Superman Returns Do you want a sequel, or start over from scratch?

[AgentPat]

You could say some of the same things about S:TM, but I hardly find that to be an art film. I guess we just have different definitions of the subject.

You asked how I considered SR an art film. I explained. I wouldn't necessarily put S:TM in the same group though because S:TM had other elements that raised the film above the notion of it being a work of just cerebral art: it was actually a FUN movie too. (Not that cerebral art is a bad thing, mind you.)

It didn't appeal to you, but that doesn't mean it didn't appeal to other women who watched it.

I wasn't speaking for ALL women, but even Pickle sited some stats for attendance that was decidedly male skewed. How much of that is a result of the genre verses the actual plot is debatable, but I've already pointed that out.

You should have higher standards for SV...

Crikey! Can ya lay off SV for ONE freakin' post in the SR forums? Are you capable of doing that? If you want to discuss the show, the forum is here.

Now, as to having higher standards for films, I weigh production value, acting and story fairly equally. If the production is amazing, but the acting stinks and the story is hopelessly derivative, the film is probably gonna fail overall for me. I'm all for having a lot of action in this kind of film, but putting icing on dog poop doesn't necessarily make it more appealing. Might make it look prettier, but when you sluff off the icing, the poop is still there.

Was SR dog poop? No! But gosh darnnit... with the exception of Richard, I didn't give a rat's ass about those characters. Why is that? Could it be the story and performances? Possibly. No, strike that, probably!

• Lois Lane? Meh. Try a few on-line dating sites after Richard leaves ya, hon.
• The kid? Remind me again why he was there? Oh yeah! Sequels. My bad. Sorry, I forgot.
• Lex and Miss Tesmacher, ver. 1.2? Hey, living on an island aint so bad. It's better than prison, and maybe they'll find some pirate rum if they dig deep enough.
• And last but not least, Superman? Pfft! Dude, go cry your way back to Krypton; maybe you'll find somebody there who cares. Without a doubt, THE wimpiest, most apathetic "Super" man, Ever! *sigh*
• All other characters (Jimmy, Perry, White Castle Dude, etc.) were pretty forgettable.

There definitely could be something perfect for your own tastes. A film that hits on all the right areas for you. Of course S:TM came close to it for you, as it did for most. With exception to the nick-nack ending and the "Can You Read My Mind" sequence, it was pretty damn sweet.

Agreed.

And it's all in what you like.

OMG! We're getting somewhere. Rock on!

Roller coasters are a temporary fix that impact your life for a minute at best. A quick and cheap thrill. If that's what you were looking for, that's gravy. I wasn't.

The roller coaster analogy is perhaps not the best comparison. After all, you can't take a roller coaster home with you 5 months after riding it. Then again, a DVD played back on a 30" TV isn't the same as a film projected on 30' wide theater screen either. But we're nitpicking analogies now. I think a high octane summer "popcorn flick" should touch the same area of the brain as the proverbial roller coaster. You get a wonderful thrill and adrenaline rush from both, if you're lucky.

Is that ALL I want from an action film? Oh, hell no. There should be more. All foam and no beer doth not a great film make. But there should be a fun balance. Y'see, while I thought the airplane rescue had its appeal, the derivative lines ("safest way to travel") and Lois' 'tude toward Superman was annoying. Furthermore, I thought the raising of NK was just a ridiculous scene. It rivaled the sheer stupidity of spinning the world backwards to reverse time from the first film. And after seeing the bullet to the eye scene in the trailer, the novelty passed. They should have saved that one. That's it. The rest was just flat beer. Oh well.

Pat after an extended period with a sig that is basically a "kick-me" sign to a guy like me (Welling is Superman...blah, blah, blah...popsicle headache). What would you expect?

That's funny, since I've carefully avoided including my sig in messages posted in SR forums since the film unspooled. It's a courtesy thing, y'know? Now, maybe I've missed one or two here and there, and the last two posts in this thread were decidedly on purpose (just for you babe), but if you've been reading the SV forums, I guess that might explain things.

AAAAAnyhoooo.... to get back on topic, I don't think I actually offered an opinion on the thread topic. Bad Pat, BAD!

I think this post summed it up best:

scrap it all and start over with something that recognizes the character has changed since 1977.

Get a director who takes the respectful Nolan approach, and get a writing team that can craft a story where you actually empathize with the characters and dont cringe at the dialogue. Getting lead actors who have chemistry with one another would probably be a good idea too.

IOW, Start. Over.

Probably aint gonna happen, 'cause Warners doesn't seem to know when it's time to cut their losses, but as a Superman fan, that's what I personally would like to see.

Okay, I'm done in this thread. Toodles.

Oh, and K, if you feel like bashing SV, you know where to come. I'll be there.

 

[WTFwuzThT]

Yeah, it won't be long now and we'll be hearing about Singer being dumped. I think the lessons learned from ****ing up batman will be applied here. Superman The Remake was an unwanted unneeded bust.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

You asked how I considered SR an art film. I explained. I wouldn't necessarily put S:TM in the same group though because S:TM had other elements that raised the film above the notion of it being a work of just cerebral art: it was actually a FUN movie too. (Not that cerebral art is a bad thing, mind you.)

What elements raised it above being just cerebral art? Maybe our prime difference is that I wasn't just looking for a "fun" movie with regards to SR. I was one of the folks who wanted this new franchise to have a more serious tone than the previous installments (even though I love them dearly) and to lose the old-hat aspects like Otis. Not that I didn't like the character for his day, but not in 2006.

Now, as to having higher standards for films, I weigh production value, acting and story fairly equally. If the production is amazing, but the acting stinks and the story is hopelessly derivative, the film is probably gonna fail overall for me. I'm all for having a lot of action in this kind of film, but putting icing on dog poop doesn't necessarily make it more appealing. Might make it look prettier, but when you sluff off the icing, the poop is still there.

Was SR dog poop? No! But gosh darnnit... with the exception of Richard, I didn't give a rat's ass about those characters. Why is that? Could it be the story and performances? Possibly. No, strike that, probably!

You may see it "hopelessly derivative" and I see the homages to Donner's film as good things that reminded me of why I fell in love with Superman in the first place. The majority of the film was different from the old film. Characterizations were a different ball of wax from the old film. Superman was different, Lois was different, Perry was different, for starters. Even Metropolis was a different thing in and of itself. Being a sequel or requel or whatever the hell people call it, you figure it should have many things in common with the film that came before.

• The kid? Remind me again why he was there? Oh yeah! Sequels. My bad. Sorry, I forgot.
• And last but not least, Superman? Pfft! Dude, go cry your way back to Krypton; maybe you'll find somebody there who cares. Without a doubt, THE wimpiest, most apathetic "Super" man, Ever! *sigh*
• All other characters (Jimmy, Perry, White Castle Dude, etc.) were pretty forgettable.

Maybe because they were furthering Superman's story in a way that no one (especially the comic writers) ever had the balls to do in standard continuity. It's strictly an opinion call on whether or not the kid was a good idea. I feel it could be the strength of the series, then again, that's just my humble opinion. You know I love how because the woman he loves basically s***s on him by saying she never loved him and he happened to cry, he's considered a wimp. What, did you expect him to dance a jig? Whether or not they were forgettable is also a matter of opinion. Jimmy was funny in nearly every scene for me, and Perry was a different interpretation of the character so he didn't seem like he was ripping off J.K. Simmons, who just overexaggerated the portrayal of Perry White Jackie Cooper did back in the day.

I think a high octane summer "popcorn flick" should touch the same area of the brain as the proverbial roller coaster. You get a wonderful thrill and adrenaline rush from both, if you're lucky.

Then I guess that's the difference between you and me. You look for a "popcorn" movie from Superman, or at least expect it to be one and I look for something else with less of the "popcorn" stigma.

Y'see, while I thought the airplane rescue had its appeal, the derivative lines ("safest way to travel") and Lois' 'tude toward Superman was annoying.

You didn't appreciate the quick demonstration of how Superman is perceived as corny, which to many he is, and that's fine. I did, though. As for Lois' attitude towards Superman, are you talking about her attitude for the whole film? Or just the plane scene.

Probably aint gonna happen, 'cause Warners doesn't seem to know when it's time to cut their losses, but as a Superman fan, that's what I personally would like to see.

Once again stricly an opinion, and typically based on what you like as SR has made decent, but not colossal money. I think they should've cut their losses four episodes into Lois and Clark and after the first season of Smallville, but wish in one hand...

Okay, I'm done in this thread. Toodles.

Oh, and K, if you feel like bashing SV, you know where to come. I'll be there.

Why, I have plenty of fun crapping on it here. Toodles.

 

[The Kid]

Homage...

Clark looking at a public phone before deciding to change in the revolving doors = homage to old superman

Singer practically copying word for word entire lines, plots, and stuff from STM = not homage.

Is it plagiarism? That's debatable of course, but there's no way it's homage. It's a bird, it's a plane, You wanted to see me? That's a proper homage. But all this blatant copying and literally re-using of stuff from STM does not, in my mind, qualify as homage. It just feels absolutely wroooong to regard it as such.

Thank god for Nolan.

Oh and about Jason. It's too early for him. But what can we do..., he's here to stay in Singer's story.

The comics did have the balls to give superman a son, some in the old superdickery issues, some in elseworld issues, but not yet in the main superman stories. Still it's false to say they never did it in some form. The reason they haven't is because it of course will take focus off of superman. It becomes a story about TWO supermen rather than one much like batman sharing the spotlight with batgirl and robin. So maybe they're not ready to venture there with superman or don't want to yet or ever at least in the main continuity. It seems more and more these days that people hate sidekicks.

Once again, thank god for nolan.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Homage...

Clark looking at a public phone before deciding to change in the revolving doors = homage to old superman

Singer practically copying word for word entire lines, plots, and stuff from STM = not homage.

Is it plagiarism? That's debatable of course, but there's no way it's homage. It's a bird, it's a plane, You wanted to see me? That's a proper homage. But all this blatant copying and literally re-using of stuff from STM does not, in my mind, qualify as homage. It just feels absolutely wroooong to regard it as such.

Thank god for Nolan.

Oh and about Jason. It's too early for him. But what can we do..., he's here to stay in Singer's story.

The comics did have the balls to give superman a son, some in the old superdickery issues, some in elseworld issues, but not yet in the main superman stories. Still it's false to say they never did it in some form. The reason they haven't is because it of course will take focus off of superman. It becomes a story about TWO supermen rather than one much like batman sharing the spotlight with batgirl and robin. So maybe they're not ready to venture there with superman or don't want to yet or ever at least in the main continuity. It seems more and more these days that people hate sidekicks.

Once again, thank god for nolan.

I don't know, man. I just saw a couple of the sequences differently than others. And I guess the delivery of the "safest way to travel" line was funnier to me because it was so blatantly trying to sound corny, and it did to me. Every time I watched it in the theater people were laughing about the line. A lot of the other pulled dialogue I think served it's purpose for the storyline Singer wanted to tell, but like you said about the plagiarism remark...it's debatable. It's strange for me because I was one of the people who was really excited about the prospect of Superman having an actual son in the film, and I wasn't disappointed in the execution of it in the final product. I like that his first display of powers was a subtle one that didn't even show him push the piano, but rather just holding his arms out and looking scared out of his wits at what he just did. I did mean that they haven't done it in continuous continuity, especially the current one. Conner was kind of that role, but I think he fell more into the little brother category, you know. Sidekicks are kind of annoying at times, but I do wonder if that's the route they're going to take with this. I for one would like the last film to close out years down the road with the kid maybe adopting his own cape and maybe even taking over the mantle. Wishful thinking I know, but that's how I keep myself occupied between films. Man...you must love Nolan.

 

[AmbientFire]

oh i agree Wes'- Nolan did an awesome job with 'Memento'. Oh yeah, there's that other movie too... what's it called again? It's a really awesome movie about a dude in a bat-suit, but it didn't deliver @ the box office (by our standards)... i'm looking forward to Dark Kniggit - and thank God for all talented and (especially) hard-working directors.

 

[The Kid]

You should join the INWT.

 

[The Kid]

I don't know, man. I just saw a couple of the sequences differently than others. And I guess the delivery of the "safest way to travel" line was funnier to me because it was so blatantly trying to sound corny, and it did to me. Every time I watched it in the theater people were laughing about the line. A lot of the other pulled dialogue I think served it's purpose for the storyline Singer wanted to tell, but like you said about the plagiarism remark...it's debatable. It's strange for me because I was one of the people who was really excited about the prospect of Superman having an actual son in the film, and I wasn't disappointed in the execution of it in the final product. I like that his first display of powers was a subtle one that didn't even show him push the piano, but rather just holding his arms out and looking scared out of his wits at what he just did. I did mean that they haven't done it in continuous continuity, especially the current one. Conner was kind of that role, but I think he fell more into the little brother category, you know. Sidekicks are kind of annoying at times, but I do wonder if that's the route they're going to take with this. I for one would like the last film to close out years down the road with the kid maybe adopting his own cape and maybe even taking over the mantle. Wishful thinking I know, but that's how I keep myself occupied between films. Man...you must love Nolan.

It's soup that eats like a meal. What I mean is that sidekicks in general, I don't mind and yes it'd be cool to see superman team up with his son in the future, but really let's do that after he's gone head to head with brainiac instead of a piece of luthor real estate for once. I'm ready to see that.

And yes indeed I thank god for Nolan since his approach to batman's beginning, though I think it's overrated by many, is a fine enough way to re-introduce batman to the movie audiences andy you won't find anyone besides me and chrisbalebatman who's looking forward to TDK more to see batman have his greatest adventures against his greatest comicbook enemies ever. He sure does have quite a rogues gallery. I can't wait to see all of them on screen under Nolan's directing... should be very exciting to see.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

That would make sense if the first X-Men were considered an "art" film like ST:TMP or SR. And as far as I know, he never used the analogy when he did X-M2. Why? Mmm... probably because he didn't have to.

Actually, he did. Singer has credited The Wrath of Khan and The Empire Strikes Back as his inspiration and how he approached X-Men 2.

Hell, even the ending from X2 clearly (and intentionally) paralleled the ending from The Wrath of Khan. A teammate sacrifices themselves to save the rest of their team and the film ends with a voiceover from that teammate implying that they would eventually return.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What elements raised it above being just cerebral art? Maybe our prime difference is that I wasn't just looking for a "fun" movie with regards to SR. I was one of the folks who wanted this new franchise to have a more serious tone than the previous installments (even though I love them dearly) and to lose the old-hat aspects like Otis. Not that I didn't like the character for his day, but not in 2006.

You may see it "hopelessly derivative" and I see the homages to Donner's film as good things that reminded me of why I fell in love with Superman in the first place. The majority of the film was different from the old film. Characterizations were a different ball of wax from the old film. Superman was different, Lois was different, Perry was different, for starters. Even Metropolis was a different thing in and of itself. Being a sequel or requel or whatever the hell people call it, you figure it should have many things in common with the film that came before.


Maybe because they were furthering Superman's story in a way that no one (especially the comic writers) ever had the balls to do in standard continuity. It's strictly an opinion call on whether or not the kid was a good idea. I feel it could be the strength of the series, then again, that's just my humble opinion. You know I love how because the woman he loves basically s***s on him by saying she never loved him and he happened to cry, he's considered a wimp. What, did you expect him to dance a jig? Whether or not they were forgettable is also a matter of opinion. Jimmy was funny in nearly every scene for me, and Perry was a different interpretation of the character so he didn't seem like he was ripping off J.K. Simmons, who just overexaggerated the portrayal of Perry White Jackie Cooper did back in the day.

Then I guess that's the difference between you and me. You look for a "popcorn" movie from Superman, or at least expect it to be one and I look for something else with less of the "popcorn" stigma.

You didn't appreciate the quick demonstration of how Superman is perceived as corny, which to many he is, and that's fine. I did, though. As for Lois' attitude towards Superman, are you talking about her attitude for the whole film? Or just the plane scene.

Once again stricly an opinion, and typically based on what you like as SR has made decent, but not colossal money. I think they should've cut their losses four episodes into Lois and Clark and after the first season of Smallville, but wish in one hand...


Why, I have plenty of fun crapping on it here. Toodles.

PWNAGE as the kids say

Yes the characters were all played quite differently and that includes Superman. The only character similar to that of STM was they way Clark was portrayed. But if you have Superman as who he is and Clark as the disguise you are going to cast similar shadows. Nice point on Perry btw, very different from the ripoff they did of Perry in the Spidey movies.

 

[AmbientFire]

You should join the INWT.

Perhaps I will, once I find out what it is?

 

[The Kid]

In

Nolan

We

Trust

 

[NateGray]

What elements raised it above being just cerebral art? Maybe our prime difference is that I wasn't just looking for a "fun" movie with regards to SR. I was one of the folks who wanted this new franchise to have a more serious tone than the previous installments (even though I love them dearly) and to lose the old-hat aspects like Otis. Not that I didn't like the character for his day, but not in 2006.

You may see it "hopelessly derivative" and I see the homages to Donner's film as good things that reminded me of why I fell in love with Superman in the first place. The majority of the film was different from the old film. Characterizations were a different ball of wax from the old film. Superman was different, Lois was different, Perry was different, for starters. Even Metropolis was a different thing in and of itself. Being a sequel or requel or whatever the hell people call it, you figure it should have many things in common with the film that came before.


Maybe because they were furthering Superman's story in a way that no one (especially the comic writers) ever had the balls to do in standard continuity. It's strictly an opinion call on whether or not the kid was a good idea. I feel it could be the strength of the series, then again, that's just my humble opinion. You know I love how because the woman he loves basically s***s on him by saying she never loved him and he happened to cry, he's considered a wimp. What, did you expect him to dance a jig? Whether or not they were forgettable is also a matter of opinion. Jimmy was funny in nearly every scene for me, and Perry was a different interpretation of the character so he didn't seem like he was ripping off J.K. Simmons, who just overexaggerated the portrayal of Perry White Jackie Cooper did back in the day.

Then I guess that's the difference between you and me. You look for a "popcorn" movie from Superman, or at least expect it to be one and I look for something else with less of the "popcorn" stigma.

You didn't appreciate the quick demonstration of how Superman is perceived as corny, which to many he is, and that's fine. I did, though. As for Lois' attitude towards Superman, are you talking about her attitude for the whole film? Or just the plane scene.

Once again stricly an opinion, and typically based on what you like as SR has made decent, but not colossal money. I think they should've cut their losses four episodes into Lois and Clark and after the first season of Smallville, but wish in one hand...


Why, I have plenty of fun crapping on it here. Toodles.

While I could comment on all this tripe you posted whats the point since you will find excuses to defend SR even in the face of reality or facts.
One fact I have to mention from your post though since you just do not seem to understand how the movie business works....

Quote
SR has made decent, but not colossal money????

How exactly does 370 million give or take, equal a profit on a 206-260 million dollar movie + marketing of anywhere from 50-100 million equal a profit????
Wow wish I could pay my bills the same way you do math because thats a loss last time I checked and it will require between 100-200 million in DVD sales for SR to show a profit and that level of DVD sales is skeptical at best IMO anyways.
But just to the facts SR has yet to show a profit whether you want to believe it has or not is irrelevant it has not at this date 9/05/06 shown a profit.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

In

Nolan

We

Trust

Eh, I don't trust him nearly as much as most people on Hype. He made a good but not great Batman movie and I like him for that reason because I hadn't ever even seen a good live action Bat-film before but there is still alot of stuff that I hope he fixes in The Dark Knight.

 

[The Kid]

Agreed, except about not seeing good batman movies before. I saw Adam West's movie... . i don't really have trust in my sig because I think Nolan's god, it's just because like you said he's doing a decent job so far, much better than singer is, I think and I too hope he improves with TDK.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

While I could comment on all this tripe you posted whats the point since you will find excuses to defend SR even in the face of reality or facts.
One fact I have to mention from your post though since you just do not seem to understand how the movie business works....

Quote
SR has made decent, but not colossal money????

How exactly does 370 million give or take, equal a profit on a 206-260 million dollar movie + marketing of anywhere from 50-100 million equal a profit????
Wow wish I could pay my bills the same way you do math because thats a loss last time I checked and it will require between 100-200 million in DVD sales for SR to show a profit and that level of DVD sales is skeptical at best IMO anyways.
But just to the facts SR has yet to show a profit whether you want to believe it has or not is irrelevant it has not at this date 9/05/06 shown a profit.

Comment on whatever you want. I welcome the discussion. I don't work for the WB accounting department and neither do you. When you have the actual ledger sheet in front of you, and you can post it for all to see, then maybe you can inform me to the exact dollars and cents. Notice I left the response vague? I didn't even give a descriptor as to whether or not it turned a profit, because I wouldn't know. I think it did decent business because it's already beaten the worldwide take of Batman Begins...which is getting a sequel. Sure the cost of each film is different...but like I said, I don't work for Warner, so I couldn't tell you how much or how little the film has returned them. If they're so in the hole, why would they set a reported stopgap of $200 million domestic in order to guarantee a sequel? Does the international BO not count? I have no idea. Like I said...I don't balance the books at Time Warner.

 

[CGHulk]

Hey Hulk is getting a restart movie after the first movie didn't do so well, why not Superman getting a restart after SR?

 

[Masut]

Hey Hulk is getting a restart movie after the first movie didn't do so well, why not Superman getting a restart after SR?

Because SR isn't a bad film, and it's a shame they have to restart Hulk after only recently bringing him to the big screen. But if it's for the better, then so be it. However I think it'd be nice if they can just make a better sequel and learn from mistakes. A complete restart after such a recent return is quite a drastic action. But I feel SR is far from needing to be ignored and restarted. Far from it indeed.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because SR isn't a bad film, and it's a shame they have to restart Hulk after only recently bringing him to the big screen. But if it's for the better, then so be it. However I think it'd be nice if they can just make a better sequel and learn from mistakes. A complete restart after such a recent return is quite a drastic action. But I feel SR is far from needing to be ignored and restarted. Far from it indeed.

They are not re-starting Hulk, that rumour was debunked ages ago. The Incredible Hulk IS a sequel to the first movie, but without the same crew and it looks like with a different cast also.

Anyway, like SR i thought Hulk was an awesome movie, and i really look forward to SR2.

 

[NateGray]

Comment on whatever you want. I welcome the discussion. I don't work for the WB accounting department and neither do you. When you have the actual ledger sheet in front of you, and you can post it for all to see, then maybe you can inform me to the exact dollars and cents. Notice I left the response vague? I didn't even give a descriptor as to whether or not it turned a profit, because I wouldn't know. I think it did decent business because it's already beaten the worldwide take of Batman Begins...which is getting a sequel. Sure the cost of each film is different...but like I said, I don't work for Warner, so I couldn't tell you how much or how little the film has returned them. If they're so in the hole, why would they set a reported stopgap of $200 million domestic in order to guarantee a sequel? Does the international BO not count? I have no idea. Like I said...I don't balance the books at Time Warner.

Nice to quote me and address none of what I posted about????
One does not have to work at WB or TW to know if a movie makes a profit or not its not rocket science and its well documented and easily accessable from the internet.
SR is still in the RED with its current intake of money it still needs anywhere between 100-200 mil to hit the green.
Notice I am vauge with how much it will need because I do not know the overall costs but a best case senerio would be Singer's numbers which say 206 mil with50+ mil advertising that means it needs roughly 500+ mil to hit green last I checked it is no where near that.

As for beating a movie that cost roughly 100 mil less to produe and advertise, Well that is not something to brag about just FYI.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If a movie costs 256 million, and has made nearly $370 million dollars worldwide, how is it not profitable? Not to mention the money it has made with endorsements and toy sales, etc. Anyway, i thought the production budget was confirmed at some were nearer $180 million? Am i mistaken or what?

 

[GarudA]

If a movie costs 256 million, and has made nearly $370 million dollars worldwide, how is it not profitable? Not to mention the money it has made with endorsements and toy sales, etc. Anyway, i thought the production budget was confirmed at some were nearer $180 million? Am i mistaken or what?

Because

A. Domestic wise the studio only gets just less than 50% of the takes.
B. International they only get roughly less than 20% takes.

About the toys? Do you know it has been selling poorly, like I mentioned before, my mate works at Woolworths and he told me SR toys were selling poorly. I am not the only one whos said that it is selling poorly, it is also the same story in the USA.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because

A. Domestic wise the studio only gets just less than 50% of the takes.
B. International they only get roughly less than 20% takes.

About the toys? Do you know it has been selling poorly, like I mentioned before, my mate works at Woolworths and he told me SR toys were selling poorly. I am not the only one whos said that it is selling poorly, it is also the same story in the USA.

Well i heard the toys were selling very well, so someone is lying.

 

[GarudA]

Well i heard the toys were selling very well, so someone is lying.

Sorry but it is true, their was a article someone had posted about the poor sales of the toys and how they reduced prices and still no go. You'r calling me mate a liar?

 

[The Kid]

It's like the x-men toys all over again.

I actually bought a wolverine one from the bargain bin. I still have it here somewhere...