Superman Returns For those who DIDN'T like SR.....do you still like Superman?

[X Knight]

I actually bought the target copy version of the DVD ( the cover was......fascinating.... ). I tried watching SR again, to give it another chance. but I ended up selling it out of disgust.....

now....I kind of want it back........lol.

 

[CGHulk]

Sperman Returns doesn't have the feeling and look of a Superman movie. I will always be a Superman fan, all previous incarnations of The Man of Steel, except SR has felt like Superman, yes even Smallville (did I just type that ).

 

[El Payaso]

Howdy El Payaso dude!

Haydee Ho.

Actually I still haven't contributed any money towards Superman Returns, so when I say I probably won't pay to see Man of Steel, you better believe it buddy.

It seems in spite of your terrible sabotage with the first one, Singer's still doing the sequel, so I guess I don't have to worry. Again.

I would already wager I will enjoy and be entertained more by any of the previously mentioned movies than by the dreadful Superman Returns.

Stupidity without the comic relief can turn out pathetic. Being a hater doesn't make you a clairvoyant.

In fact I have already been more entertained by the trailers of Ghost Rider, 300, Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Transformers, than I was with the whole mess that is Superman Returns...and I doubt I am alone in that.

Yes, now you can go and watch some commercial spots and infomercials instead a good movie on Tv. Which explains even more why good movies scare you.

People go to see a Superhero movie either to be entertained and/or (if they are a comics fan) to see 'their' character on the big screen.

No, they go and see trailers which are better than the movie. (You're not alone remember.)

Superman Returns was dull as dishwater and certainly didn't represent any Superman comic I have ever read.

Considering you probably read just the announcements' pages in comic books, it's understandable.

Singer didn't make a Superman movie, he made a melodrama and then shoehorned Superman into it.

What every director do. They make a good story with the characters in it.

Superman Returns is right up there with the likes of Catwoman and Batman & Robin for ill conceived tripe.

Now you're alone in this.

In fact if I had a choice I would rather watch Batman & Robin than Superman Returns at least that way I'll have a laugh. t:

Considering your humour levels, that's probably true.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Haydee Ho.

Hello again!

It seems in spite of your terrible sabotage with the first one,

Never been my intention to sabotage anything, but neither will I support Hollywood rubbish, rehashes and unnecessary remakes.

However feel free to use my "sabotaging" it as a further excuse for the poor box office, just like the Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest hurt the box office of Superman Returns nonsense I see people tout from time to time.

Singer's still doing the sequel, so I guess I don't have to worry. Again.

They are so happy to have Singer back they are slashing the budget by two-thirds! t:

Stupidity without the comic relief can turn out pathetic.

Sounds like a criticism of Superman Returns?

Being a hater doesn't make you a clairvoyant.

I was simply playing the percentages. Its almost unthinkable that any of the previously listed movies could turn out as badly as Superman Returns.

When you take superhero movies as a whole, Superman Returns is at the bottom (10%) of the barrel.

Yes, now you can go and watch some commercial spots and infomercials instead a good movie on Tv.

Unfortunately your witicism falls flat on its face when it attempts to parallel 'Superman Returns' and 'good movie'.

Which explains even more why good movies scare you.

Ill-conceived, badly cast, hamfisted, rehashes scare me almost as much as Singer (allegedly) being paid in excess of $50 million to make one.

No, they go and see trailers which are better than the movie. (You're not alone remember.)

Oddly enough some people actually do pay in to showings just see movie trailers, but I am not one of those people.

However, you can tell from the trailers already that those movies have more originality, imagination, action and zest than Singerman.

Considering you probably read just the announcements' pages in comic books, it's understandable.

They should bring out a 7 issue comic adaptation of Superman Returns just to show apologists how utterly boring that movie really is.

...and yes, I did just ignore your ad hominem attack.

What every director do. They make a good story with the characters in it.

Thats what directors attempt to do, but as we can clearly see in this case, the best intentions often go awry.

Now you're alone in this.

I don't think so. At least when they made Catwoman they only wasted $40 million dollars (or whatever it was). Singer had a virtually unlimited budget and still turned out a dud. So which was the bigger flop...?

Considering your humour levels, that's probably true.

At least I have a sense of humour, unlike Singer's dull, morose, train wreck.

 

[El Payaso]

Never been my intention to sabotage anything, but neither will I support Hollywood rubbish, rehashes and unnecessary remakes.

Well I'm looking forward to Ghost Rider, 300, Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Transformers

With the possible exception of Spiderman 3... you're pretty much wanting to support Hollywood rubbish.

However feel free to use my "sabotaging" it as a further excuse for the poor box office, just like the Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest hurt the box office of Superman Returns nonsense I see people tout from time to time.

SR B.O. might have been insufficient for the execs but was far from poor. If some crappy movie like Pirates did good I might blame rubbish supporters such as you.

They are so happy to have Singer back they are slashing the budget by two-thirds! t:

Link?

And yes, due to years of pre-production, SR budget was overgrown.

Sounds like a criticism of Superman Returns?

Sounds as a joke?

I was simply playing the percentages. Its almost unthinkable that any of the previously listed movies could turn out as badly as Superman Returns.

Unthinkable as you can not think, yes.

When you take superhero movies as a whole, Superman Returns is at the bottom (10%) of the barrel.

You can visit any site rating the movie so you can see it's far better than that. So what's that 10% came from?

Unfortunately your witicism falls flat on its face when it attempts to parallel 'Superman Returns' and 'good movie'.

As your humoristic attempts to compare SR with the rubbish you say you'll enjoy this year.

Ill-conceived, badly cast, hamfisted, rehashes scare me almost as much as Singer (allegedly) being paid in excess of $50 million to make one.

You support the first and you'll never achieve the second.

Oddly enough some people actually do pay in to showings just see movie trailers, but I am not one of those people.

However, you can tell from the trailers already that those movies have more originality, imagination, action and zest than Singerman.

I can tell from this trailer appreciation concept the poor criteria in your views.

They should bring out a 7 issue comic adaptation of Superman Returns just to show apologists how utterly boring that movie really is.

And these words: bring in the Smallville actors where at least you have a multifaceted Clark, excellent Lois (though Teri Hatcher is still the ultimate Lois in my opinion) and the best onscreen Lex imaginable. shows how utterly poor taste some SR haters have.

Thats what directors attempt to do, but as we can clearly see in this case, the best intentions often go awry.

So it's not like they cannot do it as you said in the first place. Good to know you can ignore your own mistakes.

I don't think so. At least when they made Catwoman they only wasted $40 million dollars (or whatever it was). Singer had a virtually unlimited budget and still turned out a dud. So which was the bigger flop...?

As I remember the discusion was about which movie was in the "likes for ill conceived tripe."

That said, Catwoman and B&R were plain bad movies and those are in that 10% of poor quality you falsely claimed SR was in.

At least I have a sense of humour, unlike Singer's dull, morose, train wreck.

No, you barely have the ability to laugh.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again!

With the possible exception of Spiderman 3... you're pretty much wanting to support Hollywood rubbish.

Not at all.

I support well made and original movies. Superman Returns was neither.

SR B.O. might have been insufficient for the execs but was far from poor.

Actually SR lost money at the box office - in anyones book - THATS POOR! t:

If some crappy movie like Pirates did good I might blame rubbish supporters such as you.

Well it seems the masses were entertained with Pirates and not Singer's morbid self-indulgence.

Link?

I'll try and find a direct link, but I thought that was widely known.

I'm sure one of the articles on this website has the link:

http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/

And yes, due to years of pre-production, SR budget was overgrown.

Actually they are slashing the budget they gave Singer by 2/3rds. Nothing to do with the previous attempts.

Sounds as a joke?

Well I was serious.

Unthinkable as you can not think, yes.

I think you have to look at the statistics. Of all the comic book movies made, about 10% or so fail to make a profit at the box office.

You can visit any site rating the movie so you can see it's far better than that. So what's that 10% came from?

Fans have more incentives to reply to site ratings than anyone else.

The 10% was to note those movies which did not turn a profit at the box office - to which Superman Returns belongs.

As your humoristic attempts to compare SR with the rubbish you say you'll enjoy this year.

Of all the superhero movies I have seen, Superman Returns is in the bottom 10%, therefore its hardly a stretch to say I'll almost certainly like them better than Superman Returns.

You support the first and you'll never achieve the second.

Your little word twists are amusing.

I can tell from this trailer appreciation concept the poor criteria in your views.

Well I'm a very optimistic person.

And these words: bring in the Smallville actors where at least you have a multifaceted Clark, excellent Lois (though Teri Hatcher is still the ultimate Lois in my opinion) and the best onscreen Lex imaginable. shows how utterly poor taste some SR haters have.

The only person who wouldn't agree with me would be someone who doesn't watch Smallville or a Singer apologist.

Now I am not saying that Rosenbaum is a better actor than Kevin Spacey, but I am definately saying that the part of Lex Luthor in Smallville is far more intelligent and frightening to the idiot Lex in SR.

So it's not like they cannot do it as you said in the first place. Good to know you can ignore your own mistakes.

Of course they can do it. Singer has created good movies in the past, but Superman Returns certainly wasn't one of them.

I'll be the first person to say I really liked the Usual Suspects or X-Men and X-Men 2. But Superman Returns was just terrible. No director gets it right every time, thats just the way it goes.

As I remember the discusion was about which movie was in the "likes for ill conceived tripe."

Superman Returns was ill-conceived as even the president of Warner Brothers himself would tell you. They ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience.

Thats akin to making a romantic comedy without romance or comedy.

That said, Catwoman and B&R were plain bad movies and those are in that 10% of poor quality you falsely claimed SR was in.

Catwoman deviated grossly from the comic character and was laughably bad. Batman & Robin suffered by taking things so far away from darker aspects of Batman that the character(s) failed to have any gravitas - in effect becoming a joke.

Superman Returns was less a Superman movie and more a melodrama that featured a character called Superman. The movie was devoid of intelligence, was a rehash, was morose and dour, ignored the two main demographics for superhero movies and quite frankly was boring.

All three movies I listed were ill-conceived.

You can say you liked it all you want, but it was ill-conceived and thats a fact!

No, you barely have the ability to laugh.

Well I'm laughing right now at your ability to concoct an argument. t:

 

[El Payaso]

Not at all.

I support well made and original movies. Superman Returns was neither.

Your movie list says otherwise, but I won't force you to agree with yourself.

Actually SR lost money at the box office - in anyones book - THATS POOR! t:

In my book I have no financial interest in the movie but just as a cinematic piece. There, it suceeds.

Anyway it made more than Batman begins so no big deal about the BO either. Sadly it should have made more than its budget but movies are always a gamble and a risk. Anyway far from poor.

Well it seems the masses were entertained with Pirates and not Singer's morbid self-indulgence.

Like you, they love rubbish. Many horrid movies succeed at BO and many good ones don't. Nothing new.

I'll try and find a direct link, but I thought that was widely known.

I'm sure one of the articles on this website has the link:

http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/

No links huh? I thought so.

Actually they are slashing the budget they gave Singer by 2/3rds. Nothing to do with the previous attempts.

This measures are taken independently of the movie quality but just how much richer the execs became. That's why Fantastic Four is getting a a big sequel in spite of being an abominable piece of crap.

I think you have to look at the statistics. Of all the comic book movies made, about 10% or so fail to make a profit at the box office.

Again I was thinking you were taking finally about the movies quality. But no, it was always the money, the only weak spot you can articulate.

Of all the superhero movies I have seen, Superman Returns is in the bottom 10%, therefore its hardly a stretch to say I'll almost certainly like them better than Superman Returns.

For a guy who enjoy trailers as they were movies and think he'll enjoy things because of what boards say, it's fair.

The only person who wouldn't agree with me would be someone who doesn't watch Smallville or a Singer apologist.

Many people realize how bad Smallville is, so they don't watch it. Smalville, the melodrama with Superman (kind of) in it that you can dig.

Now I am not saying that Rosenbaum is a better actor than Kevin Spacey, but I am definately saying that the part of Lex Luthor in Smallville is far more intelligent and frightening to the idiot Lex in SR.

No, you said he was best onscreen Lex imaginable. Now, thinking it was all about YOUR imagination and another piece of the puzzle falls in its place.

Of course they can do it. Singer has created good movies in the past, but Superman Returns certainly wasn't one of them.

I'll be the first person to say I really liked the Usual Suspects or X-Men and X-Men 2. But Superman Returns was just terrible. No director gets it right every time, thats just the way it goes.

In fact I consider X2 a sleeping pill. So basically you're right about the last one.

Superman Returns was ill-conceived as even the president of Warner Brothers himself would tell you. They ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience.

How they ignored it? It wasn't the usual action-packed ****. Just that. But they can't (shouldn't) make a movie based on what kids like you want to amuse for a while but go for something better.

Catwoman deviated grossly from the comic character and was laughably bad. Batman & Robin suffered by taking things so far away from darker aspects of Batman that the character(s) failed to have any gravitas - in effect becoming a joke.

Superman Returns was less a Superman movie and more a melodrama that featured a character called Superman. The movie was devoid of intelligence, was a rehash, was morose and dour, ignored the two main demographics for superhero movies and quite frankly was boring.

You got bored. Ok.

Enjoy Crapville, Dawson's Creek meets Superboy, you still have that.

You can say you liked it all you want, but it was ill-conceived and thats a fact!

You can say all you want but your poor reasoning is not a fact.

Well I'm laughing right now at your ability to concoct an argument. t:

If it doesn't include how a trailer tells me exactly if the movie's good or bad, you have seen nothing yet.

 

[Dr. Fate]

hey all,

as the title suggests, this thread is STRICTLY for those of us who DIDN'T like SR......

I was just curious to see how many of you guys and gals hated SR but still love Superman.

Did SR turn you off from the character completely?

Or, are you holding out hope that someday, in the future, we will get a TRUE Superman movie that surpasses the Donner films with a new direction that embodies all of the qualities that we love about Supes?

again, fans of SR need not apply........

I still like Superman.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey El Payaso!

Your movie list says otherwise, but I won't force you to agree with yourself.

You do love your little word twists!

Lets see if the rest of your argument carries any weight...

In my book I have no financial interest in the movie but just as a cinematic piece. There, it suceeds.

Clearly it doesn't succeed for the majority of people - otherwise it would be a success.

Anyway it made more than Batman begins so no big deal about the BO either.

No it didn't make more than Batman Returns. It grossed more, but it also cost far more. Batman Returns made a profit. Superman Returns actually lost money at the box office.

Thats a fact!

Sadly it should have made more than its budget but movies are always a gamble and a risk.

The vast majority of hollywood movies actually make a profit. So when a movie doesn't make a profit its because its a stinker!

Anyway far from poor.

It lost money at the box office - thats poor.

Like you, they love rubbish. Many horrid movies succeed at BO and many good ones don't. Nothing new.

Feel free to name some movies that were 'horrid' but succeeded at the box office?

Likewise feel free to name some 'good ones' that did not perform well at the box office.

No links huh? I thought so.

Just for you, I hunted it down...

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?optio...age=1&category=featured&article=581&Itemid=27

Here is the pertinent text:

We have been told that a couple of things are for certain. For one, the sequel will have a slightly smaller budget. Returns budget was approximately $208 million dollars with P&A (prints and ads) of about $50 million putting it at around $260. The sequel is expected to be around $140-175 million plus marketing.

This measures are taken independently of the movie quality but just how much richer the execs became.

The amount of money a movie nets is indicative of how well received it is by the public.

That's why Fantastic Four is getting a a big sequel in spite of being an abominable piece of crap.

Fantastic Four had its problems, but it was inoffensive, fun family entertainment. Kids loved it - hence the reason it did so well at the box office.

Hopefully the sequel will bring a bit more for action/adventure fans.

Again I was thinking you were taking finally about the movies quality. But no, it was always the money, the only weak spot you can articulate.

The only measure of quality that we can use without being subjective IS the box office - thats why its totally relevant to our discussion.

For a guy who enjoy trailers as they were movies and think he'll enjoy things because of what boards say, it's fair.

Lets say I enjoy watching a good trailer (Spider-man 3) more than a bad movie (Superman Returns). A good trailer at least gives you hope, whereas no matter how many times I go back to SR it will always be terrible.

Many people realize how bad Smallville is, so they don't watch it.

If its so unpopular why is it get still on air! Why do they keep making, more episodes?

Your argument falls flat on its face.

Smalville, the melodrama with Superman (kind of) in it that you can dig.

The difference is that Smallville is an unashamed teen melodrama with Superman, just like Lois & Clark was a 30-something melodrama with Superman.

Both cater principally to their demographics.

However a blockbuster should play to its strengths, and target as many demographics as the subject matter allows. Superman Returns fails to cater to the younger demographic and the action/adventure demographic.

Thats a fact.

No, you said he was best onscreen Lex imaginable.

So he is.

Rosenbaum is a far better Lex than Spacey, but for other roles perhaps Spacey might be better actor overall.

Just like I could say Spacey may be a better overall actor than Clint Eastwood, but Clint makes a far better western bounty hunter.

Now, thinking it was all about YOUR imagination and another piece of the puzzle falls in its place.

Another humourous word twist from you that goes nowhere.

See my previous point where I easily dismiss your nitpicking once again.

In fact I consider X2 a sleeping pill. So basically you're right about the last one.

How on Earth could you say X2 was a sleeping pill but enjoy Superman Returns - mind-boggling.

How they ignored it?

It was obvious, kids don't want to watch something dull and boring - hence the reason SR failed that demographic.

Likewise the movie failed the action/adventure audience because it was a lifeless, boring rehash.

It wasn't the usual action-packed ****.

A movie can have action and still tell a great story (Lord of the Rings, Spider-man etc.)

Just that. But they can't (shouldn't) make a movie based on what kids like you want to amuse for a while but go for something better.

A director with talent understands the demographics they are trying to reach, either Singer willfully chose to ignore the younger audience and the action/adventure audience on purpose, or it was through his own incompetence.

You got bored. Ok.

I wasn't the only one.

Enjoy Crapville, Dawson's Creek meets Superboy, you still have that.

Thats exactly what it is - but thats exactly what it set out to be. So its a success.

You can say all you want but your poor reasoning is not a fact.

You just dodged the point.

How is it not a fact?

If it doesn't include how a trailer tells me exactly if the movie's good or bad, you have seen nothing yet.

I simply can't fathom any of the movies I mentioned being as bad as Superman Returns. Its possible, but not very probable.

 

[Billy Batson]

Hate (SR) !!!

t: :heart: LOVE