What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[charl_huntress]

OMG...it's rolled back to box office. I thought everyone read this article.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...returns-179292

edit.

BSinger admits the movie was a failure. He, the DIRECTOR, recognizes this. I don't see why fans of the movie will not. I do not believe anyone is faulting anyone for liking it, but it clearly was a FAILURE in regards to what BSinger wanted for Superman and what the movie studio and FANS wanted. There are no two ways to look at that.

[Mostpowerful]

^Well, Singer said he is still proud of the film, and it got good reviews from a lot of the critics, plenty of people went to see it, so many thought it was a good film. He's basically just aknowledging that the fans of action wanted more action. I'm a fan of story and characterization first and I loved it. And I'm hardly alone (no matter what dogofkrypton say).

Despite the disappointing performance of Superman Returns, Singer still says he's "proud" of the film.
"There are a bunch of movies I've made where I'm, like, 'Yuck, that was weak' or 'That could've been better,' and I can see why. But with Superman Returns. ... If I could go back, I would have tightened the first act."

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

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

know what? Think whatever you want.. Don't take me seriously? I don't care, it doesn't affect my life in any way. I don't have to take you seriuosly either..

[bonoferox]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

BSinger admits the movie was a failure. He, the DIRECTOR, recognizes this. I don't see why fans of the movie will not. I do not believe anyone is faulting anyone for liking it, but it clearly was a FAILURE in regards to what BSinger wanted for Superman and what the movie studio and FANS wanted. There are no two ways to look at that.

Yes there are. People have different tastes. Some fans liked it, some didn't. What's so hard to understand about that?

[charl_huntress]

That's not hard to understand, but the people who like the film seem to be saying it's not flawed. The director admits for a Superman film it is flawed. Yes, he is proud of it and it's not a total piece of garbage. However, for a Superman film it's flawed. This goes back to the question asked in the post...

"What So Bad about Superman Returns?"

The answer is a serioulsy flawed Superman film.

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

That's not hard to understand, but the people who like the film seem to be saying it's not flawed. The director admits for a Superman film it is flawed. Yes, he is proud of it and it's not a total piece of garbage. However, for a Superman film it's flawed. This goes back to the question asked in the post...

"What So Bad about Superman Returns?"

The answer is a serioulsy flawed Superman film.

You'd forget that was the topic of discussion with the way some people on this thread go on

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

^Well, Singer said he is still proud of the film, and it got good reviews from a lot of the critics, plenty of people went to see it, so many thought it was a good film.

Any facts to support your "many" statement, or is it just more conjecture on your part?

Yeah, we both know the answer to that....

He's basically just aknowledging that the fans of action wanted more action. I'm a fan of story and characterization first and I loved it.

This is CLASSIC!

See, those of us that see the many, many flaws this film had? We just wanted "action". Nothing more. Because we're brain-dead or something.

But the few people who liked it? THEY are sophisticates who value story and characterization over anything else.

You would think that if they TRULY thought they were "smarter" than us, they would be able to spell correctly, post coherent responses, and back-up their statements with complete facts....

And I'm hardly alone (no matter what dogofkrypton say).

And there are hardly as many "fans" of this film as you seem to think there are.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by bonoferox

Yes there are. People have different tastes. Some fans liked it, some didn't. What's so hard to understand about that?

According to dogofkrypton only 3 or 4 people liked it.. that's why it only sold 4 dvds. haha

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

That's not hard to understand, but the people who like the film seem to be saying it's not flawed. The director admits for a Superman film it is flawed. Yes, he is proud of it and it's not a total piece of garbage. However, for a Superman film it's flawed. This goes back to the question asked in the post...

"What So Bad about Superman Returns?"

The answer is a serioulsy flawed Superman film.

in your opinion. in mine the good outweighs the flaws. and ALL superhero movies have flaws, including STM and mainly Superman 2.

And there are hardly as many "fans" of this film as you seem to think there are.

And there are more 'fans' of this film than you seem to think there are.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

in your opinion. in mine the good outweighs the flaws. and ALL superhero movies have flaws, including STM and mainly Superman 2.

Not only my opinion. I also think it's BSinger's opinion too, since he readily admits he made mistakes.

At this point, I have come to think of SR as an elseworld that is not even related to anything else in the mythos. It's not even related to STM and SII because that would besmirch those movies by default association. With that said, I can totally see why you and others like the movie, but I do not think it is/was the sort of film that should have been released about Superman..for many different reasons.

We'll to agree to disagree on that...

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

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.

But in this instance, the context was box office as a general measure of appeal/popularity - the extent to which a movie has successfully tapped into the cultural zeitgeist (or has failed to do so). And under that criterion, profitability is irrelevant. Movie X is either more popular than movie Y, or it’s not. Knowledge of production budgets does not retroactively affect how many people actually saw the films.

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

That's a dubious claim. Some positively loathe Titanic. Does its undeniable popularity mean that those critics are wrong, that they should change their minds? I'm a big fan of Whedon's Serenity - which bombed. But does that mean it "failed" in all respects?

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

Also irrelevant. If a "unit" takes a week or a year to sell, it's still only one "unit" sold.

[MOS2013]

Uh oh, they're not going to like confused matthew's 2 cents

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/supe...w-pt-1-6299810

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

Uh oh, they're not going to like confused matthew's 2 cents

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/supe...w-pt-1-6299810

I like these ones better:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/video-essay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/07/0...6_review.shtml

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Not only my opinion. I also think it's BSinger's opinion too, since he readily admits he made mistakes.

At this point, I have come to think of SR as an elseworld that is not even related to anything else in the mythos. It's not even related to STM and SII because that would besmirch those movies by default association. With that said, I can totally see why you and others like the movie, but I do not think it is/was the sort of film that should have been released about Superman..for many different reasons.

We'll to agree to disagree on that...

Your choice, but SR is more connected and faithful to the Donner movies than the prequels were to the original Star Wars trilogy. To each thier own.

[MOS2013]

Think Matthew was harsh on Routh saying he was only chosen because he bares a resemblance to Reeve, but he was right when he said it all felt a bit of a weird forgery.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

But in this instance, the context was box office as a general measure of appeal/popularity - the extent to which a movie has successfully tapped into the cultural zeitgeist (or has failed to do so).

Actually, not it's NOT. You just want to "move the goal posts" because you know my examples were all that mattered.

Let me remind you of YOUR initial statement:

Originally Posted by Dr.

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.

I gave MY "criterion", and you wanted to run back to his when you couldn't counter it.

Sad :/

That's a dubious claim. Some positively loathe Titanic. Does its undeniable popularity mean that those critics are wrong, that they should change their minds? I'm a big fan of Whedon's Serenity - which bombed. But does that mean it "failed" in all respects?

What do those films have to do with Singers abomination? Besides you trying to divert the discussion?

Also irrelevant. If a "unit" takes a week or a year to sell, it's still only one "unit" sold.

Also irrelevant? Where does "also" come from?

And it's only "irrelevant" because, again, you have no leg to stand on. SR having an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks on "THOR" is irrelevant to "units sold"? Seriously?

Man, some people need to preview their posts before they hit submit. Or else they make themselves look foolish...

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

Your choice, but SR is more connected and faithful to the Donner movies than the prequels were to the original Star Wars trilogy. To each thier own.

It's funny. The "Star Wars" prequels have NOTHING to do with what we are discussing, but even then, her little straw-man is STILL:

[Mostpowerful]

Man, some people need to preview their posts before they hit submit. Or else they make themselves look foolish...

Indeed....

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Mostpowerful

Indeed....

Glad you agree.

I look forward to you following-through now.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Actually, not it's NOT. You just want to "move the goal posts" because you know my examples were all that mattered.
...
I gave MY "criterion", and you wanted to run back to his when you couldn't counter it.

If you look back over Bruce Begins’ original post, you can see that his assessment of SR was quite calm and measured - without hysterics or hyperbole. He said the film was “moderately successful” and had garnered generally good reviews, etc. In terms of box office, specifically, there was no claim that SR was in the same league as Avengers, TDK or Iron Man. But it did favorably compare to other films like BB, Thor, CA, etc. with respect to popularity (number of tickets/units sold) during its theatrical release. Bruce B provided the numbers to support this - and I commented that these numbers (adjusted for inflation) were accurate.

Now, you speak of “goal post shifting.” I would suggest that this is what you did. Knowing the particular goal post Bruce B was using, you ignored the context and responded that Thor was more “successful” - according to different criteria (it had a lower budget [was more profitable] and had earned a sequel). Quite true! - but not something that Bruce B (or I) was denying. The only claim being made was that SR was slightly more popular (more “units sold”) than Thor. But instead of acknowledging this factual point and then introducing ones which you felt were more relevant, you skipped the acknowledgement part and switched to a new/different criterion. This is classic goal post shifting - ignore the evidence for argument A by presenting argument B. The thing is, no one was disputing argument B (that Thor was more profitable than SR, that Thor is getting a sequel). The only real point in contention was your curious inability to concede that 59.7M (SR’s ticket sales) is a bigger number than 56.6M (Thor’s).

What do those films have to do with Singers abomination? Besides you trying to divert the discussion?

You said that if SR was any good, it would have been more “successful” (profitable, produced a sequel). I assumed you were claiming this as a universal standard - so I cited some counter examples (e.g., Serenity). Now if your statement was supposed to be arbitrarily specific to SR - I stand corrected.

Also irrelevant? Where does "also" come from?

And it's only "irrelevant" because, again, you have no leg to stand on. SR having an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks on "THOR" is irrelevant to "units sold"? Seriously?

With due caution, we might gauge a movie’s “popularity” via gross $ or seats sold or even historical legacy. But it’s not obvious to me that “duration of release” is any kind of valid measure. If a million people see a movie over 1 week or 1 year, the total number of seats sold is still a million. This is the relevant value - not duration.

Man, some people need to preview their posts before they hit submit. Or else they make themselves look foolish...

Fyi, I enjoy discussion and debate - so I try to confine my comments to the specific topic at hand. I don't deliver personal, gratuitous insults nor do I respond to them.

[charl_huntress]

I don't get this thread. The question is "What's So Bad About Superman Returns?" Was this question asked to truly understand why some people don't like the film, or to try to convince those people who don't like it they are wrong?

Most of these arguements have been rehashed over the years by some of the same people (me included...lol). I know we fanboys/girls like to beat the dead horse because that's what we do, but I want to know why this question was asked if you don't want to hear the answer?

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I don't get this thread. The question is "What's So Bad About Superman Returns?" Was this question asked to truly understand why some people don't like the film, or to try to convince those people who don't like it they are wrong?

The thread title was inspired by the name of a favorable Youtube review of SR (see first post). So it was a rhetorical question intended to highlight the film’s positive qualities - not an invitation to list its faults (plenty of those threads already ).

Imo, that video was poorly named and was too defensive. A proper analysis should address the film - not critique the critics.

[charl_huntress]

lol...I read the text, but didn't click on the youtube. Still, might have been better to use a different title.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

If you look back over Bruce Begins’ original post, you can see that his assessment of SR was quite calm and measured - without hysterics or hyperbole. He said the film was “moderately successful” and had garnered generally good reviews, etc. In terms of box office, specifically, there was no claim that SR was in the same league as Avengers, TDK or Iron Man. But it did favorable compare to other films like BB, Thor, CA, etc. with respect to popularity (number of tickets/units sold) during its theatrical release. Bruce B provided the numbers to support this - and I commented that these numbers (adjusted for inflation) were accurate.

I'll only respond to this part, because all the rest is you talking to hear yourself talk. It's dull.

Anyway, as I have ALREADY addressed twice now, SR had an ADDITIONAL 21 days to get to the "units sold" you keep harping on. The fact that YOU seem to say this doesn't matter in a head-to-head comparison tells me one of two things:

A. You are being contrary just to be contrary.

Or

2. You seriously are unable grasp the simple concept of one movie having a longer period in theaters than the other, and therefore ending up with a higher number.

I am going with A., and I ask that you try less hard to "defend" a film that has been dismissed by pop culture for the last 5 & 1/2 years or so.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I don't get this thread. The question is "What's So Bad About Superman Returns?" Was this question asked to truly understand why some people don't like the film, or to try to convince those people who don't like it they are wrong?

I'll go with "Convince those numerous people who don't like it they are wrong" for $800 Alex....

Most of these arguements have been rehashed over the years by some of the same people (me included...lol). I know we fanboys/girls like to beat the dead horse because that's what we do, but I want to know why this question was asked if you don't want to hear the answer?

Couldn't agree more.

It just blows my mind that the people who don't like SR rush in and start trying to convince you that you're "wrong" the second you mention the flaws and flopitude of it. And yet, in the same instance, talk as if THEY are somehow being "attacked" for liking it? How do they add 2 + 2 and get 5?

And you don't have to take MY word for it either. The posts are here, in this thread, and you can see for yourself.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Anyway, as I have ALREADY addressed twice now, SR had an ADDITIONAL 21 days to get to the "units sold" you keep harping on. The fact that YOU seem to say this doesn't matter in a head-to-head comparison tells me one of two things:

A. You are being contrary just to be contrary.

Or

2. You seriously are unable grasp the simple concept of one movie having a longer period in theaters than the other, and therefore ending up with a higher number.

It costs the studios and theaters money to keep a movie in release. But the reason this is done is because (obviously) the movie is bringing in revenues that exceed the expense. At a certain point, however, this calculus changes and the aging movie is pulled. So did Paramount screw up? Was Thor still making money and get pulled too soon? I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that Thor was pulled at the right time (because it was no longer selling seats). Hypothetically, Paramount could have taken a loss and extended the movie’s run for another 6 months. But if it was playing to empty movie houses, that wouldn’t have affected the box office numbers (the gauge of popularity that is the subject of our exchange).

Btw, BB out grossed SR (domestically). It started slightly weaker than SR but managed to develop good word-of-mouth and “legs.” Consequently, its theatrical run was 142 days (against SR’s 128). So are you suggesting that BB (likewise) had an unfair advantage and that we should dock or prorate some of its box office to create a level playing field? That strikes me as silly. BB fully deserves its higher standing because it was still selling seats during its longer theatrical run. Quid pro quo SR and Thor.