Superman Returns One year later, and with two months to go, where do you stand?

[Showtime]

hahahahahhhahahhahahah hahahhahahah hahahhahahahhah haha
now that you reminded me not. hehe.

seriously: showtime if you look back i always wrote that i just want a pic of him flying. like this. i think this will make it easier to wait until the trailer .it will be hard but easier

Good luck you maniac.

 

[Mentok]

I am quite pleased with how the red is looking there also, the cape seems alot lighter and more animated (as opposed to the shots we already have)

These are the kinds of pictures we should have been getting from the very start.

 

[The Kid]

yeah he looks great there. And he's got a young dean caine look to him.

 

[DavidTyler]

Post-Crisis sucks!

thanks for sharing.


I don't share your high opinion of pre-crisis.

 

[ultimatefan]

Well, the mood here is definitely more optimistic than it was back then, and why wouldn´t it be? I always had confidence in Singer, my only doubt was whether he could handle the epic feel of Superman and the teaser convinced me he could. I wasn´t worried about that first pic of the suit cuz I been here a while and I know how these things work, get a better, iconic pic and it starts to grown on people, and it has. I think Routh is a bit boyish, but in the end of the day it´s the performance that makes or breaks it. As for the baby story, I really doubt a filmmaker like Singer will go the easy route and say it´s Clark´s kid - if I´m not wrong, he even already said in an interview that it´s not. I´d say the Superman franchise is in great hands.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

As much as I agree with this point... it's a small problem compared to the possiblity of Superman having a son in SR. That's a HUGE problem. And mind you... how exactly do you know that people aren't going to be as confused with this "vague history" bull***** as with the restart thing? I've been following this movie since day 1 and still don't know WTF that means... and I don't think anyone does... not even Singer.

Agreed. By the end of Batman Begins, people got it was a re-start. As soon as the audience saw that someone not named "Jack" killed Bruce's parents, and was shot dead and never became the Joker...I think it was pretty damn apparent it was a re-start. Regardless of the color of costumes or how similar it may have looked to previous Bat-suits, that was damn evident. The whole situation surrounding Superman Returns is even more botched, messy and confusing than anything anyone could possibly imagine. They needed to do a full re-start with Superman as well for the new era, but Singer was either too afraid to do that, or he simply doesn't know what he is doing. I don't know what "vague history" is, and neither does Singer. Its like a pre-sequel...its so ****ing stupid. Either completely ignore the cheese fest films that came prior to this and start a new, or don't make a quasi-sequel film at all. People in the audience will be dumb founded with what is going on. Where does the continuity take place? Is any sequel after Returns taking place before Superman II, III, and IV? It's ******ed how they pigeon holed themselves with this mucked up backstory and continuity.

I actually think that Superman may not even make Batman Begins numbers...and as my boy, The Riddler says, there is no way in hell it will touch Spidey's numbers.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

Batman Begins didn't make its money on its name. Actually, quite the contrary. It made a major amount of money after the appeal of the name went down, and word of mouth spread about how it was a serious and very good film. Otherwise, it wouldn't have even made what it did without it being a good story.

 

[Octoberist]

Batman Begins became a critical sucess, espically thru DVD. To the point where it's box office receipt didn't matter.

The issue with SUperman's vague connection to the Donner films is this: I would rather have this then to have a complete restart. Why? I don't want to see an origins movie again. I've seen already, and it would be boring.

However, certain elements in "Return" concern me (Lex Luthor, the kid, made-up sidekick villains), but not enough to ruin my excitement.

 

[Cinemaman]

Batman Begins became a critical sucess, espically thru DVD. To the point where it's box office receipt didn't matter.

The issue with SUperman's vague connection to the Donner films is this: I would rather have this then to have a complete restart. Why? I don't want to see an origins movie again. I've seen already, and it would be boring.

However, certain elements in "Return" concern me (Lex Luthor, the kid, made-up sidekick villains), but not enough to ruin my excitement.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

You could have a re-start that follows the Birthright story. THAT would be more exciting than any Superman movie thus far. And we'd actually get to see him battle Super-villains and not just using his powers to save people from busted airplanes, or rescuing cats from trees....

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I am quite pleased with how the red is looking there also, the cape seems alot lighter and more animated (as opposed to the shots we already have)

These are the kinds of pictures we should have been getting from the very start.

Agreed, it seems like the pictures keep getting better.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

It made a major amount of money after the appeal of the name went down,

No it didn't. Batman Begins had a relatively short run at major theaters, and just like every blockbuster, made about half of it's total domestic gross in the first two weeks. Word of mouth was good, yes, but there's nothing in the numbers that says the word of mouth lifted it above the fact that it was a "Batman" movie.

 

[ultimatefan]

No it didn't. Batman Begins had a relatively short run at major theaters, and just like every blockbuster, made about half of it's total domestic gross in the first two weeks. Word of mouth was good, yes, but there's nothing in the numbers that says the word of mouth lifted it above the fact that it was a "Batman" movie.

The opening weekend was deemed disappointing. The movie became a hit because of its post-opening performance, due to positive word-of-mouth. It made four times its opening weekend, quite above the average performance for summer blockbusters.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

it was deemed disappointing due to overinflated expectations. the first and second weekends close to half the overall take (75 mil), and the first two full weeks definitely made over half the overall take. pretty safely. :

Jun 17–19 1 $48,745,440 - 3,858 - $12,634 $72,896,986 1
Jun 24–26 1 $27,589,389 -43.4% 3,858 - $7,151 $122,511,813 2
Jul 1–3 2 $15,609,638 -43.4% 3,765 -93 $4,145 $151,070,575 3
Jul 1–4 2 $19,339,432 -29.9% 3,765 -93 $5,136 $154,800,369 3
Jul 8–10 3 $10,012,444 -35.9% 3,344 -421 $2,994 $171,901,777 4
Jul 15–17 5 $6,035,300 -39.7% 2,810 -534 $2,147 $183,140,850 5
Jul 22–24 9 $4,727,469 -21.7% 2,275 -535 $2,078 $191,105,194 6
Jul 29–31 13 $2,448,225 -48.2% 1,601 -674 $1,529 $195,875,532 7
Aug 5–7 13 $1,822,445 -25.6% 1,192 -409 $1,528 $199,088,386 8
Aug 12–14 16 $1,050,497 -42.4% 710 -482 $1,479 $201,149,986 9

Nice little uptick for July 4th weekend, but other than that, nothing too different from your typical blockbuster. Yes, being a good Batman movie helped, but the draw was still that it was a Batman movie. The appeal of the name never went down. The name was always what propelled it. "it's supposed to be a good batman movie."

None of those numbers came about because people were going "Oh, I heard it was a good movie about that one guy who dresses up like a rodent or whatever." They knew it was Batman.

 

[The Sage]

Agreed. By the end of Batman Begins, people got it was a re-start. As soon as the audience saw that someone not named "Jack" killed Bruce's parents, and was shot dead and never became the Joker...I think it was pretty damn apparent it was a re-start. Regardless of the color of costumes or how similar it may have looked to previous Bat-suits, that was damn evident. The whole situation surrounding Superman Returns is even more botched, messy and confusing than anything anyone could possibly imagine. They needed to do a full re-start with Superman as well for the new era, but Singer was either too afraid to do that, or he simply doesn't know what he is doing. I don't know what "vague history" is, and neither does Singer. Its like a pre-sequel...its so ****ing stupid. Either completely ignore the cheese fest films that came prior to this and start a new, or don't make a quasi-sequel film at all. People in the audience will be dumb founded with what is going on. Where does the continuity take place? Is any sequel after Returns taking place before Superman II, III, and IV? It's ******ed how they pigeon holed themselves with this mucked up backstory and continuity.

Here's my theory on the audience and the vague history: No one's gonna give a crap. Considering it's been said it's not required that you see those past films, I think the movie's gonna give the audience whatever backstory they need to follow the movie.

People aren't going to care about what continuity it takes place in. It didn't bother the audience that James Bond was late 30 something in every movie he's been in since the 1960s. They just watched the movie.

If you can't call it a restart, cool. Call it a revamp.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

The opening weekend was deemed disappointing. The movie became a hit because of its post-opening performance, due to positive word-of-mouth. It made four times its opening weekend, quite above the average performance for summer blockbusters.

Exactly.

 

[musclesforsupes]

I am quite pleased with how the red is looking there also, the cape seems alot lighter and more animated (as opposed to the shots we already have)

These are the kinds of pictures we should have been getting from the very start.

WOW BEST PIC I HAVE SEEN YET IF THATS IS A TRUE PIC.

 

[Showtime]

WOW BEST PIC I HAVE SEEN YET IF THATS IS A TRUE PIC.

It's official, it's from Time magazine. I have the magazine right at my desk, just picked it up. Along with the new Entertainment and Sci Fi mags.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Exactly.

Nope.

 

[musclesforsupes]

It's official, it's from Time magazine. I have the magazine right at my desk, just picked it up. Along with the new Entertainment and Sci Fi mags.

Me like Why couldnt the WB release these pics last year, then none of this damm bad PR would have started.

 

[Showtime]

It might be a shot from the film or even the teaser, I think that is still up for debate.

 

[dark_b]

is the magazine is already out? someone needs to make a big scan.

thanks guys. we need a bigger version

 

[ultimatefan]

Nope.

Why? It was all over the media coverage of the summer, how Batman Begins was a summer movie that didn´t have the bombastic opening weekend but succeeded thanks to its positive reviews and word-of-mouth. Most summer movies make two and a half, three times their opening weekends at best, and BB made four.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

The numbers are up there. The 2nd weekend is just as important as the first--and most blockbusters make, if they're lucky, 2 times the first two weekends. Same with this one.

I'm not saying the positive word of mouth didn't help--but the positive word of mouth didn't MAKE the movie. Batman did. Your argument is that after the 3rd weekend, people went because they heard it was a good movie, regardless of whether Batman was in it. That's not the case.

 

[BareKnucklez]

I am quite pleased with how the red is looking there also, the cape seems alot lighter and more animated (as opposed to the shots we already have)

These are the kinds of pictures we should have been getting from the very start.

Like how the suits colors look there but still not a fan of Brandon's Superman look.. Dude looks like Superboy in that picture big time!
Just not Superman!

He just hasn't won me over as you can tell, and Probably wont but ill still see the flick lol.