What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[Mostpowerful]

JustSomeGuy said

I think the fact is that this film is probably a little too artsy, if that is the right word, for a summer blockbuster Superman movie. It's probably why it has a very small (but still present) number of dedicated fans, but the general audience panned it.

It is very artsy like you said, and I like that about it too, but I don't think the general audience panned it since it made more at the Box office than Batman Begins (and people here say that that film was such a hit) and more than some Marvel films. Almost $400 mill worldwide is not so bad (it also sold well on dvd and bluray). I actually think it is the online fanboys that dislike it and are very loud. I constantly see a lot of love for it on twiter for instance, and also know people that like it a lot. Sure it was not the hit WB wanted, but a lot of people liked it. Many more fans on this same site seemed to like it, but when the reboot was announced, some of them gave their backs to it.


MOS2013 said

MostPowerful, I'm not just highlighting the flaws of SR for the fun of it, I'm just trying to engage in the discussion which is what the forum (I presume) is all about. I notice that you didn't exactly waste any time in rushing in to the MOS forum to declare that it's too dark or whatever, so I'm not sure why thats okay but me explaining what didn't work for me in SR isn't.

I made just one, two comments.. hardly ever go there..

People are talking about being objective, but one could argue that discussing the film with someone who is on first name terms with 'Brandon' isn't completely objective.

What do you mean, lol?

I'm really glad you and lots of other people liked the film, it's good that people get enjoyment from it, if you like it that's all that matters, you shouldn't feel threatened by people who don't like it.

I'm not threatened at all. Hate all you want. I just never understood why some people take SO much time and energy into arguing about something they don't like. SR has been debated TO DEATH. I rather talk about something I like.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

It is very artsy like you said, and I like that about it too, but I don't think the general audience panned it since it made more at the Box office than Batman Begins (and people here say that that film was such a hit) and more than some Marvel films.

You mean Marvel films starring lesser-known/exposed characters?

THOR

WW Gross: $449,326,618

Not bad for a character with about 1/10 the exposure Superman has had over the last 60 years...

Almost $400 mill worldwide is not so bad (it also sold well on dvd and bluray).

No, it did not.

Superman Returns DVD Sales:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php

Domestic DVD Sales: $81,608,720

Now, let's compare that to a few other comic book films:

Iron Man:

Domestic DVD Sales: $173,488,611

Iron Man 2:

Domestic DVD Sales: $122,682,220

The Dark Knight:

Domestic DVD Sales: $258,689,618

300:

Domestic DVD Sales: $261,534,447

Dylan Dog:

Domestic DVD Sales: $1,568,757

Case closed on it "performing well", methinks.

I actually think it is the online fanboys that dislike it and are very loud. I constantly see a lot of love for it on twiter for instance, and also know people that like it a lot. Sure it was not the hit WB wanted, but a lot of people liked it. Many more fans on this same site seemed to like it, but when the reboot was announced, some of them gave their backs to it.

Surrounding yourself online with people who like it isn't a very good litmus-test for how the general public feels about that film.

I'm not threatened at all. Hate all you want. I just never understood why some people take SO much time and energy into arguing about something they don't like. SR has been debated TO DEATH. I rather talk about something I like.

Because they can.

How is it any different from you running in here to agree with someone by posting the exact same links and comments every time someone mentions SR?

It's not.

[Nevaratoiel]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Let's be honest here, reading thru both yours and his prior posts, "objective" you two are NOT.

Ahem? Excuse me? And who are you to decide how objectively I can watch a film? It's not fair of you to assume something you have no knowledge of......

Oh, and puh-lease stop with all the figures. We know about them, we know!

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

JustSomeGuy said


It is very artsy like you said, and I like that about it too, but I don't think the general audience panned it since it made more at the Box office than Batman Begins (and people here say that that film was such a hit) and more than some Marvel films. Almost $400 mill worldwide is not so bad (it also sold well on dvd and bluray). I actually think it is the online fanboys that dislike it and are very loud. I constantly see a lot of love for it on twiter for instance, and also know people that like it a lot. Sure it was not the hit WB wanted, but a lot of people liked it. Many more fans on this same site seemed to like it, but when the reboot was announced, some of them gave their backs to it.


MOS2013 said



I made just one, two comments.. hardly ever go there..




What do you mean, lol?




I'm not threatened at all. Hate all you want. I just never understood why some people take SO much time and energy into arguing about something they don't like. SR has been debated TO DEATH. I rather talk about something I like.

So much time? Like 10 minutes?

I'm new to the forum so I haven't discussed it.

You say you don't feel threatened yet you clearly have a big problem with me sharing my problems with the film

What do you mean, lol?

I mean referring to Routh as 'Brandon' whilst gushing over him is usually the act of someone with a major crush, so whilst you and others talk about being objective, you hardly seem objective yourselves

[Mostpowerful]

So much time? Like 10 minutes?

I'm new to the forum so I haven't discussed it.

You say you don't feel threatened yet you clearly have a big problem with me sharing my problems with the film

I still have my doubts about you being 'new' to this forum.. but I'm not going to waste my time arguing about the film with people that clerly don't like it. Like I said, I rather talk about the things I love.

I mean referring to Routh as 'Brandon' whilst gushing over him is usually the act of someone with a major crush, so whilst you and others talk about being objective, you hardly seem objective yourselves

Hahaha, so all those guys (men) that also call him Brandon and like the movie aren't objective because they obviously have a major crush on him? And those positive reviews I posted (and many others that have been written by men) were written by men. They aren't objective and have a crush on him too? LOL. You see, I can be objective and have a crush on Superman, it's possible! btw, how old are you, 14?

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

Ahem? Excuse me? And who are you to decide how objectively I can watch a film? It's not fair of you to assume something you have no knowledge of......

Oh, and puh-lease stop with all the figures. We know about them, we know!

exactly, it's a matter of taste. To us SR is a very good film (and we have explained why). To them it's a mostly bad and boring film.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

You mean Marvel films starring lesser-known/exposed characters?

THOR

WW Gross: $449,326,618

Not bad for a character with about 1/10 the exposure Superman has had over the last 60 years...



No, it did not.

Superman Returns DVD Sales:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php



Now, let's compare that to a few other comic book films:

Iron Man:

Domestic DVD Sales: $173,488,611

Iron Man 2:

Domestic DVD Sales: $122,682,220

The Dark Knight:

Domestic DVD Sales: $258,689,618

300:

Domestic DVD Sales: $261,534,447

Dylan Dog:

Domestic DVD Sales: $1,568,757

Case closed on it "performing well", methinks.



Surrounding yourself online with people who like it isn't a very good litmus-test for how the general public feels about that film.



Because they can.

How is it any different from you running in here to agree with someone by posting the exact same links and comments every time someone mentions SR?

It's not.

I still think it sold reasonably well for the type of movie it was (drama with Superman). And it sold twice as many more dvd units than both Thor and CA. The Ultimate Superman Collection, which included SR, was sold out too; I bought it mainly because it included SR and the extra disc with the RTK docu. It was also reported back in the day, and on this same site, that it was the best selling HD disc of the season or something like that (couldn't find the link). I also reported in the old Brandon Routh as Superman thread that SR was one of the top 10 best selling blurays in Australia. We also don't know how many more dvds the film sold in other countries; the movie was pretty popular overseas, maybe even more than in the US.

And DD sold those many units? wow, for a movie so under the radar and crappy is a decent amount.

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

I still have my doubts about you being 'new' to this forum.. but I'm not going to waste my time arguing about the film with people that clerly don't like it. Like I said, I rather talk about the things I love.





Hahaha, so all those guys (men) that also call him Brandon and like the movie aren't objective because they obviously have a major crush on him? And those positive reviews I posted (and many others that have been written by men) were written by men. They aren't objective and have a crush on him too? LOL. You see, I can be objective and have a crush on Superman, it's possible! btw, how old are you, 14?

I could ask you the same thing, your reaction to each of my posts on here is identical to that of a 14 year old girl scorned when someone criticises one of those Twilight actors.

You completely missed the point too, did any of those positive reviewers refer to 'Brandon' throughout?

I'll leave you to it and maybe try and gloss over your retorts in future because it's not worth my time any more. no offence or anything

[bonoferox]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

instead i'll just say I felt let down by the film. I'm glad that people can get enjoyment out of it though, if you or anyone else likes it then thats all that matters.

Well said.

People need to stop taking everything to heart so much. I personally loved the film, but I do have criticisms. Haters are going to hate, lovers will love. People can argue their points all they want, but when they start to tout it as fact other than what it is (just an opinion) then it crosses over to nothing more than stubborn arrogance.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel

Ahem? Excuse me? And who are you to decide how objectively I can watch a film? It's not fair of you to assume something you have no knowledge of......

I am a person who can read your previous posts? You DO know that what you post here is available for all to see, right?

You aren't objective in the slightest.

Oh, and puh-lease stop with all the figures. We know about them, we know!

No.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

I still think it sold reasonably well for the type of movie it was (drama with Superman). And it sold twice as many more dvd units than both Thor and CA. The Ultimate Superman Collection, which included SR, was sold out too; I bought it mainly because it included SR and the extra disc with the RTK docu. It was also reported back in the day, and on this same site, that it was the best selling HD disc of the season or something like that (couldn't find the link). I also reported in the old Brandon Routh as Superman thread that SR was one of the top 10 best selling blurays in Australia. We also don't know how many more dvds the film sold in other countries; the movie was pretty popular overseas, maybe even more than in the US.

Soooo..... I post facts & figures, and you reply saying you'll trust what you "think" instead?

I'll stick with facts, thankyouverymuch.

And DD sold those many units? wow, for a movie so under the radar and crappy is a decent amount.

Wrong. Again.

It probably cost more than $1.5 million dollars to PRODUCE those unsold Blu-Rays and DVD's.

[hopefuldreamer]

I wish I could go back to my teen years, when I first saw SR. I loved the film back then. I came out of the cinema on cloud 9.

Thing is, I keep trying to pin point what it is I was so happy about.

Here's my attempt at remembering:

1. I had a teen girl crush on Brandon Routh. I was much more into pretty guys than gruff guys back then, and he had such lovely eyes and soft features.

2. The plane scene was awesome. As was the bullet to the eye shot.

3. I kind of love hero beat down scenes, and it had a heck of a good one. I also think that one scene is the only one in the movie where Lex actually felt like the Lex Luthor I know and love, especially the line 'Now fly'.

4. It did have some gorgeous shots, like Superman flying up through the clouds and bathing in the direct sunlight. Or him floating in space.

The problem is, the more I watched it, the more the downsides started to grate on me. And now they've become so big, that I just can't enjoy the film much anymore

[Bruce_Begins]

SR was a moderately successful movie that had many positive review from top critics, it was just not a popcorn entertainment movie that many wanted, that was one of the reasons why it did not make as much money as WB expected it to make.


Add to it the fact that Superman was returning to big screen after a period of 19 years and many people were just not looking forward to it.

Competition it had to face with movies that provided summer popcorn entertainment like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest affected SR's box office collections too.

To sum it all up it was a good closure of Donner-verse and it was a moderately successful box office collections, the reviews by critics were positive and superman fans were divided in their opinions.

Some fans liked it and some did not, it is all a matter of opinion, it is subjective. Personally speaking, I had issues it some of the plot points but I liked it overall, to me positives outweigh the negatives.

[Bruce_Begins]

Let's compare some of the movie's worldwide collection with SR, I know that SR did not get a sequel as it's production cost was much higher than all other movies that I have listed here, but if you just take into consideration of the number of people that actually watched the movie in theaters as compared to other movies, SR had more number of people going to see it.

(Number of people who saw the movie = Box Office Collection Amount / Price of movie Ticket)

(In case of THOR, the ticket price is higher as it was a 3D movie and it was released 2011 when ticket prices are higher due to inflation as compared to 2006, so more people saw SR than Thor.)

SR:-------------------------Worldwide: $391,081,192

Batman Begins:------------Worldwide: $372,710,015

The Incredible Hulk:--------Worldwide: $263,427,551

Thor:-----------------------Worldwide: $449,326,618

Captain America:----------Worldwide: $368,608,363

X-Men Origins:Wolverine:--Worldwide: $373,062,864

X-Men:First Class:----------Worldwide: $353,624,124

Green lantern:--------------Worldwide: $219,851,172

Even in terms of the actual amount SR earned more than the most of comic book movies.

I have not Included Iron Man movies as IM was driven by charismatic presence of RDJ who was the main reason why IM was such a success, which was one of the reason why WB got RDJ for Sherlock Holmes movies, and once again RDJ turned Sherlock Holmes into a successful franchise.

As far as the argument that why IM and Thor who are B-list characters of Marvel comics did so well as compared to A-list character like Superman, the reason could be that SR was coming after Superman's last two movies failed (Superman 3, Superman 4), that is why movies like Batman Begins (DC's A-list character coming to big screen after the disaster of Batman and Robin) under-performed and The Incredible Hulk ( Marvel's A-list character, coming after not so successful Ang Lee's Hulk) also under-performed.

Thor and Captain America had the added benefit of higher ticket prices and 3D boost, still SR did make more then most of these movies (except Thor and Iron man 1,2.)

[Superman Lives]

Outside Nolan's Batman, Superman Returns and V for Vendetta are WB's only recent DC Comics films that made their production budget back (barely) and scored largely positive critical reception.

Everything else bombed.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

(Number of people who saw the movie = Box Office Collection Amount / Price of movie Ticket)

(In case of THOR, the ticket price is higher as it was a 3D movie and it was released 2011 when ticket prices are higher due to inflation as compared to 2006, so more people saw SR than Thor.)

Yes; factoring the 2006/2011 average ticket price (i.e., inflation), SR outsold Thor. But a complicating factor is this: we’re taking the world-wide grosses and dividing by the North American average ticket price. This may throw a wrench into an accurate calculation of number of seats sold. But at least, it’s a consistent/apples-to-apples comparison.

[Bruce_Begins]

That is a valid point, So if we are to comapre only domestic collocations (North American)


Superman Returns(2006)---------- $200,081,192

Thor(2011)--------------------------$181,030,624

If we take into account higher ticket prices due to the 3D factor and inflation since 2006 to 2011, the number of people who actually saw Thor in theaters will be significantly less.

Edit: Some poster here on SHH boards has said that when comparing the average price of a 2D movie ticket with a 3D movie Ticket costs 15 % more in US, so he suggested dividing the amount earned by a 3D movie by 1.15 so that it can be compared with a 2D movie ticket price.

If we do that for Thor then modified collections Thor's would be $157.417 mil which is less than SR's domestic collection of $ 200.081 mil.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

I have not Included Iron Man movies as IM was driven by charismatic presence of RDJ who was the main reason why IM was such a success, which was one of the reason why WB got RDJ for Sherlock Holmes movies, and once again RDJ turned Sherlock Holmes into a successful franchise.

Actually, the REAL reason why you aren't including either of the "Iron Man" movies is because their box-offices DESTROYED SR's. And sorry, you're not allowed to selectively exclude something that makes your point invalid.

"Iron Man"

Domestic: $318,412,101
Foreign: $266,762,121
Worldwide: $585,174,222

"Iron Man 2"

Domestic: $312,433,331
Foreign: $311,500,000
Worldwide: $623,933,331

"X-Men: Last Stand"

Domestic: $234,362,462
Foreign: $224,997,093
Worldwide: $459,359,555

(OUCH, eh?)

"300"

Domestic: $210,614,939
Foreign: $245,453,242
Worldwide: $456,068,181

Oh, and like I said before, "300" ALSO brought in an additional $261,000,00 in DVD sales. MORE than SR's domestic total.

What both of you above are conveniently leaving out is, SR WAS released in IMAX 3-D too. So your excuses regarding "THOR" are ALSO invalid.

The film didn't deserve, and therefore did not GET, a sequel.

Thankfully.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Superman Lives

Outside Nolan's Batman, Superman Returns and V for Vendetta are WB's only recent DC Comics films that made their production budget back (barely) and scored largely positive critical reception.

It didn't make it's budget back. You have to include advertising costs in, which was another $100 million plus. And since the studio barely recoups around 60% of the total box office, it didn't even come close.

Everything else bombed.

Including SR.

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Actually, the REAL reason why you aren't including either of the "Iron Man" movies is because their box-offices DESTROYED SR's. And sorry, you're not allowed to selectively exclude something that makes your point invalid.

No, it doesn't as I have already explained, Iron man's success can be attributed to skills and presence of Robert Downey Jr. without him (Say, imagine Colin Farrell as Tony Stark /Iron Man then the movie would not be as successful, of course this is mere speculation on my part but that stems from the fact that Iron Man is a B-List Marvel character and most of Colin Farrell's movies have not done well at Box Office.)


Comparing movies that are already established as Successful franchises and getting sequels like Iron Man 2, Spider-Man 3 and X-men 3 to a franchise like Superman Returns which was coming back to big screens after a period of 19 years and after the last two attempts that bombed (Superman 3, Superman 4) is not fair.

And why compare 300 with SR ? that is not a superhero movie, it is more like a war movie based on a GN.

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

What both of you above are conveniently leaving out is, SR WAS released in IMAX 3-D too. So your excuses regarding "THOR" are ALSO invalid.

Oh, come on, SR was in IMAX 3D in only IMAX theaters and Thor was released worldwide in mostly 3D format around the world. (some theaters had 2D Thor but they were a small percentage)

and only 20 minutes of SR was in 3D (at IMAX) not the whole movie. and THOR was also shown in IMAX 3D format in addition to regular theater 3D format.

source

SR was not as big of a disappointment as you are making it out to be, was that sufficient ? NO, but it was an OK performance, it will not get a sequel, and I am fine with that.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

No, it doesn't as I have already explained, Iron man's success can be attributed to skills and presence of Robert Downey Jr. without hin (say Colin Farrell as Tony Stark /Iron man would not be as successful, of course this is mere speculation on my part but that is due to Iron Man being a B-List Marvel character and most of Colin Farrell's movies not doing well at Box Office.)

Wow. So you are ADMITTING 'Iron Man' was a better film, and that means it doesn't "count" because it had a far better actor in the lead??

Sorry, you fail.

Comparing movies that are already established as Successful franchises and getting sequels like Iron Man 2, Spider-Man 3 and X-men 3 to a franchise like Superman Returns which was coming back to big screens after a period of 19 years and after the last two attempts that bombed (Superman 3, Superman 4) is not fair.

Fair? Did you say "fair"?

You're right. Comparing a B-list comic book character with ZERO live-action history against one with FIVE live-action films prior to SR, FOUR television series with one running current when SR came out, and at least FIVE animated series is definitely "unfair".

To "Iron Man".

And why compare 300 with SR ? that is not a superhero movie, it is more like a war movie based on a GN.

"300" is a comic book film. Just because YOU don't want to admit that it is, doesn't mean that it isn't.

Oh, come on, SR was in IMAX 3D in only a few IMAX theaters and Thor was released worldwide in mostly 3D format (some theaters had 2D Thor but they were a small percentage)

Wrong.

and only 20 minutes of SR was in 3D (at IMAX) not the whole movie.

source

And the ticket prices were still for full IMAX 3-D. So you fail again.

Keep making things up though. Maybe WB will scrap "Man Of Steel" and do a sequel to a boring, bland flop instead...

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Wow. So you are ADMITTING 'Iron Man' was a better film, and that means it doesn't "count" because it had a far better actor in the lead??

Sorry, you fail.

You need to read my post again, I just was pointing out why Iron man was a success, and If any Marvel movie was truly successful it was Iron man (as compared to SR., something which I know.) but what about other marvel movies were they more successful than SR ? (see my post for figure to TIH, Cap America, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men :FC)

And quit the personal insults, it does not make you look smarter.

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

"300" is a comic book film. Just because YOU don't want to admit that it is, doesn't mean that it isn't.

It is not a superhero movie.

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

And the ticket prices were still for full IMAX 3-D. So you fail again.

SR was in 3D Only at IMAX theaters and only 20 min. were in 3D where as Thor was shown in 3D in regular theaters and in IMAX. The whole trend of showing movies in 3D started after mega success of Avatar (2009) which gave a 3D boost to its collections, that was something that Marvel Studios wanted so that decided to release Thor(2011) mostly in 3D format.

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Keep making things up though. Maybe WB will scrap "Man Of Steel" and do a sequel to a boring, bland flop instead...

SR will never get a Sequel, and I am fine with that, looking forward to MOS, as you are not able to discuss the subject properly, this will be my last post on this particular matter with you.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

You need to read my post again, I just was pointing out why Iron man was a success, and If any Marvel movie was truly successful it was Iron man (as compared to SR., something which I know.) but what about other marvel movies were they more successful than SR ? (see my post for figure to TIH, Cap America, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men :FC)

"THOR" was more successful. You throwing out "What-if's" and "Whatcouldabeen's" won't change that fact.

And quit the personal insults, it does not make you look smarter.

Wow. Seriously?

Saying you "fail" is a personal insult? If that is what you call a "personal insult", then you have got some.......issues.

It is not a superhero movie.

It is a comic book movie. No difference to the people who matter.

SR was in 3D Only at IMAX theater and only 20 min. were in 3D where as Thor was shown in 3D in regular theaters and in IMAX.

And again, they charged FULL PRICE for those 20 minutes.

I won't repeat myself again.

SR will never get a Sequel, and I am fine with that, looking forward to MOS, as you are not able to discuss the subject properly, this will be my last post on this particular matter with you.

Indeed. I guess if I posted badly-termed and even worse spelled conjecture, you would consider that "proper".

Happy to disappoint.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

"THOR" was more successful. You throwing out "What-if's" and "Whatcouldabeen's" won't change that fact.

You can define “success” in different ways. One valid way is to measure “units (tickets) sold.” This is how we determine if a song or album is a “hit,” how we assign “best seller” status to a book. So the calculation is that SR had 59.7 million “units sold.” That’s not close to TDK’s 139M. But it’s significantly better than GL’s 27.7M and slightly better than Thor’s 56.6M.

It’s clear that Bruce B is speaking about “units sold.” If you want to use another criterion for “success” then you need to state which one you’re applying. Otherwise, you’re talking past each other.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

You can define “success” in different ways. One valid way is to measure “units (tickets) sold.” This is how we determine if a song or album is a “hit,” how we assign “best seller” status to a book. So the calculation is that SR had 59.7 million “units sold.” That’s not close to TDK’s 139M. But it’s significantly better than GL’s 27.7M and slightly better than Thor’s 56.6M.

There are TWO measures of success, and they are the only two that matter:

1. "THOR" had a production budget of $150 million dollars. Much smaller than the SR with a higher return.

2. "THOR" has a sequel curretnly in production.

The rest is just useless fan-wank for a film that failed, when it SHOULD have succeeded if it was any good.

It’s clear that Bruce B is speaking about “units sold.” If you want to use another criterion for “success” then you need to state which one you’re applying. Otherwise, you’re talking past each other.

Oh, and SR was in theaters almost 3 weeks longer than "THOR" was. So take that into consideration when you talk about "units sold".....