point arguing BB as you can not use another movie's shortcomings to justify Bryan Singer's.

[green]

And again, there is no point arguing BB as you can not use another movie's shortcomings to justify Bryan Singer's.

Wait....so he cant compare it to Begins but you can go on and on comparing it to Spiderman:huh:

[Matt]

Wait....so he cant compare it to Begins but you can go on and on comparing it to Spiderman:huh:

They have a similiar demographic, they are both the icons of the respective comic company, and box office numbers to Superman 78 when adjusted to inflation are very similiar to those of Spider-Man. The comparrison is much more fair.

[Maze]

When adjusted for inflation, Superman 78s numbers are as impressive if not more impressive as Spider-Man. Hell, its domestic gross was 150-some million. It was 50 million short of Superman Return's numbers in a time when ticket prices were 80 % less than they are worth now. I think that is an incredibly telling statistic.

Well i dunno Matt , that's not what i read..

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Superman78s adjusted for inflation has even done les money than Batman ...

[Matt]

Just to make it clear how similiar the numbers are

Superman 1978 when adjusted for inflation would be roughly 380 million DOMESTICALLY where as Spider-Man made 400 million domestically.

[Matt]

Well i dunno Matt , that's not what i read..

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Superman78s adjusted for inflation has even done les money than Batman ...

I'll give you that, but you should also take into account that Batman 89 had several things going for it that Superman 78 did not.

Firstly, it had a revolutionary marketing campaign the likes of Hollywood had never seen before.

Second, it had a much larger cast than either Superman or Spider-Man (Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Keaton...these are all A-listers and at the time were all huge box office draws).

I still maintain comparrisons to Spider-Man are far more fair than comparrisons to Batman, 89 or Begins.

[Maze]

I agree about Your batman 89 point , but domestically Spiderman smoke Superman and Batman89 matt .. adjusted for inflation :Spider-Man Sony $457,209,600 .

[Matt]

Also, let us assume for a second, that Batman Begins was a horrible failure. Lets ignore the fact that its budget was much smaller and lets assume it failed. How exactly does that justify Superman Returns? There is no denying Superman is a larger icon. There is no denying based on numbers put up by previous Superman movies that it should've in theory recieved Spider-Man numbers. There is no denying, that is what WB wanted...a new flagship franchise. So how exactly does the failure of Batman Begins justify Superman's failure to live up to those expectations.

[Matt]

I agree about Your batman 89 point , but domestically Spiderman smoke Superman and Batman89 matt .. adjusted for inflation :Spider-Man Sony $457,209,600 .

Fair enough, lets drop Spider-Man. Lets compare Superman to Superman. I think we can all agree it is a fair comparrison. 380 million compared to 200 million. Quite the difference, wouldn't you say?

[dark_b]

superman is more for kids plus he is more fantasy. so i also think that he should make more money than batman.

[Maze]

Fair enough, lets drop Spider-Man. Lets compare Superman to Superman. I think we can all agree it is a fair comparrison. 380 million compared to 200 million. Quite the difference, wouldn't you say?

Of course , but apart from the point about the obvious misteps of Sr ( artistics and commercial ) that i agree with ,i maintain my point : Superman is not that cool anymore for people.and especially for kids.

they like their heroes ambiguous , dark ,and/or with every day problems .

something that ,on the paper at least, Superman do not give.

[Matt]

Of course , but apart from the point about the obvious misteps ( artistics and commercial ) that i agree with ,i maintain my point : Superman is not that cool anymore for people.and especially for kids.

they like their heroes ambiguous , dark ,and/or with every day problems .

something that ,on the paper at least, Superman do not give.

But Singer did make him dark, Singer did make him broody. That wasn't the problem. The problem was he was unrelatable. Singer tried so hard to alienate him, that he ended up alienating him from the audience as well.

Superman can be dark and broody and yet still relatable, likable, and maintain all the classic elements that make the character great (look no further than A Superman For All Seasons)...Singer ignored the relatable, likable, and classic elements...and that is why it failed.

[Maze]

Edit triplle posstt

[Maze]

edit

[Maze]

But Singer did make him dark, Singer did make him broody. That wasn't the problem. The problem was he was unrelatable. Singer tried so hard to alienate him, that he ended up alienating him from the audience as well.

Superman can be dark and broody and yet still relatable, likable, and maintain all the classic elements that make the character great (look no further than A Superman For All Seasons)...Singer ignored the relatable, likable, and classic elements...and that is why it failed.

I agree that he made him more dark (but, again personnaly i think he made him more human and more relatable in the process) i maintain that people had preconception about the character.

Matt , i don't know you but i know a lot of people who didn't wan't to see the movie , because they just had preconception about the characters.

now i know people who saw it who didn't like Superman before and fell in love with him and found him more relatable than ever ( and i know a lot of Superman 78 fans who loved the movie , and i know people who were bored to death lol it's fifty fifty on the matter )

[Weadazoid]

Why is this thread still going? I thought this argum,ent was put to rest a week ago. Am i wrong, or are singer haters just keeping this and Wlakchosky rebooot thread going to anoy others.


I am in the middle, part of me wants to see SInger take it as far as a 2nd film, but there were definite aspects of returns that I did not care for

[Freddy_Krueger]

Freddy, Dude...I am not going to argue the intended demographics of Batman Begins with you, because you both know as well as I do that it was intended for an older demographic than the Spider-Man audience and you know it. To say WB expected Spider-Man numbers for it is absurd. And again, there is no point arguing BB as you can not use another movie's shortcomings to justify Bryan Singer's.

I'm not trying to argue anything with you, Matt. Arguing on the internet is dumb. Now debating, that's a different issue. I just don't see how anyone can say that Warner Brothers wasn't hoping that kids would go to the new Batman movie in droves. Was it dark? Yes, but so was Burton's and that was popular for adults and children.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I was just saying that all superhero films are expected to bring a younger demographic in, not just Superman, not just Spider-man, but a dark brooding character such as Batman as well.

[Majestic]

I'll give you that, but you should also take into account that Batman 89 had several things going for it that Superman 78 did not.

Firstly, it had a revolutionary marketing campaign the likes of Hollywood had never seen before.

Second, it had a much larger cast than either Superman or Spider-Man (Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Keaton...these are all A-listers and at the time were all huge box office draws).

I still maintain comparrisons to Spider-Man are far more fair than comparrisons to Batman, 89 or Begins.

I have to agree with you somewhat. But it is almost impossible to compare the release of the original superman to spiderman because of how the industry has changed since 1978. Less so with 89 batman which was meant to be a so called movie event which they do today. Supermans widest release was 817 theaters, not 4000 and that was built upon as the movie gained popularity. Superman established the genre in the first place!

[Ita-KalEl]

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.
This time SM3 and FF2 will face a good competition and I doubt that we are going to see incredible numbers. SM3 will be lucky to finish close to the SM2 total gross, and the FF2 will struggle to cross the 170m mark.
By now SR did more than FF, BB and Ghost Rider. It was beaten only by X-Men: The Last Stand (the second anticipated sequel of a popular franchise).

[GreenKToo]

I agree with you on this. IMHO for good or bad singer chose to go the realistic route with superman, pretty much ignoring the younger audience. Now the older crowd (mostly) liked/loved it, but the younger crowd (mostly) didnt, and they are the ones that make a B.O. huge with multiple viewings. They need to find the perfect balance in the sequel, and not stray to far either way and the B.O. could be huge. I'm glad I dont have the job, a headache for sure.superman is more for kids plus he is more fantasy. so i also think that he should make more money than batman.

[Super Kal]

I agree with dark b... Superman is a character that is aimed for younger people because he is a light hearted character... and that's probably why I didn't like the movie.

[Kid_Kaos]

I wouldn't say the movie was aimed for either (old/young) but wholly to the braindead. You have to suspend alot of disbelief to accept the choppy, unrealistic and deadly boring story.
The sequel must make a complete "180" to even have a chance of making another $200 mill in the end. Good luck. :dry:

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.
Yep, you and your friends will finally see how well working franchises make money at the BO. Which means: one lesser point for you too brag about. :woot:

[Weadazoid]

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.
This time SM3 and FF2 will face a good competition and I doubt that we are going to see incredible numbers. SM3 will be lucky to finish close to the SM2 total gross, and the FF2 will struggle to cross the 170m mark.
By now SR did more than FF, BB and Ghost Rider. It was beaten only by X-Men: The Last Stand (the second anticipated sequel of a popular franchise).


I hate to break it to you but Spiderman kicks off Summer....it is a spot that MI3 had last year and many predicted big numbers for MI 3 simply based on that fact alone

300 already proved people are about action and a good story and it's not even Summer, Spiderman will break open huge...I think it may well beat out Pirates 2 record opening day.

My 50+ year old father in law knows when Spiderman 3 is coming out for gods sakes... Everyone will be there.

It has the same kind of competion as Spiderman 1 whcih had Star wars to contend with

Spiderman 3 will make over 400 Million..esspecialy with Memorial day still in shot of giving it a serious boost...even if it is in 3rd place by that point.

Last year was weird

Face it MI3 crapped out and still beneifited from being the first action movie..Posiedon Bombed, The Code got terrible reviews and X men was just sitting there waiting with alot of hope and hype form the previous movies....

X3 may have gotten even better moves at the Box office had it opened first..last year everyone had to wait it out..this year everyone going to be there to kick it off

[Ita-KalEl]

Mark my words: Spiderman 3 will be beaten at least by two other summer blockbusters.
IMO the he first movie is Transformers wich is going to be the real surprise of the summer. Then I would say POTC3...or maybe Shrek III...I don't know.

If you look at the release schedule Spiderman III will have 2 weeks without any significant competition, but then it will have two monsters: Shrek III and POTC3.

IMO it will be very frontloaded, and if it is lucky the total gross will be similar to Spiderman2 (330-370m), not more.

But the best part is the situation of The FantasticFour2. If Evan Almighty, Ratatouille are going to be two great hits (more than 230m), and expecially if POTC3 shows some great legs, it will have few chances to cross the 160m mark.

If SM3 doesn't set any new record and the FF2 doesn't cross the 170m mark in the US, Superman Returns and Batman Begins have to be considered the most successful "new" sh franchises (behind Spiderman and the XMEN sequels).

[Showtime]

Mark my words: Spiderman 3 will be beaten at least by two other summer blockbusters.
IMO the he first movie is Transformers wich is going to be the real surprise of the summer. Then I would say POTC3...or maybe Shrek III...I don't know.

If you look at the release schedule Spiderman III will have 2 weeks without any significant competition, but then it will have two monsters: Shrek III and POTC3.

IMO it will be very frontloaded, and if it is lucky the total gross will be similar to Spiderman2 (330-370m), not more.

But the best part is the situation of The FantasticFour2. If Evan Almighty, Ratatouille are going to be two great hits (more than 230m), and expecially if POTC3 shows some great legs, it will have few chances to cross the 160m mark.

If SM3 doesn't set any new record and the FF2 doesn't cross the 170m

Spiderman has two weeks to earn big money and there is no doubt it will have legs. Don't forget this movie will be in IMAX as well, this movie should easily pass 400 million domestic proving Spiderman has taken Superman's place.

In regards to FF2, the best comparision is to look at the increase of BO from X-Men to X2. Just as I said that Daredevil was a good guage on what Ghost Rider would do.

[dark_b]

300 proved that people like very easy action movies.
i laso think that the reaso nwhy 300 made so much money was because a lot of people went in the theater thinking that they will watch a history movie like troy,..... of course it was not like thta.
plus 300 is something new when it comes to visual. the story and dialoge in 300 is very simple.

i will say again: if oyu find the right balance between story,action and good pacing you have a good movie that critics will like and it will make enough money.
the story should be serious but it should not be to complicated for little kids.

the theme in SR was IMO in nooo way for little kids. again i am not a kid anymore thats why i like hulk and SR but i want that the kids also enjoy in those movies like i did as a kid enjoy batman and superman. ohhh the old times. :)

[true316]

But Singer did make him dark, Singer did make him broody. That wasn't the problem. The problem was he was unrelatable. Singer tried so hard to alienate him, that he ended up alienating him from the audience as well.

Superman can be dark and broody and yet still relatable, likable, and maintain all the classic elements that make the character great (look no further than A Superman For All Seasons)...Singer ignored the relatable, likable, and classic elements...and that is why it failed.

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her :oldrazz:) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks! :yay:

[Super Kal]

the biggest problem IMO was it's similarity to STM...


that and the lighting

[Maze]

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her :oldrazz:) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks! :yay:

Nothing to add :up:

[Matt]

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her :oldrazz:) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks! :yay:


I don't necessarily disagree with any of that...but isn't it Singer's job as a director to find a way to make the character "cool" and relatable? Isn't it his job as a director to give us something new so the oversaturation of the market and the been there done that attitude is not a factor (and I hardly think giving us a sequel to a 30 year old movie is the way to shake those). Isn't it his job to work around plot holes and baggage that comes with the character as opposed to adding to it? And finally, isn't it his job to make a movie capable of standing up to a mammoth like Pirates?

I mean, all your factors are correct, but these are all factors people were aware of BEFORE THE FACT and Singer did nothing to correct them. That is why fault lies with him.

[Eros]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that...but isn't it Singer's job as a director to find a way to make the character "cool" and relatable? Isn't it his job as a director to give us something new so the oversaturation of the market and the been there done that attitude is not a factor (and I hardly think giving us a sequel to a 30 year old movie is the way to shake those). Isn't it his job to work around plot holes and baggage that comes with the character as opposed to adding to it? And finally, isn't it his job to make a movie capable of standing up to a mammoth like Pirates?

I mean, all your factors are correct, but these are all factors people were aware of BEFORE THE FACT and Singer did nothing to correct them. That is why fault lies with him.

Like the post your quoted already said, people don't even find him cool anymore, hell after superman returns people just find him to be even more boring. Hell most superman fans, don't even thinkthe character is "cool" they like him for other reasons.

[Super Kal]

that's why you gotta make him cool again...

[BareKnucklez]

You need to make Superman a MAN again... Singer's Superman was a wimp!
A Low life, and everything Superman is not.
Singer is about 80% at fault for the failure that was SR.. The others to blame are the writers, actors, and yes the lame lame marketing.
The WB should think twice before letting Singer hack his way threw another 200million.

[Eros]

You need to make Superman a MAN again... Singer's Superman was a wimp!
A Low life, and everything Superman is not.
Singer is about 80% at fault for the failure that was SR.. The others to blame are the writers, actors, and yes the lame lame marketing.
The WB should think twice before letting Singer hack his way threw another 200million.


How was a "wimp" exactly?:huh:

[DarkMajin]

How was a "wimp" exactly?:huh:

Well, personally I was wondering what was going through the two screenwriter's and Singer's heads when they decided Superman wouldn't actually fight anyone in the whole film, but would get kicked around himself.

Also add in how he tended to mope around a lot and the soap operatics...and well, he just wasn't a "strong" Superman.

Imagine if they made a Batman film like that. ;)

This was meant to be a reintroduction of a franchise...and today we have the ability to truly bring stories of Superman proportion to life...and well, they didn't.

[BareKnucklez]

How was a "wimp" exactly?:huh:

Well, personally I was wondering what was going through the two screenwriter's and Singer's heads when they decided Superman wouldn't actually fight anyone in the whole film, but would get kicked around himself.

Also add in how he tended to mope around a lot and the soap operatics...and well, he just wasn't a "strong" Superman.

Imagine if they made a Batman film like that. ;)

This was meant to be a reintroduction of a franchise...and today we have the ability to truly bring stories of Superman proportion to life...and well, they didn't.



What he said ^^^ :woot:

Nacho Libre had more Action then Superman Returns!

[patrickbateman]

FOR ME BRYAN JUST DOESN’T GET SUPERMAN

He get’s his version of superman and wants to just shove it down our throats. This is what happens when a person with ego takes over a project the same can be said about Joel Schumacher who forced us with his take on batman and robin ignoring the different interpretations of the character out there that were true to the original intent of the character. Superman is the last son of krypton what part of that does singer doesn’t get? he is suppose to be alone in his adoptive world till he finds kara . He’s not suppose to be a father yeah father figure! Sure, as a role model yeah but not an actual father .Its one of the aspect that brings in the vulnerability trigger the envy inside of him. Its like Bruce Wayne and marriage just doesn’t gel with the character. With singer’s superman returns the character actually evolved to A SUPER-MAN gone was his weakness and vulnerability that defined the character even kryptonite that was once considered harmful and fatal is now just a joke. He is by the end of the day a reflection of ourselves only SUPER thanks to singer.

As for lex I was disappointed what did he do besides becoming a man **** to gain a huge mansion and a big boat? Yeah he wanted to built an island after all the vast improvements made that character in the comic books and other medium singer brought him down to a goofy guy who wanted to own his island. Again its singer shoving us with his love for the donner movies and Donald trump another attention whore like singer. Where was the business man lex? The scentist lex? Why are we stuck with the real estate lex? Oooh real estates are as intimidating in a world of 2006 than they were back in the reeve-donner movies.

The donner universe ok I admit its classic but no way is it perfect for today world of 2006 post 9/11, the world is a very different place. Superman can’t stand for truth, hope and justice the American way. Cause the American way its self is at stake, may not be in its own country but globally America really doesn’t stand for what it did back in the donner reeve era. So yes that’s where we need a new take on character pertaining to the current times what defined Sam raimi’s Spiderman and Nolan’s batman acceptable were the post 9/11 settings. That day defiantly redefine superheroes and for one who claims to be on the top of that list, singer should have updated and modeled the settings to current times. For me the whole timeless frames didn’t work at all it felt out of place in terms of connecting it to the donner movies aswell as placing it with what I would consider acceptable. Yeah singer should have made a world of 2006 where in mankind does live in fear o their own system and he should have acknowledged it rather than inserting old newspaper articles.

Reeve the man above superman- now not many of you may agree to it but for me what hurt the franchise was the continuation to the reeve-donner movies. I felt it was disrespectful for butchering what the character stood for I really don’t see superman abandoning his earth planet after superman 2 let alone him stalking lois. Most importantly in this past decade Reeve’s has become Superman. Reeve’s the man really became Superman exceeding it o a level even more than anyone could imagine an actor could pull of. He became a source of inspiration to everyone, a role model , a fighter who was fighting against his own body, he stood for hope. Don’t even get me started on the confidence and drive the man had. So back to my point getting a look a like of Reeve and continuing from the donner reeve universe is really replacing him. Sure if it was an origin story the crowd would handle it much better but for those like my parents who were in the reeve-donner era, singer’s whole SUPERMAN RETURNS really implied that he was replacing him. How can you replace a man like Reeve who has define what Superman stood for off screen and on screen.You cant .

[true316]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that...but isn't it Singer's job as a director to find a way to make the character "cool" and relatable? Isn't it his job as a director to give us something new so the oversaturation of the market and the been there done that attitude is not a factor (and I hardly think giving us a sequel to a 30 year old movie is the way to shake those). Isn't it his job to work around plot holes and baggage that comes with the character as opposed to adding to it? And finally, isn't it his job to make a movie capable of standing up to a mammoth like Pirates?

I mean, all your factors are correct, but these are all factors people were aware of BEFORE THE FACT and Singer did nothing to correct them. That is why fault lies with him.

I'm glad you can see the validity of some of those points. You raise an excellent point also. The question is: As the director does Singer have the responsibility of dealing with stuff like like this? I say: ABSOLUTELY!

But here is my problem. Earlier in the thread you were raising the comparison to Spider-man. Let me ask you, did Sam Raimi have to deal with even half of these difficulties? In fact, looking at it there is only one of my points that might have hurt Raimi's Spider-man (flooding of the marketplace). Was Raimi asked to change the perception of a character from "uncool" to "cool?" Was Raimi asked to respect a past Spider-man film franchise while simultaneously setting the character in a new direction? Was he asked to get people excited about a character that they had already seen multiple times on film before? Was he asked to overcome people's problems with how Spidey disguises himself (Peter just covers his whole face with a mask, how can anyone not see through that? :oldrazz: )? Did anything even remotely as powerful box office-wise, open the week after Spider-man?

What I'm talking about, is degree of difficulty. I take that into account when looking at a director's work. Singer had a lot to overcome in two and a half hours. If you try to over do it then it is obvious and becomes tacky. It is a huge challenge. Out of these three directors Raimi, Nolan, Singer, which had the most challenging job? I think it comes down to Nolan and Singer. Raimi really didn't have anykind of negative vibe to overcome. Nolan had the awful stink of Batman & Robin to deal with. More than anything the terrible memories of that movie kept people away from theaters. Singer has the whole negative perception of the character to deal with. It's not just that people disliked a show or a movie, many people flat-out dislike the character himself. To many people, he isn't THE MAN OF STEEL or THE WORLD's GREATEST SUPERHERO, he is simply THE LAME BOYSCOUT. I've heard people say "Superman is the most well known, iconic hero out there!" But I ask, what good does it do you if people have heard of you and they've already decided they don't like you!

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.

[Canis Sapiens]

I'm glad you can see the validity of some of those points. You raise an excellent point also. The question is: As the director does Singer have the responsibility of dealing with stuff like like this? I say: ABSOLUTELY!

But here is my problem. Earlier in the thread you were raising the comparison to Spider-man. Let me ask you, did Sam Raimi have to deal with even half of these difficulties? In fact, looking at it there is only one of my points that might have hurt Raimi's Spider-man (flooding of the marketplace). Was Raimi asked to change the perception of a character from "uncool" to "cool?" Was Raimi asked to respect a past Spider-man film franchise while simultaneously setting the character in a new direction? Was he asked to get people excited about a character that they had already seen multiple times on film before? Was he asked to overcome people's problems with how Spidey disguises himself (Peter just covers his whole face with a mask, how can anyone not see through that? :oldrazz: )? Did anything even remotely as powerful box office-wise, open the week after Spider-man?

What I'm talking about, is degree of difficulty. I take that into account when looking at a director's work. Singer had a lot to overcome in two and a half hours. If you try to over do it then it is obvious and becomes tacky. It is a huge challenge. Out of these three directors Raimi, Nolan, Singer, which had the most challenging job? I think it comes down to Nolan and Singer. Raimi really didn't have anykind of negative vibe to overcome. Nolan had the awful stink of Batman & Robin to deal with. More than anything the terrible memories of that movie kept people away from theaters. Singer has the whole negative perception of the character to deal with. It's not just that people disliked a show or a movie, many people flat-out dislike the character himself. To many people, he isn't THE MAN OF STEEL or THE WORLD's GREATEST SUPERHERO, he is simply THE LAME BOYSCOUT. I've heard people say "Superman is the most well known, iconic hero out there!" But I ask, what good does it do you if people have heard of you and they've already decided they don't like you!

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.



Also, to make Superman "cool" as Matt said, maybe Singer would have to get rid of the glasses as disguise, of the spitcurl, of the outside underwear, etc. How would the fans react to that? And most importantly: would WB allow him to do that?

[Showtime]

When was Superman ever "cool" in the sense that he acted "cool" on screen? Kids thought he was cool because he was Superman and had the ability to do all the things that they only dreamed off. They thought it was "cool" that he could fly, use x-ray vision, heat vision, superbreath, and freezebreath.

The reason Superman became uncool is because he was out of the public's eye for so long. Sure I know there was other incarnations of Superman; comics, animated, tv, action figures, video games, and so on. The problem is WB took so long to bring the Man of Steel back that characters like Batman and Spiderman took his place. Then when "Superman Returns" they find that he just isn't as "cool" anymore. The question reamins is that because it was Donner's Superman and not a new modern version of Superman?

[dark_b]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that...but isn't it Singer's job as a director to find a way to make the character "cool" and relatable? Isn't it his job as a director to give us something new so the oversaturation of the market and the been there done that attitude is not a factor (and I hardly think giving us a sequel to a 30 year old movie is the way to shake those). Isn't it his job to work around plot holes and baggage that comes with the character as opposed to adding to it? And finally, isn't it his job to make a movie capable of standing up to a mammoth like Pirates?

I mean, all your factors are correct, but these are all factors people were aware of BEFORE THE FACT and Singer did nothing to correct them. That is why fault lies with him.i also said many times that it is all singers fault. but i guess i made a mistake.
i have big respect for singer because he first wants to make a movie that he likes. an arrtist should be make something that he likes nto something that the people would like.
we just can not forget WB. WB are the ones who gave him 200 milions and full control. at the end of the day WB are the ones who f..... up a lot.

[mego joe]

When was Superman ever "cool" in the sense that he acted "cool" on screen? Kids thought he was cool because he was Superman and had the ability to do all the things that they only dreamed off. They thought it was "cool" that he could fly, use x-ray vision, heat vision, superbreath, and freezebreath.


You're right on about that.

The reason Superman became uncool is because he was out of the public's eye for so long. Sure I know there was other incarnations of Superman; comics, animated, tv, action figures, video games, and so on. The problem is WB took so long to bring the Man of Steel back that characters like Batman and Spiderman took his place. Then when "Superman Returns" they find that he just isn't as "cool" anymore. The question reamins is that because it was Donner's Superman and not a new modern version of Superman?

I think the problem with using the Donner version was that it was not totally the Donner version, IMO, as stated numerous times elsewhere. But also that it was almost all the same Donner moments and dialogue rehashed, with only small story elements changed.

And perhaps, all the coold things he could do seemed like afterthougths in the story instead of critical uses of his 'cool' powers that were meanigful to the plot.

[dark_b]

ohhh i hate the dialoge fro mdonner. this dialoge was only for singer and the fans. because the geeneral public didnk know that it was from S:TM. cheap.

[Excel]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.

[Kid_Kaos]

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.
Ummm ..... WHAT!???
Are you on drugs (prescribed or not)???
I agree that Raimi had the most freedom and could just do what he wanted to. But then again, he delivered two stories that are loved worldwide and took Spider-Man from zero to hero because he had a vision that matched the publics interest.

Nolan had the biggest fight of them all. Batman was dead. Read it slowly and internalise it: D-E-A-D.
Nolan made a kick-ass story and portrayed Batman as bad ass as it gets and so the movie marched for four months over every obstacle to make more money than anyone could've imagined at that point. Maybe WB expected it to hit big, but I sure as hell never heard any normal person care about this movie and was one of the few who even went to the theatres in the first week. The great story and resulting w-o-m made the movie and it still builds up a bigger fanbase week for week since it hit DVD. If the BB sequel can hold up to it's expectations - $500+ mill worldwide won't be a problem.

Superman had two big new versions on tv who already revived the character completly after the stupid-written Reeve movies and there was also a hell of a new comics origin (let's say "post-crisis" in general). And the latest show "Smallville" was the one that brought back the publics eye to even consider a new Superman movie. (Granted, the Matrix 3 helped the buzz, too.) In fact the third-party marketing around the franchise was much bigger and better than the final marketing for the new movie. But that's another thing.
So how in the hell are the comic writers the ones to blame for the movie when anyone in charge came to the conclusion it was the best to use the oldest incarnation of Superman they (the writers) already buried 20 years ago???
The biggest failure was to even consider the Reeve movies to be a great Superman version. They're not. Never were. They had villains and stories from the 60's/70's and some Jesus crap mixed within. If it wouldn't have been for the groundbreaking effects no one would've looked twice at them. Look at the BO from the first movie and then it's constant drops till the bomb S4.

Watch the "Look up into the Sky" documentary and hear some DC guy plain out say (something like that): "That era (<70s) of Superman was done, it was time for a new take. We brought John Byrne in ..."

And now tell me why DC have anything to do with the boring, lackluster Superman take Singer gave us, when any Superman comic and tv show has shown Superman handsome, cool and likeable over the past 20 years?
Do you really believe Superman comics would sell well if it wasn't for they're well-written stories and good take on the characters? (Of course, some comics are crap, but there's a good variety to choose from, unlike the ONE movie we have to live with now.)

If anything, the movie failed because unlike Spider-Man and Batman, WB took the high road and delivered a movie on the back of Chris Reeve's reputation rather than Superman's new meaning to a world who has changed drastically since the Cold War era. A sequel to an already wrong setup won't do anything but kill the character ... again.

[Justice Bringer]

I totally agree that the Reeve films are over-rated and outdated in the grand scope of Superman.

\S/ is a very different entity nowadays but I can't say that L+C and Smallville did a decent job of presenting that.

Only the animated Timm version and the comics seem to portray a modern Superman thats popular with the fanboys.

I'm not sure the extent Bryan refered to when he said the sequel would have basis in the contemporary comics but they need to move alot more towards that direction if we ever want to see a modern \S/ film somewhat reflective of the post 86 era.

[DarkMajin]

I myself love the Reeve films, but were I in charge of a new Superman franchise, I wouldn't be trying to recreate, recapture, or connect it with the Reeve films.
It needs to be new.
A problem with SR is that it was one half trying to be like the Donner films, and also trying to be really serious and dramatic. It tried to mix the Donner Superman with a Superman who feels alone on earth, doesn't have quite the character the Reeve Supes did, and one who has soap operatic problems with Lois...and her kid...and her lover, etc.

Didn't work out.

Fact is Superman is a boy scout. This is one of his greatest qualities and greatest weaknesses. His stories should highlight this.
Singer painted his Superman as this alien being who felt all alone on earth...and that isn't Superman.
Superman was raised from an infant on Earth, as an Earthling. He's more like an Earthling who discovers he's really an alien with superpowers. I mean, he was raised in Kansas...this is not at all Singer's Superman.

Superman's character is fine as he is supposed to be...he needs cool stories for his coolness factor to really come out.

[Matt]

i also said many times that it is all singers fault. but i guess i made a mistake.
i have big respect for singer because he first wants to make a movie that he likes. an arrtist should be make something that he likes nto something that the people would like.
we just can not forget WB. WB are the ones who gave him 200 milions and full control. at the end of the day WB are the ones who f..... up a lot.

With all respect, that is a load and if Singer actually believes that it is the most arrogant thing I have ever heard.

[Matt]

I'm glad you can see the validity of some of those points. You raise an excellent point also. The question is: As the director does Singer have the responsibility of dealing with stuff like like this? I say: ABSOLUTELY!

:up:

But here is my problem. Earlier in the thread you were raising the comparison to Spider-man. Let me ask you, did Sam Raimi have to deal with even half of these difficulties? In fact, looking at it there is only one of my points that might have hurt Raimi's Spider-man (flooding of the marketplace). Was Raimi asked to change the perception of a character from "uncool" to "cool?" Was Raimi asked to respect a past Spider-man film franchise while simultaneously setting the character in a new direction? Was he asked to get people excited about a character that they had already seen multiple times on film before? Was he asked to overcome people's problems with how Spidey disguises himself (Peter just covers his whole face with a mask, how can anyone not see through that? :oldrazz: )? Did anything even remotely as powerful box office-wise, open the week after Spider-man?


What I'm talking about, is degree of difficulty. I take that into account when looking at a director's work. Singer had a lot to overcome in two and a half hours. If you try to over do it then it is obvious and becomes tacky. It is a huge challenge. Out of these three directors Raimi, Nolan, Singer, which had the most challenging job? I think it comes down to Nolan and Singer. Raimi really didn't have anykind of negative vibe to overcome. Nolan had the awful stink of Batman & Robin to deal with. More than anything the terrible memories of that movie kept people away from theaters. Singer has the whole negative perception of the character to deal with. It's not just that people disliked a show or a movie, many people flat-out dislike the character himself. To many people, he isn't THE MAN OF STEEL or THE WORLD's GREATEST SUPERHERO, he is simply THE LAME BOYSCOUT. I've heard people say "Superman is the most well known, iconic hero out there!" But I ask, what good does it do you if people have heard of you and they've already decided they don't like you!

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.



I dare say, Raimi had the more difficult challenge. He had no ground work to go on, where as Singer pretty much copied Donner's origin and history. Raimi had to create his own universe and his own characters. Singer couldn't even do that. Even if Singer's challenge was more difficult, he took the easy way out. He didn't even TRY to live up to his challenge, he simply let someone else (Richard Donner) do it for him.

[El Payaso]

:up:




I dare say, Raimi had the more difficult challenge. He had no ground work to go on, where as Singer pretty much copied Donner's origin and history. Raimi had to create his own universe and his own characters. Singer couldn't even do that. Even if Singer's challenge was more difficult, he took the easy way out. He didn't even TRY to live up to his challenge, he simply let someone else (Richard Donner) do it for him.

Just to remind how much of Donner's origin movie Raimi did copy, not to mention his Superman's shirt opening shameless rip off and those stupid references to the Up up and away line, Shazam and Batman's utility belt.

Other than that Raimi just made Peter Parker the average 'funny' American movie nerd and then followed assgning the archetypes for the rest of the characters.

If anything the risky thing was to be so goddam well-worn and still suceed at the BO. But Raimi didn't take Spidey from zero to hero since Spiderman has a solid history in comic books and everybody's collective memory. He didn't create his own characters at all. For a first ever big budget well-marketed movie about such a popular character, we would have needed some really awful director to screw that up. I mean, even Fantastic Four had a decent BO and that was as bad as it's possible. But they're popular and never seen on big screen.

[Matt]

Just to remind how much of Donner's origin movie Raimi did copy, not to mention his Superman's shirt opening shameless rip off and those stupid references to the Up up and away line, Shazam and Batman's utility belt.


How much of his origin? Comeon, those are homages, little visuals and in jokes and are hardly the same as lifting plots and relying on a 30 year old movie to develop your characters for you.


Other than that Raimi just made Peter Parker the average 'funny' American movie nerd and then followed assgning the archetypes for the rest of the characters.

If anything the risky thing was to be so goddam well-worn and still suceed at the BO. But Raimi didn't take Spidey from zero to hero since Spiderman has a solid history in comic books and everybody's collective memory. He didn't create his own characters at all. For a first ever big budget well-marketed movie about such a popular character, we would have needed some really awful director to screw that up. I mean, even Fantastic Four had a decent BO and that was as bad as it's possible. But they're popular and never seen on big screen.

You can try to sell Raimi short all you want, but the sequel numbers imply he did something VERY right, otherwise there wouldn't have been such a huge return audience.

[El Payaso]

How much of his origin? Comeon, those are homages, little visuals and in jokes and are hardly the same as lifting plots and relying on a 30 year old movie to develop your characters for you.

The structure is pretty much the same. I misused the word 'copy.'

But he used the references as jokes the same way Singer used his refrences as winks. They're there just to please some fans but are rather unfunny and useless in both SR and Spiderman.

You can try to sell Raimi short all you want, but the sequel numbers imply he did something VERY right, otherwise there wouldn't have been such a huge return audience.

Of course. BO shows us he's a master pleasing masses. But that's about it as long as what S-M1 BO numbers imply. Now, for the sequel, that's a different story. Spiderman 2 was vastly better than the first one.

Very often masses who go to movies just to relax on weekends thank a lot for some crappy one liners that make them laugh for a while (or to their children,) that's why they keep doing that.

Once again, movies like Fantastic 4 have good BO and there's nothing right in them.

[Weadazoid]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.


While Excel and I differ on many things at times... I certainly do agree with all of his points and retorts in this thread.

I feel that X men 1 and 2 were Super serious in nature, even if there wasn't a love story attached as say in gladiator, but Singer has always brought stark realism to his work..... It's just with Superman when he interjected a little humor it didn't work as well... I look at the sequence at the end of x2 as a good example of well used humor in a serious movie..the little blys blue devil touge sticking out at Striker


in this one..they did that used It's a bird..It's a plane thing.....and it just came off as hokey...not because it wasn't well written or humous in theory...it's just..Superman.

Luthor could have had a few more "Boy Scout' or "goody goody" or "brains vs Brawn" lines to throw at Superman..... ala Wolverine and Cyclops witty banter IMO

[Matt]

The structure is pretty much the same. I misused the word 'copy.'

But he used the references as jokes the same way Singer used his refrences as winks. They're there just to please some fans but are rather unfunny and useless in both SR and Spiderman.


Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.


Of course. BO shows us he's a master pleasing masses. But that's about it as long as what S-M1 BO numbers imply. Now, for the sequel, that's a different story. Spiderman 2 was vastly better than the first one.

Very often masses who go to movies just to relax on weekends thank a lot for some crappy one liners that make them laugh for a while (or to their children,) that's why they keep doing that.

Once again, movies like Fantastic 4 have good BO and there's nothing right in them.

Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob. Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?

[dark_b]

Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.



Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob. Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?opinions. only opinions.

[El Payaso]

Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.

No more than Raimi used Superman II for Spiderman 2. Or Nolan used STM for Batman Begins. Now yes, if you add to that the direct quotes and stuff it gives a worse impression.

Now, I have to mention that lifting a plot (that is not even from another franchise) is nothing wrong per se.

Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob.

But not wrong about it.

Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?

Not only as stupid but a lot more arrogant. And 95% of them just post his personal opinions - which everybody has - but they rely on the fact that since they're printed somewhere, those opinions are more valid or official than anyone else's. And I see you took the whole bait.

[Showtime]

In regards to Sam Raimi, he wen't overboard with overboard with his "tributes"
"nods", "winks" or whatever they may be called. That being said it worked for him. I can point to so many scenes, visuals, or sequences heavily influenced by the Donner movies. Let's just say he "nodded" until his neck got sore, or "winked" until his eyes stung.

That being said, it is on a different plane than what Singer did, he was continuing a storyline from a previous incarnation of Superman and moving forward with the same versions of the character living in the same world. He not only used the Donner Template from STM, actually used a hybrid of the plot points.

Apples and oranges.

[patrickbateman]

FOR ME BRYAN JUST DOESN’T GET SUPERMAN

He get’s his version of superman and wants to just shove it down our throats. This is what happens when a person with ego takes over a project the same can be said about Joel Schumacher who forced us with his take on batman and robin ignoring the different interpretations of the character out there that were true to the original intent of the character. Superman is the last son of krypton what part of that does singer doesn’t get? he is suppose to be alone in his adoptive world till he finds kara . He’s not suppose to be a father yeah father figure! Sure, as a role model yeah but not an actual father .Its one of the aspect that brings in the vulnerability trigger the envy inside of him. Its like Bruce Wayne and marriage just doesn’t gel with the character. With singer’s superman returns the character actually evolved to A SUPER-MAN gone was his weakness and vulnerability that defined the character even kryptonite that was once considered harmful and fatal is now just a joke. He is by the end of the day a reflection of ourselves only SUPER thanks to singer.

As for lex I was disappointed what did he do besides becoming a man **** to gain a huge mansion and a big boat? Yeah he wanted to built an island after all the vast improvements made that character in the comic books and other medium singer brought him down to a goofy guy who wanted to own his island. Again its singer shoving us with his love for the donner movies and Donald trump another attention whore like singer. Where was the business man lex? The scentist lex? Why are we stuck with the real estate lex? Oooh real estates are as intimidating in a world of 2006 than they were back in the reeve-donner movies.

The donner universe ok I admit its classic but no way is it perfect for today world of 2006 post 9/11, the world is a very different place. Superman can’t stand for truth, hope and justice the American way. Cause the American way its self is at stake, may not be in its own country but globally America really doesn’t stand for what it did back in the donner reeve era. So yes that’s where we need a new take on character pertaining to the current times what defined Sam raimi’s Spiderman and Nolan’s batman acceptable were the post 9/11 settings. That day defiantly redefine superheroes and for one who claims to be on the top of that list, singer should have updated and modeled the settings to current times. For me the whole timeless frames didn’t work at all it felt out of place in terms of connecting it to the donner movies aswell as placing it with what I would consider acceptable. Yeah singer should have made a world of 2006 where in mankind does live in fear o their own system and he should have acknowledged it rather than inserting old newspaper articles.

Reeve the man above superman- now not many of you may agree to it but for me what hurt the franchise was the continuation to the reeve-donner movies. I felt it was disrespectful for butchering what the character stood for I really don’t see superman abandoning his earth planet after superman 2 let alone him stalking lois. Most importantly in this past decade Reeve’s has become Superman. Reeve’s the man really became Superman exceeding it o a level even more than anyone could imagine an actor could pull of. He became a source of inspiration to everyone, a role model , a fighter who was fighting against his own body, he stood for hope. Don’t even get me started on the confidence and drive the man had. So back to my point getting a look a like of Reeve and continuing from the donner reeve universe is really replacing him. Sure if it was an origin story the crowd would handle it much better but for those like my parents who were in the reeve-donner era, singer’s whole SUPERMAN RETURNS really implied that he was replacing him. How can you replace a man like Reeve who has define what Superman stood for off screen and on screen.You cant .

See I'm actually acting like Bryan singer right now being an attention whore by quoting my own reply. Thus implementing my ideas down your throats really not giving a dam if you want to read or not :woot:

[Ita-KalEl]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.

I can agree with the 90% of your post, but I don't think that the WB greenlited the movie because it looked "better" on paper.
I know a lot of guys that read the script in May 2006, and they didn't change their opinions (bad or good) after the release date.
The guys that loved the script, loved the movie.
The guys that disliked the script, dis****d the movie...

We have a lot of examples even on the web: Moriarty from AICN, the UGO.com journalist etc.
There was not any "OMG this movie sucks! I don't understand how it is possible, the script was great".
Singer did a good job, probably he even improved the script. For example the scene of the "false shirt-rip" sounded a little pathetic. The CGI edited scene wasn't great, but at least was better than the original one.

The WB greenlited SR because after the terrible reinterpretations of the character (Superman Lives and Ratner's Superman), they thought that a sort of reprise of the old and beloved franchise would have been a good idea.
The point is they have made a good epic (even in the lenght) movie for the '70ties, but NOT for the 2006 audience. They had to put more action in it. Nevertheless the movie remains good. I think that they can easily improve it with the sequel.
I personally don't like the "cool" movies. If you want to make a "cool" sh movie, you have great chances to do a bad movie. For example Ghost Rider. It was made to be cool and very teen-ager friendly, but IMO it is pure crap.

[superbaby]

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.
This time SM3 and FF2 will face a good competition and I doubt that we are going to see incredible numbers. SM3 will be lucky to finish close to the SM2 total gross, and the FF2 will struggle to cross the 170m mark.
By now SR did more than FF, BB and Ghost Rider. It was beaten only by X-Men: The Last Stand (the second anticipated sequel of a popular franchise).
i believe Spidey 3 will be the winner this summer. it has 3 clear weeks before the competition comes up. and its marketing is so extensive and excellent.

mark my words. ;)

[GreenKToo]

Its going to be interesting to say the least. My money is on pirates 3 being the B.O. king this yr. (in a close one)
EDIT: if i'm not mistaken, spidey 3 has 2 weeks to itself before shrek the 3rd comes out.i believe Spidey 3 will be the winner this summer. it has 3 clear weeks before the competition comes up. and its marketing is so extensive and excellent.

mark my words. ;)

[superbaby]

Its going to be interesting to say the least. My money is on pirates 3 being the B.O. king this yr. (in a close one)
EDIT: if i'm not mistaken, spidey 3 has 2 weeks to itself before shrek the 3rd comes out.
the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3. furthermore, the market is superb... one of the best i have seen in the history. if nothing goes wrong, it will easily break SR's record in less than 10 days and make billions if not breaking pirate2's record.

[Angeloz]

the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3. furthermore, the market is superb... one of the best i have seen in the history. if nothing goes wrong, it will easily break SR's record in less than 10 days and make billions if not breaking pirate2's record.

LOL make billions in ten days. You're not lexlives? Or what?

Angeloz

[Antonello Blueberry]

the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3.
Shrek The Third opens just 2 weeks later than Spider-Man and will get a lot of the younger audience. It's a big fight in May.

[GreenKToo]

untill pirates 3 comes out ;)the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3. furthermore, the market is superb... one of the best i have seen in the history. if nothing goes wrong, it will easily break SR's record in less than 10 days and make billions if not breaking pirate2's record.

[LL2K2]

Yet every single one of these "third" films have massive expectations.

Shrek 2 did $441M ($920M ww). POTC 2 did $464M ($1.6B ww). Spidey 2 did 'only' $374M ($783M ww).

Spidey 3 opens two weeks from Friday (May 4). We've seen tons of commercials for that film. Shrek the Third follows two weeks after that on May 18. Pirates 3 opens a week later, May 25. Have there been any ads yet? Nope. At least not that I've seen.

[sarcasm mode, but fairly serious]Based on the figures I just listed above (all courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo), all three films will probably have to gross a minimum of $500M domestic just to meet expectations.[/end mode]

[Matt]

I think that is a bit out there, LL2K. No one in the industry is expecting a 1.5 billion dollar month. Now I think any of these movies struggling to reach 200 million domestically would be seen as a massive dissapointment. Just as it was for Superman Returns.

[dark_b]

Yet every single one of these "third" films have massive expectations.

Shrek 2 did $441M ($920M ww). POTC 2 did $464M ($1.6B ww). Spidey 2 did 'only' $374M ($783M ww).

Spidey 3 opens two weeks from Friday (May 4). We've seen tons of commercials for that film. Shrek the Third follows two weeks after that on May 18. Pirates 3 opens a week later, May 25. Have there been any ads yet? Nope. At least not that I've seen.

[sarcasm mode, but fairly serious]Based on the figures I just listed above (all courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo), all three films will probably have to gross a minimum of $500M domestic just to meet expectations.[/end mode]please dont tell me that this is the same like SR 200 ? :huh::wow:

[TheComicbookKid]

I've heard unofficially that the budget is 250mil and another 50mil marketing for Spidey 3. If it makes less than or equal to Spidey 2, you can make the argument that it's not a great success.

[Showtime]

Interesting in regards to the budget, but they are banking on big WW take.

[Matt]

Not to mention, high profits of the previous two movies allow them to give a little more to budget. Superman Returns didn't have that luxury.

[Showtime]

Not to mention, high profits of the previous two movies allow them to give a little more to budget. Superman Returns didn't have that luxury.

Exactly.

[Matt]

Exactly.

In all honesty, SM3 (or any of these May movies, really) could put up SR numbers...and Sony, Disney, or Dreamworks would still be up close to 500 million give or take from them.

[Ita-KalEl]

IMO SM3 will not do more than SM2.

[Matt]

IMO SM3 will not do more than SM2.

Probably not. The competition is much more stiff, but again...it doesn't matter. Even is SM3 simply broke even WW (and really, what are the odds of that, even with the competition?)...Sony will still be up close to 500 million dollars from this franchise.

[Excel]

Tracking has Spiderman 3 at 123 million opening weekend. im 100% itll take pirates record, and could cross 400 million.

spidey movies make thier money in toys/merchandise sales. box office is chump change for sony compared to that stuff.

look for spiderman to 140 opening wekeend, perhaps more, with a total north of 360 million. Shrek should do solid, but all things are pointing towards a potentially massive dissappointment for pirates unless their marketing REALLY picks up.

[buggs0268]

No more than Raimi used Superman II for Spiderman 2. Or Nolan used STM for Batman Begins. Now yes, if you add to that the direct quotes and stuff it gives a worse impression.
Raimi didn't use stuff from Superman 2. I believe the Spiderman giving up his suit was in comics before Superman was being worked on. And I don't think Mankelweitcz lifted it from Spiderman. They wanted to make a 2 arc story, and part of that plan was for Superman to get tired of being the hero and living a life with Lois.

[El Payaso]

Raimi didn't use stuff from Superman 2. I believe the Spiderman giving up his suit was in comics before Superman was being worked on. And I don't think Mankelweitcz lifted it from Spiderman. They wanted to make a 2 arc story, and part of that plan was for Superman to get tired of being the hero and living a life with Lois.

Raimi could have chosen any Spiderman plot from decades, he went with the one resembling Superman 2.

Btw, Raimi used 2 Spiderman comic books for that, in one Spidey has a serious cold which makes him losing partially his powers and to act strange and ends up revealing his identity. In the pother he just quits. Raimi mixed them in an odd way; if Peter is losing irremediably his powers, then what's the point in having that conversation with Uncle Ben and quit being Spiderman...? I mean, if he was losing his powers like it or not, did he have any choice of not quitting?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Raimi could have chosen any Spiderman plot from decades, he went with the one resembling Superman 2.

Btw, Raimi used 2 Spiderman comic books for that, in one Spidey has a serious cold which makes him losing partially his powers and to act strange and ends up revealing his identity. In the pother he just quits. Raimi mixed them in an odd way; if Peter is losing irremediably his powers, then what's the point in having that conversation with Uncle Ben and quit being Spiderman...? I mean, if he was losing his powers like it or not, did he have any choice of not quitting?

See this is what baffles me about people saying they didnt like SR because there were too many Donner references, when each Spiderman film has just as many as SR and yet they are universally loved.

[Ita-KalEl]

The budget of SM3 is simply insane: $258m! And we are talking of a REAL budget, not the fake SR budget ($270m) reported by boxofficemojo.com.
I'm 100% sure that Spiderman 3 will generate a great profit, but it will be far less profitable than the first spider-man movie.

IMO the studios have to stop this trend. They have to limit the budgets of their movies: 300 was considered an incredible hit only because its $65m budget...

For the first time a spider-man movie will struggle to break even basing on the box office numbers.

[Matt]

The budget of SM3 is simply insane: $258m! And we are talking of a REAL budget, not the fake SR budget ($270m) reported by boxofficemojo.com.
I'm 100% sure that Spiderman 3 will generate a great profit, but it will be far less profitable than the first spider-man movie.

IMO the studios have to stop this trend. They have to limit the budgets of their movies: 300 was considered an incredible hit only because its $65m budget...

For the first time a spider-man movie will struggle to break even basing on the box office numbers.

Again, with a movie like Spider-Man...it doesn't matter. Notice how the original Pirates, original Shrek, and original Spider-Man all have something in common? They all have respectably small budgets for blockbusters.

Spider-Man - 140 million (not exactly small, but compared to what we see with most big movies...)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl - 140 million
Shrek - 60 million

Now what are the budgets of the sequels? 200 million? 220 million? 250 million? Why? Because even if these movies just break even (and what are the odds of that?)...They still have a net gain of about 500 million from their prequels. That was WB's biggest mistake. Giving Singer 250 million (and regardless of how ridiculous you claim it to be, with advertising factored in, that is a close estimate)...for a movie in which they had no clue what would happen or nothing to fall back on.

[superbaby]

The budget of SM3 is simply insane: $258m! And we are talking of a REAL budget, not the fake SR budget ($270m) reported by boxofficemojo.com.
I'm 100% sure that Spiderman 3 will generate a great profit, but it will be far less profitable than the first spider-man movie.

IMO the studios have to stop this trend. They have to limit the budgets of their movies: 300 was considered an incredible hit only because its $65m budget...

For the first time a spider-man movie will struggle to break even basing on the box office numbers.
fake budget??? why then WB didn't do anything to fix the problem??? they want people to get a bigger disappointment???
anyway, for spidey 3 budget, it worths it when it offers a higher possible to break the record.

[Matt]

See this is what baffles me about people saying they didnt like SR because there were too many Donner references, when each Spiderman film has just as many as SR and yet they are universally loved.

The essential difference is, Spider-Man did not rely on any other movie like the Donner movies to provide a back story for it, and it did not essentially lift the plot from the Donner movies. What Singer did was pretty much a copy and paste with some tweaks. Raimi did go overboard on homages, but he did not lift plot or make a sequel to.

[Antonello Blueberry]

fake budget??? why then WB didn't do anything to fix the problem???
Fake, because it was not the official figure that Singer and the studio reported.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The essential difference is, Spider-Man did not rely on any other movie like the Donner movies to provide a back story for it, and it did not essentially lift the plot from the Donner movies. What Singer did was pretty much a copy and paste with some tweaks. Raimi did go overboard on homages, but he did not lift plot or make a sequel to.

I disagree, both Spiderman movies follow Superman 1 and 2 rather closely, were as SR did actually end up going in a different direction towards the end.

[superbaby]

I disagree, both Spiderman movies follow Superman 1 and 2 rather closely, were as SR did actually end up going in a different direction towards the end.
then, spidey 3 is refering to supes 3. the good superman vs the bad superman.
the only difference is sami makes it work superbly, and singer fails awfully.

[superbaby]

Fake, because it was not the official figure that Singer and the studio reported.
why didn't then WB shoot them a letter??? but let the figure stays till forever instead???

[Antonello Blueberry]

then, spidey 3 is refering to supes 3. the good superman vs the bad superman.
the only difference is sami makes it work superbly, and singer fails awfully.
Did Singer direct Superman 3 too?

[GreenKToo]

he he, thats what I was wondering as well.Did Singer direct Superman 3 too?

[J.Howlett]

I don't care if it makes a profit, 258 million dollar budget for a film is stupid...plain and simple. That's just not good business, no matter how successful the franchise is.

You're telling me that they couldn't have made Spider-Man 3 for 160 million? And let's really state what we all pretty much assume....alot of that budget is paid to Tobey, Kirsten, and Sam.

I'm betting between them, without points, they raked in about 30 million, which is insane...maybe more.

[J.Howlett]

For 258 million, it better have the best action and best visual effects I've ever seen and based on the trailers, it's pretty clear that we won't get the best visual effects ever.

I think we can give Transformers, no matter how you feel about, that mantle. ILM is killing Sony Picture Imageworks, just based on trailers for Spider-Man 3, Transformers, and At Worlds End....

[Ita-KalEl]

This is the main reason why I'm for a SR sequel and not fot a reboot. If they think that a reboot they can do the Spider-man numbers (so they can greenlit a +200m budget), they need a doctor.

I loved Batman Begins and 300. But BB did only 371m ww, and 300, wich is not a sh movie, will be lucky to do 500m ww (the same ww gross of the terrible Troy). 300 is considered more successful than Troy only because its budget. We can say the same thing about BB and SR.

Spider-man 3 cost $258m, if we consider the marketing campaign, it probably cost more than $330m. It will generate a great profit (toys, merchandising etc.), but it will be far less profitable than the first movie.

At SONY they say that they want to do Spiderman 4 (with or without Raimi), but will they greenlit a +$300m budget?

If at Hollywood they still want to generate profit using the sh franchises, they have to limit the budgets of the movies: not more than $160-170m for a triple-A franchise (Superman, X-Men or Batman); for an "average" franchise (Fantastic Four, Iron Man) 100m should be a good budget.

[Excel]

This hurts me to say, BUT-

A reboot for 2009 with the right ****-cast, crew, marketing, and release date-has a better shot at 300 million than a Superman Returns sequel, which basically doesnt have a chance.

[Showtime]

This hurts me to say, BUT-

A reboot for 2009 with the right ****-cast, crew, marketing, and release date-has a better shot at 300 million than a Superman Returns sequel, which basically doesnt have a chance.

Whether that is the case or not, it is almost impossible to get that done by 2009. A reboot and a delay go hand in hand. You're talking 2012 at the earliest.

[Excel]

If they wanted a reboot in 2009, it could be done.

They hired Christopher Nolan to make any new batman movie he wanted in late january, 2003. he put batman begins into theaters 2 1/2 years later.

A good Superman script is fairly easy to create as long they dont go out of their way to complicate the story. If they started within say, a month of now, its no stretch to say they could have a couple of drafts by the end of august, with casting in september-january, and filming in 2008.

They would just have to start soon.

[Showtime]

If they wanted a reboot in 2009, it could be done.

They hired Christopher Nolan to make any new batman movie he wanted in late january, 2003. he put batman begins into theaters 2 1/2 years later.

A good Superman script is fairly easy to create as long they dont go out of their way to complicate the story. If they started within say, a month of now, its no stretch to say they could have a couple of drafts by the end of august, with casting in september-january, and filming in 2008.

They would just have to start soon.

It's a little more complicated than that, if you refer to the history of Superman projects that never came to fruition as evidence. If they are starting a new Superman project they have no director, no writers, no cast, no sets, no locations, and so on and so forth. There is no way it could be made for a 2009 release.

It has already been noted by several sources if there is a reboot it would come at a later date and the project would be delayed.

[Ita-KalEl]

IMO it's impossible a reboot for the 2009. Just imagine the failure of the Hulk reboot in the 2008, and for failure I mean the same box office numbers of the 2003 movie...It would be a disaster for a greenlited Superman reboot with a +$210m budget.

By now there isn't any reason to think that a reboot would be more successful than a good SR2 sequel. Batman Begins did worse than Superman Returns, and Burton's Batman was more successful than Superman: The Movie. If you compare the franchises, Batman did far better numbers:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=superman.htm

The worst Batman (B&R) movie did far better than the worst Superman movie (SIV).

Another point is that BB did worse than Batman Forever (adjusted for inflation), while Superman Returns did far better than Superman III.
According to the numbers Superman Returns has to be considered a better relaunch.

I don't understand what do you expect from a Superman reboot, if Batman Begins (the reboot of the greatest franchise of the '90ties) wasn't able to cross the 371m mark ww.

[Excel]

Oh I agree-Id bet a bundle itll be delayed to winter 09 or summer 10'(hope not! spidey^& shrek 4s). The fact that casting seems to be such a challenge is what maks it hard.

but if you had a guy who wasnt so focused on making huge epic, and wanted to make say, a huge blockbuster, it would be possible. At that point, the actors wouldnt have to be perfect.

[Excel]

IMO it's impossible a reboot for the 2009. Just imagine the failure of the Hulk reboot in the 2008, and for failure I mean the same box office numbers of the 2003 movie...It would be a disaster for a greenlited Superman reboot with a +$210m budget.

By now there isn't any reason to think that a reboot would be more successful than a good SR2 sequel. Batman Begins did worse than Superman Returns, and Burton's Batman was more successful than Superman: The Movie. If you compare the franchises, Batman did far better numbers:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=superman.htm

The worst Batman (B&R) movie did far better than the worst Superman movie (SIV).

Another point is that BB did worse than Batman Forever (adjusted for inflation), while Superman Returns did far better than Superman III.
According to the numbers Superman Returns has to be considered a better relaunch.

I don't understand what do you expect from a Superman reboot, if Batman Begins (the reboot of the greatest franchise of the '90ties) wasn't able to cross the 371m mark ww.

Like i said, it all depends. If its a retro take, and its biggest star is kevin spacey, itd be a collosal dud unless it great.

But if it was modern, stylized and had big stars like say, Johnny Depp or Tom Hanks in the roles of the villain and or jor-el, then lots of fighting a lot of action, more than drama....itd be a big hit.

My superman restart thread...while a lot here may not like it...it would make a lot of money, i.e. 250 milion+. Its kind of the thing audiences dig.

[Showtime]

Oh I agree-Id bet a bundle itll be delayed to winter 09 or summer 10'(hope not! spidey^& shrek 4s). The fact that casting seems to be such a challenge is what maks it hard.

but if you had a guy who wasnt so focused on making huge epic, and wanted to make say, a huge blockbuster, it would be possible. At that point, the actors wouldnt have to be perfect.

According to what I was told it would be delayed until 2011-2012.

[Antonello Blueberry]

But if it was modern, stylized and had big stars like say, Johnny Depp or Tom Hanks in the roles of the villain and or jor-el, then lots of fighting a lot of action, more than drama....itd be a big hit.

Wow, Tom Hanks as a Superman villain. Such a great idea.
Which one? Doomsday or the Parasite?

[Maze]

Any update on that matter showtime?

[Maze]

i sincerely feel that not a lot of people would accept a reboot so soon without feeling insulted.

that has marked " this time we will find a way the you gave us more cash all the way"

[Ita-KalEl]

A agree with your vision Excel, but I think that it's too late. And I think that it was the same opinion of the WB execs when they discussed the "reboot option".

SR was not a disaster like Batman&Robin. It was a weak movie, but it was not terrible...It was a good superhero movie.: the cast was good, the SFXs were good, the real problem was the script (too similar to the Mario Puzo's one). IMO you cant do a reboot in 3 years, it's totally insane. Nevertheless I don't think that it would be a good idea, if they destroyed a +$391m franchise for a risky reboot in 4-5 years.

The most logical idea is to do the SR2 sequel. If the sequel disappoints, there will be always enough time to restart the franchise in few years. Even because you know very well that SR2 can disappoints, but can't be a disaster like B&R. So they will not have the problem to relaunch a franchise after the crappiest movie ever made (BB case).

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There is no possible way Spidey 3 will make less than 258mil, so I think sony are in the clear on that one. I'm not hugely surprised by the budget on the movie, Raimi has made sony tons of money, rather they should or not, he is going to get exactly what he wants for the most part. Good for him:up: If the movie has a good response and makes over 340mil in the U.S I think Sony are going to be knocking on his door to direct a 4th one. Sony doesn't seem to be worried about less profit so why is everyone else? Less profit doesn't mean that they are gonna make a s**tload of money.

[Excel]

Wow, Tom Hanks as jor-el?

:cwink:

[Showtime]

Any update on that matter showtime?

Nothing new. There are two different forces at work within the high structure.

[superbaby]

There is no possible way Spidey 3 will make less than 258mil, so I think sony are in the clear on that one. I'm not hugely surprised by the budget on the movie, Raimi has made sony tons of money, rather they should or not, he is going to get exactly what he wants for the most part. Good for him:up: If the movie has a good response and makes over 340mil in the U.S I think Sony are going to be knocking on his door to direct a 4th one. Sony doesn't seem to be worried about less profit so why is everyone else? Less profit doesn't mean that they are gonna make a s**tload of money.
the hype is getting bigger and bigger. it's the first "big movie" coming out in 2007 and people are just waiting for it.
i believe in two week it can almost make back its budget.

[superbaby]

The budget of SM3 is simply insane: $258m! And we are talking of a REAL budget, not the fake SR budget ($270m) reported by boxofficemojo.com.
I'm 100% sure that Spiderman 3 will generate a great profit, but it will be far less profitable than the first spider-man movie.

IMO the studios have to stop this trend. They have to limit the budgets of their movies: 300 was considered an incredible hit only because its $65m budget...

For the first time a spider-man movie will struggle to break even basing on the box office numbers.
i thought 300 was considered incredible hit only because it makes more than SR. (and it still in the top ten after so many weeks. SR was out of the top ten after the 4th week.)

[GreenKToo]

I have a feeling spidey is going have a hard time against the other big two. It will have a good two weeks to itself before shrek 3 comes out, then pirates will be out. If the 2nd pirates was any indication, then the 3rd should be the B.O. champ again this year. who knows though, shrek may surprise us and beat both spidey and pirates.

[Showtime]

I think the movies are so seperated from each other in regards to being the last one in their respective trilogy arcs, that they aren't going to have that much of an affect on one another as people believe. Everybody is going to want to see what Jack Sparrow does just as much as they want to see what happens to Spiderman.

[Grinder]

i thought 300 was considered incredible hit only because it makes more than SR. (and it still in the top ten after so many weeks. SR was out of the top ten after the 4th week.)
Let's not forget that 300 is an R rated movie! To make so much money at the BO is extraordinary.
SR had a much bigger crowd to gain money from.
And 300 isn't even at the end of it's run yet!

[Ita-KalEl]

But 300 is not a franchise. You can do another movie about the ancient wars, but you can be sure of its success. Rember Troy. Alexander or King Arthur.
Superman is a franchise, and with the right budget the sequel can guarantee a good profit.

[Showtime]

I think after the success of 300 WB is taking note of this and trying to implement some of that production philosophy into a sequel.

[Grinder]

I'm eager to see if the huge success of that R rated movie might open the door for other R rated CB movies in the next years.
Sure, 300 is not a franchise, though there is sequel talk going on (horrible idea btw) but it's still a comic book movie (or graphic novel) and aimes at the same audience.
And "Hellboy 2" (certainly R rated, too) has a good chance to make the same money, after the decent first movie and with the hype around Del Torro adding to it.

[Antonello Blueberry]

I think after the success of 300 WB is taking note of this and trying to implement some of that production philosophy into a sequel.
Not so well known actors, a lot of green screen and naked men, a lot of digital blood and severed limbs and a fascistic sub-text?
I don't know if it will work for Superman.

[superbaby]

But 300 is not a franchise. You can do another movie about the ancient wars, but you can be sure of its success. Rember Troy. Alexander or King Arthur.
Superman is a franchise, and with the right budget the sequel can guarantee a good profit.
right budget never guarantee a good movie/profit. right story does. and superman is just suffering for it since the making.

[Showtime]

Not so well known actors, a lot of green screen and naked men, a lot of digital blood and severed limbs and a fascistic sub-text?

I don't know if it will work for Superman.

Is that humor I see coming from you. I have to say, I am floored. :cwink:

[Excel]

bump. Singerc comment that he wants to start filming in the summer of 2008 mean this will defiently be a holiday movie, unless they wait 2 full years between release start of filming. returns waited about 16 months.

[Mr. Socko]

WTF they're not even starting on the film until next year! So they got one year to make this movie.

[Retroman]

Another tidbit from Chris Lee.

From dragondynasty.com:

March 06, 2007

FROM KRYPTON TO KOWLOON: THE SUPERHEROES ARE COMING.

Recently, Hong Kong has felt like a blend between Metropolis, Gotham City and the stylized New York seen in the classic Marvel comics. A crew flew here to shoot plate shots for the new Fantastic Four film, the next Batman flick, The Dark Knight, is set to film in Kowloon and I had lunch today with Superman Returns producer Chris Lee and friends. In fact, Hong Kong film-makers have long been willing to support the men in red-white-and-blue underwear. Local action directors have been drafted in to supply Hollywood comic book movies with Hong Kong style action, with Yuen Cheung-yan working on Daredevil and Corey Yuen on the first X-Men. Though not directly inspired by a comic book series, The Matrix, choreographed by Yuen Woo-ping, reflected that aesthetic in every frame. Given the above, it seems ironic that Hong Kong cinema has yet to deliver the definitive Chinese superhero movie. If any real-life movie actors move like comic book superheroes, it’s our Hong Kong action stars, and the city itself provides a suitably high tech locale. There have been a few attempts to create a Chinese superhero flick, but I would argue that no single film fully realized the potential of the concept. Back in the glory days of Shaw Brothers, kung fu stars Lo Lieh and Shih Szu gamely dressed up in red long johns to fight crime in riotously ridiculous Italian co-production ‘Supermen Against The Orient’. Johnnie To’s Heroic Trio, starring Anita Mui, Michelle Yeoh and Maggie Cheung, tells the story of three superheroines fighting in an unremittingly bleak future. Its sequel, Executioners, is grimmer still. Tsui Hark gave the Hong Kong superhero concept his best shot when he produced the mean, moody Black Mask. This kung fu fighting former super-soldier wore a Kato mask and hat, and was played by Jet Li, in the original, and by newcomer Andy On in a weird and wonderful Tsui-directed sequel. I remember sitting with Tsui at a mutual friend’s wedding, and him telling me his concept for a Batgirl movie. It sounded awesome, but I don’t think he ever got to pitch it to Warner Bros. Though Tsui’s Batgirl never flew, Michelle Yeoh’s Silver Hawk did. Director Jingle Ma got the kinetics of on-screen superhero action right, but the film’s goofy humour provided the wrong kind of ‘comic’. Hong Kong film-makers have occasionally channeled comic book imagery unintentionally. Kirk Wong’s Crime Story (coming soon to Dragon Dynasty) features a scene on an exploding roof-top which looks like it was story-boarded by the late, great Jack ‘King’ Kirby. Kirby co-created, with writer Stan Lee, most of the Marvel characters, including The Fantastic Four, The Hulk and The X-Men. His New Gods series, published by DC Comics, was an unacknowledged influence on Star Wars. (The bad guy is named Darkseid, the hero turns out to be Darkseid’s son, the good guys channel The Source… You get the idea.) One reason Hong Kong cinema has never quite gotten costumed superheroes right is that the heroes of local comic books are so different. Where American kids thrive on Superman and Batman, Cantonese youngsters devour imported Japanese manga (which rarely features costumed heroes) and locally produced titles from creators like Tony Wong and Ma Yuk-shing. The popularity of the manga called Riki Oh led Golden Harvest to produced an extravagantly violent film version, which has since acquired cult status worldwide. You can check out the most outrageous superheroics ever committed to film when Story Of Riki comes out on Dragon Dynasty. The local heroes created by Wong and Ma tended to be supernaturally-enhanced period swordsmen or contemporary martial arts masters. Infernal Affairs director Andrew Lau brought Ma Yuk-sing’s characters to the screen with great success in Storm Riders and A Man Called Hero. Tony Wong forged an alliance with veteran producer Raymond Wong. The latter developed a film version of the hit Jademan series Sword Searchers, but put it aside to focus on Dragon Tiger Gate movie. DTG is the longest running comic book in Hong Kong publishing history. Generations of kids have grown up on it, and my eldest son enjoys it today. The Dragon Tiger Gate movie was directed by Wilson Ip and Donnie Yen (who also stars). Though its heroes are not costumed superheroes in the established sense, they do manifest super powers due to their esoteric ‘chi’ development. The film captures the energy of comic book action as well as any Asian fantasy I’ve seen, and perhaps as well as any American one. The finale is, again unwittingly, Kirby-esque. Fans of The King will find much that is familiar with the huge Cubist monoliths of the bad guys lair. The action scenes also capture the intensity of four-colour fights. Characters a thrown the length of a church, and you feel the impact as they collide with stone that shatters beneath them. Needless to say, Dragon Tiger Gate is a Dragon Dynasty release, continuing our ‘Donnie Yen’ series after Kill Zone and Seven Swords. However, it’s still not a bona fide, definitive Hong Kong costumed ‘superhero’ movie. I have no doubt that, between them, Tsui Hark, Donnie Yen and sundry other local talents could cook one up. Maybe a displaced Shaolin Monk fighting crime on the Hong Kong streets, concealing his identity because he’s breaking the Temple’s laws, channeling the specific powers of ancient Chinese deities, fighting his arch foe, a high-tech Master Of The Flying Guillotine… Hmm. Where did I put Chris Lee’s number…?Source: http://www.dragondynasty.com/blog/show/16

[Showtime]

Very interesting...Superman overseas?

[Metropolis_Man]

Ah, Retroman with those great article's I've never seen until he posts them. The things I've missed at this place. This sounds quite interesting. I think this would help keep Superman with a bright look. Didn't realize those films had used Honk Kong as well to film. A great Metropolis could be born out if it.

[Showtime]

"You've been gone a long time."

[Metropolis_Man]

Yeah, go ahead cue the Returns lines. You're played out man.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

"You've been gone a long time."
"I know"......takes a step back and shakes head ever so slightly. :woot:

[Showtime]

Yeah, go ahead cue the Returns lines. You're played out man.

At least Routh is Superman played along, you just forgot the damn lines. Read the scripts.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

LOL, its sad but it seems like I know just about every word to the movie by now. I watch it at least 3-4 times a week. Not only for the movie but just because it looks so damn good on HD DVD and the sound is incredible too.

[Immortalfire]

Quit calling it Man of Steel :whatever:

[Showtime]

Now when the movie comes out and it's called Superman Stays, people will be complaining that they changed the name.

[Steelsheen]

Quit calling it Man of Steel :whatever:

so we call it Superman Returns.... Again?

[BH/HHH]

Earlier this month, it was reported that The Mayor of Castro Street producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan said their Bryan Singer-directed film on gay rights activist Harvey Milk would be shot after Singer finishes filming Valkyrie. Not so fast, say the folks working on the Superman Returns sequel.

"That's total horse *****," said a source within Singer's camp for IESB.net. "I would say the same thing if I was producing that film but don't you realize that most of the 'Superman' producers are working with Bryan on 'Valkyrie'? Gil Adler and Chris Lee both are in Germany with Bryan and I can guarantee you that there is some work being done with 'Superman' right now."

The current plan is to start shooting the Superman Returns sequel by the summer of 2008.

:woot:

[BareKnucklez]

:woot:

Nope don't buy it... Thank you! :ninja:

[Qwerty©]

Nope don't buy it... Thank you! :ninja:
You wouldn't.

[dark_b]

yes baby,

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all! :)

I can already see the pro-Singer fans embracing this news and the rest of us waiting to hear an official announcement from Warner Bros. rather than some Singer cronies.

Personally, although I think Superman Returns is atrocious, I am not totally averse to Singer returning IF he makes a good movie this time, because we know he can make a good movie.

But the questions remain:

1. Does Singer acknowledge there are a lot of people (including many Superman fans) who dislike Superman Returns?

2. Does Singer understand why so many dislike it?

3. Can he do anything about it...does Singer have it in him to make a Superman film the majority of people want to see?

4. Does Singer want to do anything about it...or plod on with the same tired formula?

5. Will Warner Bros. trust him a second time?

Hes already given Superman fans the 'bird' with Superman Returns, doing the sequel in the same manner is tantamount to flicking them the 'Vee's'!

[Kevin Roegele]

1. Does Singer acknowledge there are a lot of people (including many Superman fans) who dislike Superman Returns?

Not really, he blames the marketing for SR not being a bigger hit.

2. Does Singer understand why so many dislike it?

Yeah, not enough action. Singer, Routh and Warner Bros have all promised more for the sequel.


3. Can he do anything about it...does Singer have it in him to make a Superman film the majority of people want to see?

He'll never be Michael Bay or Sam Raimi. He's really not a populist director. He's not an action director either.

Does Singer want to do anything about it...or plod on with the same tired formula?

Superman has always had the same formula. Except when Burton came in.

5. Will Warner Bros. trust him a second time?

Yes.

[Superman1314]

I just love it when people go around spouting opinion as fact. I for one, overall, liked Superman Returns. As with any movie there were a few things I had to take with a grain of salt, but overall, I enjoyed it and I for one do NOT feel as if Bryan gave me the finger. On the contrary, I feel as if I still owe him thanks for finally bringing Superman to the big screen in a way that was traditional and paid homage to the old movies and the comics, instead of all the tripe that was going around in the 90's and early 00's regarding a Superman movie.

THANK YOU BRYAN SINGER!

I look forward to his next installment.:supes:

[BH/HHH]

I just love it when people go around spouting opinion as fact. I for one, overall, liked Superman Returns. As with any movie there were a few things I had to take with a grain of salt, but overall, I enjoyed it and I for one do NOT feel as if Bryan gave me the finger. On the contrary, I feel as if I still owe him thanks for finally bringing Superman to the big screen in a way that was traditional and paid homage to the old movies and the comics, instead of all the tripe that was going around in the 90's and early 00's regarding a Superman movie.

THANK YOU BRYAN SINGER!

I look forward to his next installment.:supes:

:up:

[Matt]

Keep in mind, if at this time last year you asked Singer's camp if he was off Logan's Run the response would be "total bull ****". Just be patient and see what happens. Chances are, whichever film gets the money first, is the one Singer will do first.

[odiin]

I just love it when people go around spouting opinion as fact. I for one, overall, liked Superman Returns. As with any movie there were a few things I had to take with a grain of salt, but overall, I enjoyed it and I for one do NOT feel as if Bryan gave me the finger. On the contrary, I feel as if I still owe him thanks for finally bringing Superman to the big screen in a way that was traditional and paid homage to the old movies and the comics, instead of all the tripe that was going around in the 90's and early 00's regarding a Superman movie.

THANK YOU BRYAN SINGER!

I look forward to his next installment.:supes:

Holy crap, I never thought I'd ever see a post I actually agree with in the Superman forums!

This is great news, though. The Superman theme seriously started playing in my head when I read it.

[X Knight]

the only problem for any SR sequel, for those of us who didn't like SR, is that SR's problems weren't just a lack of Action ( more specifically, lack of superpowered hero vs. superpowered villain action ).

Yes, it's true that SR could have used more hero vs. villain action, but the problems are deeper, they are with the Story, the context which Singer has created.

If Singer and co. just think that SR dissappointed many fans solely because it needed more "action", and that they can correct that by delivering more action in the sequel, they would be missing the deeper point.

They would still have to deal with the fact that Superman abandoned Earth/Lois for 5+ years, fathered an illegitimate bastard child ( who is being raised by another man ), a Superman that seems to be an emotional "wimp," etc., etc.

These storyline problems are much harder to correct. And, no amount of high-octane action will be able to cover it up. That would be like using a tiny bandaid to cover a deep shark bite.

But, again, this is just my opinion. For those of you who liked SR, I can understand your excitement about getting a sequel sooner.

I'm just not excited about anything related to SR........

[TheComicbookKid]

So if the sequel is made, will all the detractors/haters leave the Superman forums since they don't care about Singer's Superman? :dry:

[Kevin Roegele]

I just love it when people go around spouting opinion as fact.

I think you hate it really. :D

[Kevin Roegele]

So if the sequel is made, will all the detractors/haters leave the Superman forums since they don't care about Singer's Superman? :dry:

On the contrary, they care deeply about it. They feel it's headed in the wrong direction and needs to be altered.

[Matt]

So if the sequel is made, will all the detractors/haters leave the Superman forums since they don't care about Singer's Superman? :dry:

Why should we have to? Are our opinions not just as valid as yours?

[TheComicbookKid]

It was a joke, Matt.

But it would be odd to complain about a movie you don't want to see and won't see.

[Matt]

It was a joke, Matt.

But it would be odd to complain about a movie you don't want to see and won't see.

Is it any more productive to sit here all day and spout off "OMGZ! ROUTH IS SUPERMAN!" or "IN SINGER I TRUST! LMOL PWNED!"?

[TheComicbookKid]

I don't sound like that!:woot:

The same could be said of the "Singer raped my childhood" crowd too. How's that productive?

[Matt]

Exactly the point, none of this really is. But I think people who share their opinions, positive or negative in a well thought out manner have a right to be here. Its not the "haters" that destroy this place. It is the idiots...and we have just as many of those in the pro-Singer camp as we do in the anti-Singer camp.

[Brian Braddock]

I just love it when people go around spouting opinion as fact. I for one, overall, liked Superman Returns. As with any movie there were a few things I had to take with a grain of salt, but overall, I enjoyed it and I for one do NOT feel as if Bryan gave me the finger. On the contrary, I feel as if I still owe him thanks for finally bringing Superman to the big screen in a way that was traditional and paid homage to the old movies and the comics, instead of all the tripe that was going around in the 90's and early 00's regarding a Superman movie.

THANK YOU BRYAN SINGER!

I look forward to his next installment.:supes:


:up: X2

[TheComicbookKid]

I agree, Matt.

But the crust of my opinion was that if (and it's a big if still) the sequel happens, what's the point of complaining about a movie you won't see.
Super-batt's post said not only the action was lacking, but some people didn't like the story. Obviously the action will be increased significantly, but the kid and the story remain.

I don't like Bay's Transformers and I haven't posted in the forums. I love the Transformers from G1 to Beast Machines, but the movie is getting a sequel no matter what. And it wasn't the flame on Optimus or Micheal Bay's involvement that turned me off. It was the story and the trailers. So what would be the point of going in there and bashing a movie that the majority of fans and the public love? I still love Transformers.

I'm not saying people's dislikes aren't valid, but the idea of posting day in and day out about it does seem weird. I try to live up to my idol, Showtime's (lol)example and be fair to both sides, but it's getting tiring after a year. What's the better way of displaying your dislike of a movie, saying how much it sucks then paying the 10.50 to the movie's b.o gross just to complain about it or not paying the 10.50.

Until/if the movie is made i certainly am not saying the people coming here to chime in on their dislikes aren't allowed to, but once Singer goes into production, it just seems kind of pointless imo.

[Excel]

we shall see. I was never a fan of singers fights in the xmen movies...however the airplane scene alone in superman returns has me thinking that he has some talent as a director. i dunno...its like the potentials kinda there; but you have no confidence in him (?)

i think maybe because our expecs are so low, a singer sequel could be quite popular

[Matt]

I agree, Matt.

But the crust of my opinion was that if (and it's a big if still) the sequel happens, what's the point of complaining about a movie you won't see.
Super-batt's post said not only the action was lacking, but some people didn't like the story. Obviously the action will be increased significantly, but the kid and the story remain.

I don't like Bay's Transformers and I haven't posted in the forums. I love the Transformers from G1 to Beast Machines, but the movie is getting a sequel no matter what. And it wasn't the flame on Optimus or Micheal Bay's involvement that turned me off. It was the story and the trailers. So what would be the point of going in there and bashing a movie that the majority of fans and the public love? I still love Transformers.

I'm not saying people's dislikes aren't valid, but the idea of posting day in and day out about it does seem weird. I try to live up to my idol, Showtime's (lol)example and be fair to both sides, but it's getting tiring after a year. What's the better way of displaying your dislike of a movie, saying how much it sucks then paying the 10.50 to the movie's b.o gross just to complain about it or not paying the 10.50.

Until/if the movie is made i certainly am not saying the people coming here to chime in on their dislikes aren't allowed to, but once Singer goes into production, it just seems kind of pointless imo.

I see your point, but maybe people just like throwing their ideas and thoughts into the mix. Feel it gives them a voice, y'know?

[odiin]

the only problem for any SR sequel, for those of us who didn't like SR, is that SR's problems weren't just a lack of Action ( more specifically, lack of superpowered hero vs. superpowered villain action ).

Yes, it's true that SR could have used more hero vs. villain action, but the problems are deeper, they are with the Story, the context which Singer has created.

If Singer and co. just think that SR dissappointed many fans solely because it needed more "action", and that they can correct that by delivering more action in the sequel, they would be missing the deeper point.

They would still have to deal with the fact that Superman abandoned Earth/Lois for 5+ years, fathered an illegitimate bastard child ( who is being raised by another man ), a Superman that seems to be an emotional "wimp," etc., etc.

These storyline problems are much harder to correct. And, no amount of high-octane action will be able to cover it up. That would be like using a tiny bandaid to cover a deep shark bite.

But, again, this is just my opinion. For those of you who liked SR, I can understand your excitement about getting a sequel sooner.

I'm just not excited about anything related to SR........

First, I should say that I don't agree that Superman leaving and returning after 5 years was a problem, on the contrary I think it's an excellent plot device, but either way by the time the sequel rolls around he will already have been back and settled in, so that will be ancient history by that time.

I also think that IF he had been portrayed as an emotional wimp, then that would be a problem, but I don't see that as being the case. Yeah, they focused quite a bit on his relationship (or lack thereof) with Lois, but it was done much in a much less wimpy way then how similar circumstances were handled in Smallville (or worse, Spider-Man 3 yikes!) but I think this will prove you wrong as far as the action not fixing things argument. The problem with the first film wasn't so much showing too much of his emotional side as it was not showing enough of his tough side, and if the next film has a bunch of action, well... there's his tough side right there! and that will balance things out.

I actually agree with you on the superkid thing though. It wasn't actually as bad as I thought it would be in SR, but it really is something that should have come up in the third film or something, because unless they come up with a clever way of getting rid of him, they're going to have to carry that for the duration of this incarnation of the film series. All I can say is they're going to have to be REALLY careful in that respect, because it can turn sour really fast and easily.

[TheComicbookKid]

I want them too. Fans voices have had a voice in getting bad scripts thrown out and FF2 had input from fans according to Story. Jackman said the berserker was a big wish of fans so that happened in X2.

That's why I want people to say like kakarot's post in the costume thread about the neckline. Don't say Singer sucks and nothing else. If the sequel gets made, hopefully the reds will be red this time and the neckline will come out a bit. And Routh will do more of the flying this time instead of CGI.

But complaining about stuff you want fixed and still aren't going to go to the sequel no matter what urkes me a little.

[Matt]

I want them too. Fans voices have had a voice in getting bad scripts thrown out and FF2 had input from fans according to Story. Jackman said the berserker was a big wish of fans so that happened in X2.

That's why I want people to say like kakarot's post in the costume thread about the neckline. Don't say Singer sucks and nothing else. If the sequel gets made, hopefully the reds will be red this time and the neckline will come out a bit. And Routh will do more of the flying this time instead of CGI.

But complaining about stuff you want fixed and still aren't going to go to the sequel no matter what urkes me a little.

I understand your point

If the sequel does get made, I won't lie...I probably will not see it in theaters. Why? Because I spent 9 dollars to see the first movie in theaters, was incredibly disappointed, didn't like the movie...so why would I spend more money to see a sequel to a movie I do not like? Its like Uwe Boll movies, people literally see them so they can *****. That seems pointless to me.

So, considering that...if a Singer sequel is greenlit and production begins, you will probably see less of me in this forum. Because you're right, its pointless to ***** about something I won't see. Especially when money speaks louder than words. I will pop up, give imput on big developments (suit, cast, plot, etc)...but that is probably about it unless I see something that really changes my mind (and being as the general plots and themes will probably carry over, as they do in most sequels I doubt much will).

[Matt]

First, I should say that I don't agree that Superman leaving and returning after 5 years was a problem, on the contrary I think it's an excellent plot device, but either way by the time the sequel rolls around he will already have been back and settled in, so that will be ancient history by that time.

I also think that IF he had been portrayed as an emotional wimp, then that would be a problem, but I don't see that as being the case. Yeah, they focused quite a bit on his relationship (or lack thereof) with Lois, but it was done much in a much less wimpy way then how similar circumstances were handled in Smallville (or worse, Spider-Man 3 yikes!) but I think this will prove you wrong as far as the action not fixing things argument. The problem with the first film wasn't so much showing too much of his emotional side as it was not showing enough of his tough side, and if the next film has a bunch of action, well... there's his tough side right there! and that will balance things out.

I actually agree with you on the superkid thing though. It wasn't actually as bad as I thought it would be in SR, but it really is something that should have come up in the third film or something, because unless they come up with a clever way of getting rid of him, they're going to have to carry that for the duration of this incarnation of the film series. All I can say is they're going to have to be REALLY careful in that respect, because it can turn sour really fast and easily.

A lot of things seemed out of place. In fact, you can call SR a sequel to two movies we have not seen. Sure, they could be sequels to the Donner movies, but a lot does not fit in with that. It is like Bryan Singer made the end of the trilogy, first.

[odiin]

I want them too. Fans voices have had a voice in getting bad scripts thrown out and FF2 had input from fans according to Story. Jackman said the berserker was a big wish of fans so that happened in X2.

That's why I want people to say like kakarot's post in the costume thread about the neckline. Don't say Singer sucks and nothing else. If the sequel gets made, hopefully the reds will be red this time and the neckline will come out a bit. And Routh will do more of the flying this time instead of CGI.

But complaining about stuff you want fixed and still aren't going to go to the sequel no matter what urkes me a little.

Agreed. If you really cared about Superman you would offer constructive criticism, not mindless bashing, not only does it make for a better, more intelligent forum, but it's also the only way that your ideas will actually get listened to. The people behind these films DO tend to listen to to, and consider the fans' ideas at least a little bit, but if you just sit there and bash everything then there's no way they'll have listen to what you're saying.

[Matt]

Agreed. If you really cared about Superman you would offer constructive criticism, not mindless bashing, not only does it make for a better, more intelligent forum, but it's also the only way that your ideas will actually get listened to. The people behind these films DO tend to listen to to, and consider the fans' ideas at least a little bit, but if you just sit there and bash everything then there's no way they'll have listen to what you're saying.

Its unfair to simply associate that quality with people who bash the movies when there are just as many, if not more people who enjoy the movie who are just as ignorant and mindless when posting.

[odiin]

A lot of things seemed out of place. In fact, you can call SR a sequel to two movies we have not seen. Sure, they could be sequels to the Donner movies, but a lot does not fit in with that. It is like Bryan Singer made the end of the trilogy, first.

Yeah, that's where the "Vague history" thing comes in. The way I think about it is this: Bryan Singer's "version" of Superman and Superman II would be essentially the same thing as Richard Donner except with his won ideas mixed in. He COULD have filmed those movies, but they would pretty much be exact remakes of the first two Supermans except with little changes here and there, but since that would be a colossal waste of time he's pretty much saying "Okay... look at the first two Superman movies. That's BASICALLY the idea, so just look at the basic plot points of those films and that's the history of my Superman"

I think it's cool that he embraced the older movies rather than threw them out, but I am part of the camp that would like for him to now start to move away from what Donner did and make it his own.

[Matt]

Yeah, that's where the "Vague history" thing comes in. The way I think about it is this: Bryan Singer's "version" of Superman and Superman II would be essentially the same thing as Richard Donner except with his won ideas mixed in. He COULD have filmed those movies, but they would pretty much be exact remakes of the first two Supermans except with little changes here and there, but since that would be a colossal waste of time he's pretty much saying "Okay... look at the first two Superman movies. That's BASICALLY the idea, so just look at the basic plot points of those films and that's the history of my Superman"

I think it's cool that he embraced the older movies rather than threw them out, but I am part of the camp that would like for him to now start to move away from what Donner did and make it his own.

I see it as sort of lazy. To have to pretty much rip off someone else's vision to lay down your ground work, all the while not giving the person complete credit for doing so...it just seems like lazy film making to me.

[odiin]

Its unfair to simply associate that quality with people who bash the movies when there are just as many, if not more people who enjoy the movie who are just as ignorant and mindless when posting.

So what? mindless praise is fine, mindless bashing is not. These things aren't equal. Bashing isn't bad because you don't LIKE something, it's bad because you're being hostile and insulting. Just like if we were talking about a fellow forum member rather than a film: If you mindlessly praised that person, no matter how dumb you sound, there's nothing wrong with that, but if you were just bashing on someone constantly you would get in trouble, and if it was really bad you would probably be banned, but you aren't going to get banned for thinking highly of someone/something.

[Matt]

So what? mindless praise is fine, mindless bashing is not. These things aren't equal. Bashing isn't bad because you don't LIKE something, it's bad because you're being hostile and insulting. Just like if we were talking about a fellow forum member rather than a film: If you mindlessly praised that person, no matter how dumb you sound, there's nothing wrong with that, but if you were just bashing on someone constantly you would get in trouble, and if it was really bad you would probably be banned, but you aren't going to get banned for thinking highly of someone/something.

There is plenty wrong with it. Especially since 90 % of the mindless praise leads to bashing the opinions of people who didn't like the movie.