Superman Returns Has the 3rd act 'grown' on you?

[Karea07]

No. Damn the kid.

 

[buggs0268]

Not just No, but F NO! I have tried giving it a chance 6 times and I just get ticked off the more and more I see it. In fact the whole movie does. Why the hell does he float down so slowly with the Daily Planet globe other than to do some long shot "Atlas holding the world" thing. It is just, besides the other things, he went way too overboard on mythological and biblical things. And also there is too much references to the old comics. Donner didn't do that stuff. He just said "lets tell the story of the flying guy" and get the facts straight and make quick, short fun of some of the things that are tied into Superman that won't fit in today, like the phone booth scene.

 

[buggs0268]

Why would it grow on me? Has some action or imagination been added on the DVD you have?

Heh. Now that is funny.

 

[Zen Ith]

Not just No, but F NO! I have tried giving it a chance 6 times and I just get ticked off the more and more I see it. In fact the whole movie does. Why the hell does he float down so slowly with the Daily Planet globe other than to do some long shot "Atlas holding the world" thing. It is just, besides the other things, he went way too overboard on mythological and biblical things. And also there is too much references to the old comics. Donner didn't do that stuff. He just said "lets tell the story of the flying guy" and get the facts straight and make quick, short fun of some of the things that are tied into Superman that won't fit in today, like the phone booth scene.

IMo the globe shot was pure Superman. And if he's holding a giant globe of course he will descend slowly, he doesn't want to drop it and crush people.

 

[bunk]

Not just No, but F NO! I have tried giving it a chance 6 times and I just get ticked off the more and more I see it. In fact the whole movie does. Why the hell does he float down so slowly with the Daily Planet globe other than to do some long shot "Atlas holding the world" thing. It is just, besides the other things, he went way too overboard on mythological and biblical things. And also there is too much references to the old comics. Donner didn't do that stuff. He just said "lets tell the story of the flying guy" and get the facts straight and make quick, short fun of some of the things that are tied into Superman that won't fit in today, like the phone booth scene.

Donner got the facts straight? If he had, I wouldn't have minded Singer doing a sequel to his movie as much.

 

[Zen Ith]

Donner got the facts straight? If he had, I wouldn't have minded Singer doing a sequel to his movie as much.

Donner got all the fundamentals of Superman, and so did Singer. Complaining about things like a crystal Krypton and Jason is trivial when it comes to a character that has varied and been modified as much as Superman.

 

[Thot]

For me, the third act contains some of the most groan-worthy aspects of the film. I realize I can't wish them away, but I hope their ramifications are eliminated, ignored or at least downplayed in the sequel.

 

[buggs0268]

"I'm still Superman!" God what stupid writing. Who would say that while they are getting their a$$'s kicked? I know. NO ONE! Not even Superman. He would be trying to kick their asses. You don't see Reeve flailing around in the pool yelling "I'm still Superman" NO! His concern is more about him saving people than his own life. That is Superman.

 

[buggs0268]

Donner got all the fundamentals of Superman, and so did Singer. Complaining about things like a crystal Krypton and Jason is trivial when it comes to a character that has varied and been modified as much as Superman.

And that is why so many Superman fans and the GA have complained about those things.

 

[Dan33977]

the GA have complained about those things.

No, you're wrong. Please do not bring general audience members down to your level. General audience members didn't care about the tiny, unimportant details that Internet fanboys complain about because they actually have lives! They have other, more important things to worry about. You comic fanatics continue to whine about these things as if you understand exactly why this film didn't perform as expected at the box office when in reality you don't understand how this business works at all! You continue to claim that it's because it wasn't like the comics and because it was too much like Donner's SUPERMAN. I mean, do you seriously think that general audience members thought twice about this film? Seriously, no one else besides nerdy comic fanboys cares about comics; most people don't even know they still make them! So, if anything, making it like Donner's SUPERMAN was a good decision, as it's how most people view Superman. The only people that actually care about these minute, nitpicky details are people like you who have 1,000+ posts on an Internet message board, whose best friends are people you've met over the Internet, who have no lives and consider socializing to be going to the comic shop to debate about these details with other losers like yourselves.

"OMGZ! SUPERMAN'S SUIT WAS A SHADE DARKER THAN IT WUZ IN TEH COMICZ, LEX LUTHOR ACTED LIKE TEH GENE HACKMANZZ OMGZ ITZ WUZ ZOOO stPI1d SO OUTDATED OMGZ, and hez a stalker SINGERMAN LOLZ SO CLEVER LOLZ LOLZ OMG SO BORING I HAVE ADHD AND IM SO BORED OF THIS MOVIE OMG LOOK AT TEH JHNY DEP lolololzzzz!!! sO fUNNY lolz looz at him unz LOLZ i STILL HASNT MATURED ENOUGH TO SIT THROUGH A 2 AND HALF OUR MOVIE WITHOUT ACTION omgz i cant believe superman's SUit wasnt 2 notches lighter like it was in the comic books. omg i cant believe luthor di that becuase in issue 238 on page 4 he did this LOLZ SINGERZ HATEZ comicZ because he didnt folwo it exactly OMGZ HE hsa no imagznATION LOLZ EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY d1d som3th1ng new by adding him a kid but oh noes he must FOLOW HTE BOOKS AND MUST NOT HAVE A MIND OF h1s own omgz luthorz neverz said that IN THE COMICZ OMGZ OMGz! 1n teh COMIZ HE SAID THS OMGZ AND SUPERMAN idi thiz and lOIS DIDNT d0 th1s!!!!!! OMGZ SINERMANZ!!!!!!!!!1111111"

For most people who saw the film, if they liked it, they liked it, and if they didn't, they didn't like it; it's that simple! There was no whining; no nerdy analyzing like, "omgZ d1d u SEE THE SUPERMAN SUIT IN ISSUE 182337 ITZ ACTUALLY 2 SHADES DARKER OMGZ TEH MOV31 IS TEH suckz singerman is gay and iS a stalker cuz in teh comics he wighs 48923749238 lbs and in this one he wighed 347324 lbs OMGZ OMGZ NOT LIKE THE COMICZ!!!!!!111"

They saw the film, left the theatre, and went on with their lives. So please. Get. A. Life. It's OK that you didn't like the film for the reasons you didn't like it, but don't try to make yourself feel better and more normal by convincing yourself and claiming that most normal people agree with you because it's simply not true! If a general audience member didn't like the film, it's for other reasons.

Typical person who posts in this forum and whines about petty details =

 

[bunk]

"I'm still Superman!" God what stupid writing. Who would say that while they are getting their a$$'s kicked? I know. NO ONE! Not even Superman. He would be trying to kick their asses. You don't see Reeve flailing around in the pool yelling "I'm still Superman" NO! His concern is more about him saving people than his own life. That is Superman.

You're right, Superman didn't flail around in S:TM when he was in the pool. In fact, he didn't do much of anything...he just kinda floated around. Exciting stuff.

 

[Showtime]

"I'm still Superman!" God what stupid writing. Who would say that while they are getting their a$$'s kicked? I know. NO ONE! Not even Superman. He would be trying to kick their asses. You don't see Reeve flailing around in the pool yelling "I'm still Superman" NO! His concern is more about him saving people than his own life. That is Superman.

It can't be "stupid writing" since that line wasn't in the script. It was an ad lib.

 

[sithgoblin]

It can't be "stupid writing" since that line wasn't in the script. It was an ad lib.

You're right. 'Stupid directing' is the correct term.

 

[Zen Ith]

And that is why so many Superman fans and the GA have complained about those things.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dan33977]

The flying in SR was very realistic and very nicely done. Superman performed feats in mid air we have never seen before. Stopping dead in mid air and redirecting; Smashing through windows, walls, and plane wings in flight; Spinning around in mid air and flying on his back while using heat vision. I was impressed by the whole thing.

^Show, you're wasting your breath. He didn't get to punch someone so all of the other hard work (which is impressive) that Sony did is completely moot to some people. I, for one, am with the group who thought the FX were top notch and showed Superman flying with the velocity and capability that I always felt he should have had in a movie.

Personally, even good action is nothing without a good/well-done story. One of the reasons that X3 (and F4) didn't work for me.

I find it funny that the point of this thread is to bash Singer while praising FF2.

I seem to remember fanboys screaming for Tim Story's head after the first FF with the same comments they are getting Singer for now.

Show fans a little SS flying through a wall and now it's like " I knew the sequel would be better!"

At least Singer has proven he can make a better sequel after a so-so first installment.

Exactly! I think it's quite pathetic that he's comparing a completed film to the short teaser trailer of a sequel to an awful, emotionless movie. I've been civil so far since I do know some normal people (i.e. people who aren't fat adults and don't read comics anymore) who enjoyed DMC more than they did RETURNS, but it's obvious now that the people who post in this forum either are extremely young and like senseless, explosive action; have extremely low attention spans and like senseless, explosive action; or don't understand what that art of filmmaking actually is or what the process consists of. I mean, are they the people who flocked to see SNAKES ON A PLANE in hordes, or are they people who've seen and enjoyed THE QUEEN (which, by the way, is an excellent film)?

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

No.

 

[dark_b]

Dan33977
you are one of the smartest members here. i am really happy that you are here. i want to become like you.

the purpose of my life is to become like you Dan33977.

 

[Zen Ith]

Dan33977
you are one of the smartest members here. i am really happy that you are here. i want to become like you.

the purpose of my life is to become like you Dan33977.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

 

[buggs0268]

No, you're wrong. Please do not bring general audience members down to your level. General audience members didn't care about the tiny, unimportant details that Internet fanboys complain about because they actually have lives! They have other, more important things to worry about. You comic fanatics continue to whine about these things as if you understand exactly why this film didn't perform as expected at the box office when in reality you don't understand how this business works at all! You continue to claim that it's because it wasn't like the comics and because it was too much like Donner's SUPERMAN. I mean, do you seriously think that general audience members thought twice about this film? Seriously, no one else besides nerdy comic fanboys cares about comics; most people don't even know they still make them! So, if anything, making it like Donner's SUPERMAN was a good decision, as it's how most people view Superman. The only people that actually care about these minute, nitpicky details are people like you who have 1,000+ posts on an Internet message board, whose best friends are people you've met over the Internet, who have no lives and consider socializing to be going to the comic shop to debate about these details with other losers like yourselves.

"OMGZ! SUPERMAN'S SUIT WAS A SHADE DARKER THAN IT WUZ IN TEH COMICZ, LEX LUTHOR ACTED LIKE TEH GENE HACKMANZZ OMGZ ITZ WUZ ZOOO stPI1d SO OUTDATED OMGZ, and hez a stalker SINGERMAN LOLZ SO CLEVER LOLZ LOLZ OMG SO BORING I HAVE ADHD AND IM SO BORED OF THIS MOVIE OMG LOOK AT TEH JHNY DEP lolololzzzz!!! sO fUNNY lolz looz at him unz LOLZ i STILL HASNT MATURED ENOUGH TO SIT THROUGH A 2 AND HALF OUR MOVIE WITHOUT ACTION omgz i cant believe superman's SUit wasnt 2 notches lighter like it was in the comic books. omg i cant believe luthor di that becuase in issue 238 on page 4 he did this LOLZ SINGERZ HATEZ comicZ because he didnt folwo it exactly OMGZ HE hsa no imagznATION LOLZ EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY d1d som3th1ng new by adding him a kid but oh noes he must FOLOW HTE BOOKS AND MUST NOT HAVE A MIND OF h1s own omgz luthorz neverz said that IN THE COMICZ OMGZ OMGz! 1n teh COMIZ HE SAID THS OMGZ AND SUPERMAN idi thiz and lOIS DIDNT d0 th1s!!!!!! OMGZ SINERMANZ!!!!!!!!!1111111"

For most people who saw the film, if they liked it, they liked it, and if they didn't, they didn't like it; it's that simple! There was no whining; no nerdy analyzing like, "omgZ d1d u SEE THE SUPERMAN SUIT IN ISSUE ITZ ACTUALLY 2 SHADES DARKER OMGZ TEH MOV31 IS TEH suckz singerman is gay and iS a stalker cuz in teh comics he wighs lbs and in this one he wighed lbs OMGZ OMGZ NOT LIKE THE COMICZ!!!!!!111"

They saw the film, left the theatre, and went on with their lives. So please. Get. A. Life. It's OK that you didn't like the film for the reasons you didn't like it, but don't try to make yourself feel better and more normal by convincing yourself and claiming that most normal people agree with you because it's simply not true! If a general audience member didn't like the film, it's for other reasons.

Typical person who posts in this forum and whines about petty details =

That's why it dropped like a rock it's second week and continued to drop like a rock. That is why it made well below what most summer blockbusters had made opening on that weekend with no other movie in sight for a week and a half. That is why FHM goofed on the suit and said it looked girly because of the womens cut shorts, and other things? That is why it completely and totally underperformed in both domestic and WW. When ever it opened in a market, the next week it would drop like a rock. That is why the media trades have said that the summer got off to a bad start with Superman returns-quote from the New York times add you can see in my sig, which is a direct quote from that article. That is why 30+ million of it's domestic gross was made in IMAX? A pleasure that most films in the summer don't have, and that it was contracted to be in IMAX theaters till Nov. Also the fact that it was the first Hollywood film in IMAX 3D. without IMAX SR would have only made about 170 mill domestic. The only movies that took longer to make it to 200 million where movies released almost 10 years or more ago when ticket prices were half of what ticket prices were when SR opened. Superman the movie made more money in domestic than SR did, and that was 30 years ago when ticket prices where 1/4 the cost they are now. That is why you go over the internet and people goof on the movie. Yes the general audience heard word of mouth and a lot that would have gone to it did not go to this film.

But lets take some quotes from around the net:

The movie world was turned on its head and Warner Bros. absorbed a body blow as Bryan Singer's latest superhero epic was soundly ignored by movie-goers on Friday. The $200 million budgeted Superman Returns earned a weak $16.2 million, making the project no better than 50/50 to even open at $50 million once actuals are in. Considering the $11.0 million performance on Thursday, there was cause for optimism about the weekend performance. After a meager 47% increase in the movie's Friday in-take, box office analysts are faced with a single stunning conclusion. The opening of Superman Returns is a failure.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9627

O "Superman": Maybe We Really Don’t Need You
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/guy_movies/01188_o_superman_maybe_really_dont_need_you.html

Superman's Return A Dismal One
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Superman-s-Return-A-Dismal-One-2908.html

And from the only reviewer I trust, Some quotes:
But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating.

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Here is some GA blogs talking about how it is underperforming.

Oh and before you call us just fan boys, you aren't? You are posting here as a fan boy. And for some reason all of a sudden you go from not posting here at all to power poster defending the film. This so smacks of stupid Saph. This has got to be him. He has started opening multiple screen names at the same time because we caught onto his stupid opening a new one when the one he gets banned with is banned.

 

[buggs0268]

It can't be "stupid writing" since that line wasn't in the script. It was an ad lib.

Yeah well somehow it got into the film. So Bryan Singer at some point said do that line. And it is commonly known that writers do rewrites while a film is shooting, hence the different coloroed pages of scripts, and so that could have been ad libed, or rewritten into the script in one of th many rewrites. That is why writers are on set most of the time.

 

[Action ACE]

Rock on Dan.

 

[Action ACE]

That's why it dropped like a rock it's second week and continued to drop like a rock. That is why it made well below what most summer blockbusters had made opening on that weekend with no other movie in sight for a week and a half. That is why FHM goofed on the suit and said it looked girly because of the womens cut shorts, and other things? That is why it completely and totally underperformed in both domestic and WW. When ever it opened in a market, the next week it would drop like a rock. That is why the media trades have said that the summer got off to a bad start with Superman returns-quote from the New York times add you can see in my sig, which is a direct quote from that article. That is why 30+ million of it's domestic gross was made in IMAX? A pleasure that most films in the summer don't have, and that it was contracted to be in IMAX theaters till Nov. Also the fact that it was the first Hollywood film in IMAX 3D. without IMAX SR would have only made about 170 mill domestic. The only movies that took longer to make it to 200 million where movies released almost 10 years or more ago when ticket prices were half of what ticket prices were when SR opened. Superman the movie made more money in domestic than SR did, and that was 30 years ago when ticket prices where 1/4 the cost they are now. That is why you go over the internet and people goof on the movie. Yes the general audience heard word of mouth and a lot that would have gone to it did not go to this film.

But lets take some quotes from around the net:

The movie world was turned on its head and Warner Bros. absorbed a body blow as Bryan Singer's latest superhero epic was soundly ignored by movie-goers on Friday. The $200 million budgeted Superman Returns earned a weak $16.2 million, making the project no better than 50/50 to even open at $50 million once actuals are in. Considering the $11.0 million performance on Thursday, there was cause for optimism about the weekend performance. After a meager 47% increase in the movie's Friday in-take, box office analysts are faced with a single stunning conclusion. The opening of Superman Returns is a failure.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9627

O "Superman": Maybe We Really Don’t Need You
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/guy_movies/01188_o_superman_maybe_really_dont_need_you.html

Superman's Return A Dismal One
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Superman-s-Return-A-Dismal-One-2908.html

And from the only reviewer I trust, Some quotes:
But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating.

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Here is some GA blogs talking about how it is underperforming.

Oh and before you call us just fan boys, you aren't? You are posting here as a fan boy. And for some reason all of a sudden you go from not posting here at all to power poster defending the film. This so smacks of stupid Saph. This has got to be him. He has started opening multiple screen names at the same time because we caught onto his stupid opening a new one when the one he gets banned with is banned.

Which is also why it is selling so well on DVD, you *****e.

 

[PemLam]

...

 

[Dan33977]

That's why it dropped like a rock it's second week and continued to drop like a rock. That is why it made well below what most summer blockbusters had made opening on that weekend with no other movie in sight for a week and a half. That is why FHM goofed on the suit and said it looked girly because of the womens cut shorts, and other things? That is why it completely and totally underperformed in both domestic and WW. When ever it opened in a market, the next week it would drop like a rock. That is why the media trades have said that the summer got off to a bad start with Superman returns-quote from the New York times add you can see in my sig, which is a direct quote from that article. That is why 30+ million of it's domestic gross was made in IMAX? A pleasure that most films in the summer don't have, and that it was contracted to be in IMAX theaters till Nov. Also the fact that it was the first Hollywood film in IMAX 3D. without IMAX SR would have only made about 170 mill domestic. The only movies that took longer to make it to 200 million where movies released almost 10 years or more ago when ticket prices were half of what ticket prices were when SR opened. Superman the movie made more money in domestic than SR did, and that was 30 years ago when ticket prices where 1/4 the cost they are now. That is why you go over the internet and people goof on the movie. Yes the general audience heard word of mouth and a lot that would have gone to it did not go to this film.

But lets take some quotes from around the net:

The movie world was turned on its head and Warner Bros. absorbed a body blow as Bryan Singer's latest superhero epic was soundly ignored by movie-goers on Friday. The $200 million budgeted Superman Returns earned a weak $16.2 million, making the project no better than 50/50 to even open at $50 million once actuals are in. Considering the $11.0 million performance on Thursday, there was cause for optimism about the weekend performance. After a meager 47% increase in the movie's Friday in-take, box office analysts are faced with a single stunning conclusion. The opening of Superman Returns is a failure.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9627

O "Superman": Maybe We Really Don’t Need You
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/guy_movies/01188_o_superman_maybe_really_dont_need_you.html

Superman's Return A Dismal One
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Superman-s-Return-A-Dismal-One-2908.html

And from the only reviewer I trust, Some quotes:
But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating.

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Here is some GA blogs talking about how it is underperforming.

You cited various reviews and statistics as evidence of SUPERMAN RETURNS being an awful film. Do you realize that I also have the ability to cite just as many positive reviews of RETURNS as you did negative? Ultimately, this proves nothing.

Oh and before you call us just fan boys, you aren't? You are posting here as a fan boy. And for some reason all of a sudden you go from not posting here at all to power poster defending the film. This so smacks of stupid Saph. This has got to be him. He has started opening multiple screen names at the same time because we caught onto his stupid opening a new one when the one he gets banned with is banned.

Are you joking? Another idiot who posts in this forum who didn't like RETURNS accused someone who did of being this person, too. The fact that you're so paranoid that you've accused some of the people who enjoyed RETURNS of being this person is just pathetic. Hitler and his Nazis also used these tactics. The fact that after I started expressing my views in this forum, I'm suddenly being accused of being this person just speaks volumes about your character, integrity, and intelligence.

 

[Showtime]

Yeah well somehow it got into the film. So Bryan Singer at some point said do that line. And it is commonly known that writers do rewrites while a film is shooting, hence the different coloroed pages of scripts, and so that could have been ad libed, or rewritten into the script in one of th many rewrites. That is why writers are on set most of the time.

I don't need a tutorial on the art of screenwriting or the process of filmaking.

I was telling you that particular line was ad-libbed.