Superman Returns I'm not the biggest Supes fan, whats th general consensus on this film?

[Maze]

Dick Donner was so lucky he didn´t have to deal with Internet and rabid geeks in his day,

There's a story BATMAN director Tim Burton likes to tell. In 1978 Burton was still in school and was attending a big comic book convention in San Diego. The event was held just a few months before Richard Donner's big budget SUPERMAN movie was due to open and a Warner Bros press officer was there to give a slide show presentation featuring scenes from the production.

"The ballroom was packed with people," said Burton. "All eyes were glued to the screen with this poor Warner guy trying to keep it all under control. Suddenly, one fan stood up and screamed, 'Superman would never change into his costume on a ledge of a building. I'm going to boycott this movie and tell everyone you are destroying the legend! Intense applause followed as he stormed out of the hall. Wow, I thought. And from that moment on I always knew in the back of my mind the enormous problems facing anyone taking on a film version of a comic book hero.

....

 

[ultimatefan]

....

That´s funny... Imagine that multiplied by a million and that´s Internet geeks... And a great example that some of the fandom is simply impossible to please.

 

[Maze]

That´s funny... Imagine that multiplied by a million and that´s Internet geeks... And a great example that some of the fandom is simply impossible to please.

Exactly.

or maybe, you have more chances if you follow the latest comic incarnation of the comics.

Ton of fans here , that i read would have liked a post crisis incarnation.

ps: what is funny is that some seem to overlook (or don't know) that in a really selfish manner Byrne's Clark cheated in sports at shool ..and there i don't recall he was depressed ..

 

[ultimatefan]

Exactly.

or maybe, you have more chances if you follow the latest comic incarnation of the comics.

Ton of fans here , that i read would have liked a post crisis incarnation.

ps: what is funny is that some seem to overlook (or don't know) that in a really selfish manner Byrne's Clark cheated in sports at shool ..and there i don't recall he was depressed ..

But then again Donner took lotsa liberties with the current comics of the time and these days almost all geeks call his movie the blueprint of adaptations. His take was actually ahead of post-crisis in a number of ways. I didn´t read all of Byrne´s take, but didn´t he do Superman causing the death of some villains?

 

[Maze]

But then again Donner took lotsa liberties with the current comics of the time and these days almost all geeks call his movie the blueprint of adaptations. His take was actually ahead of post-crisis in a number of ways. I didn´t read all of Byrne´s take, but didn´t he do Superman causing the death of some villains?

Yep he did.

Byrne wanted a "tougher" Superman.

 

[Maze]

..Byrne:

"The traditional DC characters have been perceived as dull and bland because they don't 'abuse' their powers the way that Marvel characters do," Byrne claims. "The appeal of Wolverine is not that he is a tortured soul who struggles against his inner demons. The appeal of Wolverine is that he cuts people up. The appeal of Spider-Man is (a) no matter how bad your personal life is, his is worse, and (b) he puts on a costume and goes out and beats up people who get in his way, which is what we would all really like to do.
The first murder
DC characters traditionally - but no longer - have instead put the costume on and gone out to do Noble Stuff. These days Batman breaks people's legs."

So in addition to Superman's enjoying his powers, he is also going to indulge in what Byrne calls "a very controlled 'abuse' of his powers." Byrne takes pains to point out that "abuse" is not quite the right word: "Superman would never abuse his powers; that's what makes him Superman." But within the limits he imposes on himself, Superman will get "tougher," Byrne says, with his adversaries than he has been in the past. It is this new, tougher, more aggressive attitude which Byrne is referring to when he compares Superman to Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry in interviews.

"The subtlest example of this," Byrne says, "and my favorite Superman line in my stories so far, comes in the second issue when Superman's flying Lois back to her apartment and she says, 'You know where I live?' And he says, 'Of course, Miss Lane. I know where everyone lives.' And maybe he does. Why wouldn't he? He certainly could if he wanted to. It's Superman as Santa Claus: you'd better watch out."

 

[ultimatefan]

..Byrne:

Heh, and people say Singer betrays the essence of Superman but claim he should follow post-crisis take... Go figure. Maybe he should have also got Superman with a mullet, Red Flash/Blue Flash Superman...

 

[Maze]

Heh, and people say Singer betrays the essence of Superman but claim he should follow post-crisis take... Go figure. Maybe he should have also got Superman with a mullet, Red Flash/Blue Flash Superman...

Lol

 

[charl_huntress]

Personally, I think it depends on which sort of fanboy or girl you are talking to here on the Hype. Not everyone here is the same, and I believe the general comic consensus is the movie was a bit boring, lacking in action, and color-less. I also think the STAS/JLU/Timm crowd feels the same way.

I think Singer forgot the last ten years of Superman history and the folks who had been watching that history were obviously left out. Most folks in those categories did not like the movie, and some like me vehemently have problems with it.

Yet, a general movie goer might just have found it...alright, okay, or good. That's what I see mostly.

 

[bosef982]

Problem is, one says they think Superman Returns is a great film and many oversensitive naysayers run with it and decry you as thinking the film is "perfect." Which is sooooo funny since many of the people I know who love this film have certain gripes --- and in some cases the same gripes as others -- when it comes to the film but for some reason are able to accept these gripes as they are: differences over opinion of the character.

I go to a movie to watch a movie. As a film, Superman Returns is quite spectacular. Is it flawed? Surely, yes. I don't know a director alive who'd say that the films they put out are perfect.

It's just that, with such polarizing negativity over this film, which let's face it started with the subtle remarks abour Routh and Singer's sexuality, the costume, and really just spiraled downward....those who would detract from this film started the debate on a very bad and sour foot tha really hasnt been forgotten. While supporters are not without fault. I didn't see them running around bringing up alleged accusations of Singer's sex life, Routh's sex life, lamblasting Lois Lane as a ****e, and decrying the actions of Superman as "date-rape." When you start a debate like that, you can't get all surprised when it gets personal and very vicious.

Oh well...

 

[bosef982]

Personally, I think it depends on which sort of fanboy or girl you are talking to here on the Hype. Not everyone here is the same, and I believe the general comic consensus is the movie was a bit boring, lacking in action, and color-less. I also think the STAS/JLU/Timm crowd feels the same way.

I think Singer forgot the last ten years of Superman history and the folks who had been watching that history were obviously left out. Most folks in those categories did not like the movie, and some like me vehemently have problems with it.

Yet, a general movie goer might just have found it...alright, okay, or good. That's what I see mostly.

Isn't it funny that those who disliked the movie feel the public didn't and those who loved it feel the public did....what does this show?

That no one really knows.

I can only speak from my friends and family, all of which liked the movie a great deal. I can't speak for the public. Superman Returns did good money, no one can deny that. calling a $400 million dollar film a flop is just foolish and everyone who does so knows they're doing it just to take a pot-shot. Critically, the movie was one of the best reviewed films of the summer.

So Carl, I'd say YOU found it boring, lacking in action, and colorless...not the public. You can't speak for the public because, quite simply, you're not. The closest indicator we have of "public opinion" is the synthesis of ticket sales, DVD sales, and critical reviews -- the first of which was solid, the second of which is to be determined, and the last of which were astounding.

I don't know what reality people dip into to make their arguments but there are such things as FACTS and they can co-opt opinions, regardless of SHH's persitent motto to entitle everyone to their opinion despite the facts saying otherwise. There are matters of interpreation and matters of manipulation....

 

[buggs0268]

TOTALLY UNORIGINAL REHASH!!! A LOAD OF GARBAGE THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE EVER BEEN MADE and DISRESPECTS THE SOURCE MATERIAL THAT HAS DEVELOPED SINCE THE DAYS OF REEVE AND HACKMAN!!!!1 ARGHHHH AND THE SUIT SUCKS.

You took the words right out of me mouth. And everyone I know who saw the film that I have asked said the same thing.

 

[buggs0268]

Personally, I think it depends on which sort of fanboy or girl you are talking to here on the Hype. Not everyone here is the same, and I believe the general comic consensus is the movie was a bit boring, lacking in action, and color-less. I also think the STAS/JLU/Timm crowd feels the same way.

I think Singer forgot the last ten years of Superman history and the folks who had been watching that history were obviously left out. Most folks in those categories did not like the movie, and some like me vehemently have problems with it.

Yet, a general movie goer might just have found it...alright, okay, or good. That's what I see mostly.

And even following the Donner continuity only, many still feel it was a letdown and a pale, pale attempt at what Donner/Mank did. And we see that even more with the release of the Donner cut. Donner/Mank just got the character right without making him boring. And you know what. He was more human, and at the same time more God like than Singerman ever was.

 

[Thot]

My grade for the film was a solid "C". It was good in some ways and piss poor in others. It was just "meh" at best. Definitely forgettable. Singer has a chance to "wow" audiences with the next one. It's possible. But he sure as heck didn't do it with this one. My guess is that stores will be putting SR in the discount bin soon after Christmas.

 

[charl_huntress]

Isn't it funny that those who disliked the movie feel the public didn't and those who loved it feel the public did....what does this show?

That no one really knows.

I can only speak from my friends and family, all of which liked the movie a great deal. I can't speak for the public. Superman Returns did good money, no one can deny that. calling a $400 million dollar film a flop is just foolish and everyone who does so knows they're doing it just to take a pot-shot. Critically, the movie was one of the best reviewed films of the summer.

So Carl, I'd say YOU found it boring, lacking in action, and colorless...not the public. You can't speak for the public because, quite simply, you're not. The closest indicator we have of "public opinion" is the synthesis of ticket sales, DVD sales, and critical reviews -- the first of which was solid, the second of which is to be determined, and the last of which were astounding.

I don't know what reality people dip into to make their arguments but there are such things as FACTS and they can co-opt opinions, regardless of SHH's persitent motto to entitle everyone to their opinion despite the facts saying otherwise. There are matters of interpreation and matters of manipulation....

A good film barely makes it budget back. A great/memorable/non-solid film is a hit in all categories!

So...do you want to hype up how GOOD or SOLID SR did all the relevant categories you mentioned, or do you want to say it hit the mark and was a total success like...say...Spiderman?

I guess I don't speak for the public, but I think they spoke for themselves and it's generally agreed SR was JUST OKAY/SOLID/GOOD in all the categories you mentioned. That's how it performed...SOLID.

NOW...perhaps you thought the film was great and spectacular, but you don't speak for the GP either.

So....

 

[bosef982]

I good film barely makes it budget back. A great films is hit in all categories.

So...do you want to hype up how GOOD SR did all the relevant categories you mentioned, or do you want to say it hit the mark and was a total success like...say...Spiderman.

I guess I don't speak for the public, but I think they spoke for themselves and it's generally agreed SR was JUST OKAY in all the categories you mentioned. That's how it performed.

NOW...perhaps you thought the film was great and spectacular, but you don't speak for the GP either.

So....

Wait a second, let's see...did I speak for the public. Nope. I listed facts.

Critically Superman did very very well. There were news coverages ON how well it was doing.

$$ wise, it did well. Just because it didn't do as well as Spider-Man doesn't mean it wasn't a great film. Period. $$ does not make a great film. If that's how you judge a movie, I'll stop this conversation now because we obviously view aesthetics differently.

Also, the part I bolded above I'd like to respond to if you'd actually given me to different choices. Maybe you were trying to bait me but for me to "hype up" Superman (you using hype up in a negative way) to say it was a success is the same exact thing as me "saying" it's a hit lke Spider-man. What was your point there?

I don't think I've even mentioned Spider-Man, so that Straw man has no relevance here. I said the movie performed very well. It was critically reviewed amazingly. What about those two statements can you disprove?

I didn't say it performed to WB's expectations -- it didn't. Though, I coudl make the argument that WB had unrealistic expectations. So what?

But what about my original post are you taking issue with on a factual basis?

 

[charl_huntress]

Isn't it funny that those who disliked the movie feel the public didn't and those who loved it feel the public did....what does this show?

That no one really knows.

This is what I am responding to because folks like to bring up the general public. However, the GP response was not big enough, excited enough, or interested enough to bring this movie fully into the black. SR barely made it's budget back, so I don't see how you speak on the public yet not add up the money the public spent for this movie.

What other determinant can you use to judge what the public thought, except how much they actually doughed up for?

Reviews are not the GP, so they don't count.

edit:

And since I know you are about to say that money doesn't matter...again.

I will say Spiderman had critical reviews...AND money.

 

[buggs0268]

Only news coverage I remember was on how bad it was doing at the B.O.. How it really underperformed to pre-release expectations. And how Pirates pretty much killed it at the box office after it was released. I also remember reports on how it did not even come close to what experts expected it too on its first weekend take from release to Monday the 5th. That is what I remember. I honestly and truly don't remember any coverage on it doing good at all. Not trying to argue, but I just don't remember any good coverage on it other than it was under performing. Honestly and truly I don't. And as you can see in my avatar from my quote from the New York Times article, that says it all. Hell, in Europe they were even asking Singer and the cast how they felt about Pirates virtually spanking it in the theaters and that was in it's second week out.

 

[charl_huntress]

Only news coverage I remember was on how bad it was doing at the B.O.. How it really underperformed to pre-release expectations. And how Pirates pretty much killed it at the box office after it was released. I also remember reports on how it did not even come close to what experts expected it too on its first weekend take from release to Monday the 5th. That is what I remember. I honestly and truly don't remember any coverage on it doing good at all. Not trying to argue, but I just don't remember any good coverage on it other than it was under performing. And as you can see in my avatar from my quote from the New York Times article, that says it all. Hell, in Europe they were even asking Singer and the cast how they felt about Pirates virtually spanking it in the theaters and that was in it's second week out.

So, what were we talking about again, buggs? I forget.

 

[buggs0268]

So, what were we talking about again, buggs? I forget.

Beats me. I know I need to go to bed and get me some sleep. Talk to you tommorrow.

 

[ultimatefan]

Problem is, one says they think Superman Returns is a great film and many oversensitive naysayers run with it and decry you as thinking the film is "perfect." Which is sooooo funny since many of the people I know who love this film have certain gripes --- and in some cases the same gripes as others -- when it comes to the film but for some reason are able to accept these gripes as they are: differences over opinion of the character.

I go to a movie to watch a movie. As a film, Superman Returns is quite spectacular. Is it flawed? Surely, yes. I don't know a director alive who'd say that the films they put out are perfect.

It's just that, with such polarizing negativity over this film, which let's face it started with the subtle remarks abour Routh and Singer's sexuality, the costume, and really just spiraled downward....those who would detract from this film started the debate on a very bad and sour foot tha really hasnt been forgotten. While supporters are not without fault. I didn't see them running around bringing up alleged accusations of Singer's sex life, Routh's sex life, lamblasting Lois Lane as a ****e, and decrying the actions of Superman as "date-rape." When you start a debate like that, you can't get all surprised when it gets personal and very vicious.

Oh well...

Exactly. We like this movie, but we can see it has certain flaws, some of the same pointed out by the naysayers. It´s funny how in these boards I´m part of the "blinded sheep" while in the Fantastic Four ones - and that´s a hit movie that´s getting a sequel - Í´m one of the "naysayers who can´t be pleased". And yeah, some people took elements of the movie´s way out of the actual proportion. Actually, a lot of them had decided they´d dislike the movie before they saw any footage.

 

[ultimatefan]

Isn't it funny that those who disliked the movie feel the public didn't and those who loved it feel the public did....what does this show?

That no one really knows.

I can only speak from my friends and family, all of which liked the movie a great deal. I can't speak for the public. Superman Returns did good money, no one can deny that. calling a $400 million dollar film a flop is just foolish and everyone who does so knows they're doing it just to take a pot-shot. Critically, the movie was one of the best reviewed films of the summer.

So Carl, I'd say YOU found it boring, lacking in action, and colorless...not the public. You can't speak for the public because, quite simply, you're not. The closest indicator we have of "public opinion" is the synthesis of ticket sales, DVD sales, and critical reviews -- the first of which was solid, the second of which is to be determined, and the last of which were astounding.

I don't know what reality people dip into to make their arguments but there are such things as FACTS and they can co-opt opinions, regardless of SHH's persitent motto to entitle everyone to their opinion despite the facts saying otherwise. There are matters of interpreation and matters of manipulation....

Yeah, people describe the general audience reaction, positive or negative, like it´s their own. The facts? The movie had positive reviews, had relatively low week-to-week drops for most of its run, got good grades from a number of movie-related sites like IMDB, Rottentomatoes and Yahoo: Movies. No, it wasn´t received with the same enthusiasm as, say, Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins, and no, it wasn´t the major blockbuster the studio was hoping for, but it´s far from being seen as a horrible bomb like some so desperately want to label it.

 

[Maze]

A good film barely makes it budget back. A great/memorable/non-solid film is a hit in all categories!

Woahh , tell that to Riddley Scott , he would be really happy to know that in another timeline , Blade Runner was such a big hit .and the example are countless.

Ps: you have a representation of the Gp on imdb, rotten tomatoes , yahoo and countless sites .

The bottom line: believe or not Superman returns is liked.

so what? you have still your opnion?

 

[Immortalfire]

I think in ten years, people will look back on Superman Returns as the best of the 2000s superhero movie boom.

Ain't no way.

 

[Maze]

Ain't no way.

Again , maybe not yes.

Or the other way around.

What i know is to this day i know a lot of people who are still talking about this movie. and not just because of the kid , of the so called irresponsability of Superman.