What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

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

The interesting thing is the youtube review (I finally listened) is a response to all the critics and haters of the movie. I don't really see that as a review, but a defense. Simply starting the review with the title "What's So Bad about Superman Returns?" is a clear indication of this.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

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.

What's sad is, you and your ilk are reduced to comparing a "Superman" movie, and I use the term lightly, to one about Thor.

THOR.

Do you not see how pathetic that is? How many live-action TV shows has Thor had? How many animated series? How many big-budget motion pictures? How many movie serials? And yet you few want to use freaking THOR as a "measuring stick"?

You lost the minute you thought this would "work".

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

The interesting thing is the youtube review (I finally listened) is a response to all the critics and haters of the movie. I don't really see that as a review, but a defense. Simply starting the review with the title "What's So Bad about Superman Returns?" is a clear indication of this.

Pretty much.

Everyone proclaiming to be a "fan" of this film is insecure about how they feel. They are defensive, short-sighted, unwilling to admit the film is seriously flawed, and when faced with facts like to bring in OTHER FILMS as a way to "excuse" them! What does "Titanic", or "Firefly" or "Batman Begins" have to do with SR failing??

Nothing. Nothing at all.

But count how many times another film is straw-manned into the conversation when faced with what's so bad about Superman Returns.....

[LL2K2]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Pretty much.

Everyone proclaiming to be a "fan" of this film is insecure about how they feel. They are defensive, short-sighted, unwilling to admit the film is seriously flawed, and when faced with facts like to bring in OTHER FILMS as a way to "excuse" them! What does "Titanic", or "Firefly" or "Batman Begins" have to do with SR failing??

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Who are you to decide what fans should and shouldn't like? Or how we should and shouldn't feel about something?

It's called having an opinion, and you would do very well here to respect that.

[Micromind]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Pretty much.

Everyone proclaiming to be a "fan" of this film is insecure about how they feel. They are defensive, short-sighted, unwilling to admit the film is seriously flawed, and when faced with facts like to bring in OTHER FILMS as a way to "excuse" them! What does "Titanic", or "Firefly" or "Batman Begins" have to do with SR failing??

Nothing. Nothing at all.

No need to judge someone based on his / her opinions, everyone's opinion is just as valid.

[DrMylesOBoogie]

The joke in Ted made me so happy. I'd love to shake McFarlene's hand for that.

[MOS2013]

What was the joke?

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by LL2K2

Who are you to decide what fans should and shouldn't like? Or how we should and shouldn't feel about something?

It's called having an opinion, and you would do very well here to respect that.

Thank you for proving what I said correct.

[DogofKrypton]

To get this thread back on-topic though, here's something that's bad about SR:

The costume.

Discuss.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

What's sad is, you and your ilk are reduced to comparing a "Superman" movie, and I use the term lightly, to one about Thor.

THOR.

Do you not see how pathetic that is? How many live-action TV shows has Thor had? How many animated series? How many big-budget motion pictures? How many movie serials? And yet you few want to use freaking THOR as a "measuring stick"?

You lost the minute you thought this would "work".

Again, I refer you to the original context. Bruce B made the relatively innocuous (but factual) observation that SR’s box office was slightly better than Thor’s. Now you can certainly hold the opinion that “slightly better” is not good enough - that the world’s most famous superhero should be way more popular than a relatively obscure Marvel character. (For all you know, both Bruce B and I might heartily agree with you.) But if that was your point, you might have said so to begin with. There was no need, at all, to dispute a modest box office differential if, in any case, such a differential was irrelevant (because the expectation/standards of success for SR were placed much higher).

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Everyone proclaiming to be a "fan" of this film is insecure about how they feel. They are defensive, short-sighted, unwilling to admit the film is seriously flawed, and when faced with facts like to bring in OTHER FILMS as a way to "excuse" them! What does "Titanic", or "Firefly" or "Batman Begins" have to do with SR failing??

Nothing. Nothing at all.

When fashioning an argument, it sometimes assists understanding to draw comparisons, to refer to other things as similar exemplars. This is called argument from analogy. Now an analogy is never perfect (similar doesn’t mean exact). But, typically, there are enough commonalities to make the comparison useful - as a means of clarifying and focusing certain areas under discussion. Most people who have ever tried to persuade or teach others (on one topic or another) are familiar with the concept of argument from analogy. I expect you've done this yourself.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

To get this thread back on-topic though, here's something that's bad about SR:

The costume.

Discuss.

I think the MOS costume is superior. But SR's was better than STM's, L&C's, etc.

[MOS2013]

SR costume was okay.

It wasn't better than STM's though. The material and everything looked better, but whoever designed it destroyed it by make the monumentally stupid mistake of not even using the right colours.

The biege/burgandy colour and the platform boots ruined it, though the rest of the design was very cool.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

SR costume was okay.

It wasn't better than STM's though. The material and everything looked better, but whoever designed it destroyed it by make the monumentally stupid mistake of not even using the right colours.

The biege/burgandy colour and the platform boots ruined it, though the rest of the design was very cool.

Traditionally, Supes’ cape, trunks and boots match color.

Trouble is, bright red boots are tricky for a grown man to get away with. An off-red (e.g., burgundy) is a bit better. (Some styles of men’s cowboy boots - relatively “macho” - come in burgundy.) But once you make this change for the boots, the trunks and cape need to follow (assuming the traditional color match). So I can appreciate the rationale for the muted red/burgundy color scheme.

Based on the photos, it looks like the MOS boots are similarly muted (but more of a “dusty rose” than burgundy - and certainly not like the bright red Reeve version). I think it works well.

[MOS2013]

It's Superman, not some man about town.

The colours and red and blue, that's it.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

It's Superman, not some man about town.

The colours and red and blue, that's it.

Given his form-fitting bodysuit, flowing cape, the big S on his chest and - oh, yeah - inhuman physical abilities, there's probably little chance that Superman would be mistaken for someone else.

The original bright primary colors, of course, made Supes stand out on the otherwise drab newsprint pages. But, fair to say, S&S never intended those colors to connote parody or kitsch. We were to interpret Superman as a dashing romantic hero in the same vein as Robin Hood, d’Artagnan or Zorro. Times, however, change; and nowadays overly bright colors tend to be construed as clownish or “cartoon-y.” This may still be fine for an actual cartoon. But a live-action iteration warrants appropriate translation. While the basic color palette is (usually) maintained, the levels are often toned down. And I’d argue that this is appropriate and necessary.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

To get this thread back on-topic though, here's something that's bad about SR:

The costume.

Discuss.

To this day I can not get over how dark the suit seemed on film, the tiny briefs and high neckline. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great.

One other thing I did not like and remember thinking it clearly during the movie: What is wrong with Lois's hair? It's like she had on the worse wig and her skin tone was too light for that dark color.

I wonder why Singer cast Bosworth? Even then she did not seem like a good choice.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Again, I refer you to the original context. Bruce B made the relatively innocuous (but factual) observation that SR’s box office was slightly better than Thor’s. Now you can certainly hold the opinion that “slightly better” is not good enough - that the world’s most famous superhero should be way more popular than a relatively obscure Marvel character. (For all you know, both Bruce B and I might heartily agree with you.) But if that was your point, you might have said so to begin with. There was no need, at all, to dispute a modest box office differential if, in any case, such a differential was irrelevant (because the expectation/standards of success for SR were placed much higher).

The only reason I am not continuing this conversation is because it is pointless. You seem to believe SR had some sort of "moral victory" over freaking THOR, and I am not going to try and dissuade you. But in the end, "THOR" was much more profitable, i.e. MORE SUCCESSFUL than SR.

And this is all that matters.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Traditionally, Supes’ cape, trunks and boots match color.

Trouble is, bright red boots are tricky for a grown man to get away with. An off-red (e.g., burgundy) is a bit better. (Some styles of men’s cowboy boots - relatively “macho” - come in burgundy.) But once you make this change for the boots, the trunks and cape need to follow (assuming the traditional color match). So I can appreciate the rationale for the muted red/burgundy color scheme.

"Spider-Man" (2002) says you, and Singer, are wrong:

[MOS2013]

Originally Posted by Dr.

Given his form-fitting bodysuit, flowing cape, the big S on his chest and - oh, yeah - inhuman physical abilities, there's probably little chance that Superman would be mistaken for someone else.

The original bright primary colors, of course, made Supes stand out on the otherwise drab newsprint pages. But, fair to say, S&S never intended those colors to connote parody or kitsch. We were to interpret Superman as a dashing romantic hero in the same vein as Robin Hood, d’Artagnan or Zorro. Times, however, change; and nowadays overly bright colors tend to be construed as clownish or “cartoon-y.” This may still be fine for an actual cartoon. But a live-action iteration warrants appropriate translation. While the basic color palette is (usually) maintained, the levels are often toned down. And I’d argue that this is appropriate and necessary.

I'd argue that it wasn't necessary atall and the beige cape, boots and trunks made the appearence very flat. Lots of people did photoshop on Rouths suit to make the colours more vibrant and its amazing how much better it looked.

I don't see the problem with it being cartoony (even if that was true), I mean half of Routh's scenes are computer animations of him anyway

Someone else mentioned the high neck line, I must admit that did bother me a bit.

I remember being really worried when that first press picture of Routh suited up came out, he looked like an underwear model and the suit looked wretched with overly padded shoulders, thankfully it looked a lot better on screen.

[bonoferox]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

Everyone proclaiming to be a "fan" of this film is insecure about how they feel. They are defensive, short-sighted, unwilling to admit the film is seriously flawed, and when faced with facts like to bring in OTHER FILMS as a way to "excuse" them! What does "Titanic", or "Firefly" or "Batman Begins" have to do with SR failing??

Or they just like the movie.

And just because you don't like the SR suit doesn't make your opinion fact. Get the hell over it.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton

You seem to believe SR had some sort of "moral victory" over freaking THOR, and I am not going to try and dissuade you. But in the end, "THOR" was much more profitable...

A fact that was never in dispute.

Also a fact - during their respective theatrical runs, slightly more people went to see SR than Thor.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by MOS2013

I'd argue that it wasn't necessary at all and the beige burgundy cape, boots and trunks made the appearence very flat. Lots of people did photoshop on Rouths suit to make the colours more vibrant and its amazing how much better it looked.

Within some shots/lighting, the Reeve costume was almost powder blue - with a very bright red cape that verged on orange-y. Now this color scheme may have corresponded to the inks used in the comics of the day, or it may have been a technical compromise due to the “blue screen” mattes used. But fair to say that the modern trend (in both comics and movies) is to avoid the pure primary hues - tone things down just a bit. That’s a good thing.

I remember being really worried when that first press picture of Routh suited up came out, he looked like an underwear model...

I think it’s very problematic to debate the aesthetics of a grown man wearing trunks on the outside of his tights. (“That one’s too ‘male stripper’… that one’s too ‘granny’s drawers’… but the third one - that’s macho!” ) At the end of the day, it’s still a grown man wearing trunks on the outside of this tights - and an objective observer would likely pronounce the whole dispute “silly.” For this reason alone, I’m rather glad that MOS got rid of them entirely.

[MOS2013]

Not because he was wearing trunks, his face, he looks like one of these guys fashion labels get to model underwear.

Yeah dark films are all the rage, I said that, but its superman, his suit is red and blue and that's that.

There were scenes in STM where it was almost green, but that was an unfortunate side effect of the technology not being as advanced and using the green screen.

[DogofKrypton]

Originally Posted by bonoferox

Or they just like the movie.

Who said they didn't, Einstein?

And just because you don't like the SR suit doesn't make your opinion fact. Get the hell over it.

LOL. Passive-aggressive much?

The suit sucked. Deal with it.