Superman Returns Superman Returns:Final Thoughts

[PemLam]

How are those tarrot cards working for you Miss Cleo?

LMAO t:

 

[Showtime]

Problem with that, even though I don't accept your caricature of Reeve, is that Routh is no Reeve by any measure.

Ten years from now Routh will be all but be forgotten, but Reeve will still be remembered. You are fighting a losing fight.

Reeve was known as a fantastic stage actor but never made it movies besides his potrayal of Superman, that is what he is know for. HE IS SUPERMAN.

How do you know Routh will be forgotten and Reeve will be remembered? What fight am I exactly losing? If it is the "Who Can Create the Biggest Spin", then I am definately losing.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Christoper Reeve was Superman for 2 generations,Routh wont be able to fill his shoes.The whole concept of SR was..in my say to perhaps review the man of steel,to make him more mortal.In ways people can identify with now,that`s why Lois had a child and moved on.

But there are some things that should not be tampered with,personally..i do agree that the film franchise is in trouble...and if there is a sequel it will be definately different...more streamlined to the first and second films from the 1970`s.

 

[lexlives]

Christoper Reeve was Superman for 2 generations,Routh wont be able to fill his shoes.The whole concept of SR was..in my say to perhaps review the man of steel,to make him more mortal.In ways people can identify with now,that`s why Lois had a child and moved on.

But there are some things that should not be tampered with,personally..i do agree that the film franchise is in trouble...and if there is a sequel it will be definately different...more streamlined to the first and second films from the 1970`s.

The franchise is in deep trouble in part because of what you say - they tried to make Superman more like us. In a way Spideramn is. But Spiderman already has that niche carved out. It was a doomed effort.

If there is a Singer sequel I see no indication it will be different aside from more action. Heck, Singer is talking about more airtime for the kid in a sequel. He does not get it and the best things for fans will be WB deciding to put the franchise on hold for a while and re-think things. See how the Hulk does.

This is the Hulk all over again and as Gabe at DVDACTIVE said WB should have seen it coming:

"Warner Bros. shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that their $270 million investment didn't show a return based on the returns and public opinion of Universal's 2003 comic book release, Hulk. Hulk was an artistically and emotionally ambitious film released to an audience that wanted to see smashing. It's a flawed film, but one that I adore, and one that cannot be accused of being unoriginal. The overall idea of Superman Returns, a superhero film featuring an infinitely powerful character feeling sorry for himself and lost in the world, is very similar to that of Ang Lee's giant green box-office flop. If Hulk was a superhero movie by way of a Chinese opera, Superman Returns is a superhero movie by way of a trashy romance novel as written by someone like Arthur Miller. Kind of."


Like I said WB needs to follow what the studio did after the Hulk bombed. And that is definitely not continuing with a failed vision. The studio is doing everything it cn to put distance between the new Hulk film and the earlier failed attempt. Hopefully WB will in the end do the same.

 

[Maze]

from the same reviewer , his conclusion:

A flawed film, no doubt, Superman Returns is better on a second viewing. It's melancholy nature may turn off most viewers, but those willing to take such a sad journey are lucky enough to enjoy some top notch performances and a striking visual look. It isn't quite the overwhelming romantic tear-jerking Singer wanted it to be, but it also doesn't deserve the mediocre fate it seems to have inherited. The DVD has a flawed video transfer, but a great audio presentation, and some decent special features. I've no doubt that a double dip is in our future, but I think at least a rental is in order. Super-fans really should give it a second chance.

t:

 

[Showtime]

Well...well...well...it's different when you read the WHOLE REVIEW. Do I hear the sound of something...or somebody...SPINNING?

 

[Manhunter]

to every flick...spin, spin, spin
there is a...

 

[Showtime]

Sing it for me OG...

 

[lexlives]

Well...well...well...it's different when you read the WHOLE REVIEW. Do I hear the sound of something...or somebody...SPINNING?

Not at all - here is another excerpt:

It's concerned with emotion and levity even more than spectacle or entertainment. It is this sad streak that was the film's ultimate downfall, but it's also the only thing that made the film at all memorable to me


Not he refeers to SR as ultimately having fallen.

By all means read the whole aritcle and tell me - what grade does it it translate into C- you think? That ain't spin.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Not at all - here is another excerpt:

It's concerned with emotion and levity even more than spectacle or entertainment. It is this sad streak that was the film's ultimate downfall, but it's also the only thing that made the film at all memorable to me


Not he refeers to SR as ultimately having fallen.

By all means read the whole aritcle and tell me - what grade does it it translate into C- you think? That ain't spin.

You're also ignoring the fact that he liked the film better second time round. Oh well, whatever makes your spin sound better to you.

Just keep spinning, just keep spinning, spinning, spinning. What do we do? We spin, spin, spin.

 

[Showtime]

Not at all - here is another excerpt:

It's concerned with emotion and levity even more than spectacle or entertainment. It is this sad streak that was the film's ultimate downfall, but it's also the only thing that made the film at all memorable to me


Not he refeers to SR as ultimately having fallen.

By all means read the whole aritcle and tell me - what grade does it it translate into C- you think? That ain't spin.

He didn't rip the film from top to bottom, and please don't act like you aren't spinning every article, every situation, every quote. It's fine if that is what you want to do, but don't pretend. You're not fooling anybody.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Actually,a thought just came to me.It was after reading some of the other threads here,and i wondered...Superman Returns had an average turnout.But why make a sequel?The reason could be that Warner Brothers had invested so much into the Superman movie franchise,that they HAD to make a sequel.Money reasons,it would make sence.What do others think...when they factor in money?

 

[dude stannis]

You spin me right round baby right round. Like a record baby right round, right round.

Jourmugand, the turnout was average because of the budget, but it still drew more than every other modern era comic book movie bar the two Spiderman movies and two X-Men sequels. Now that the sets, costumes, flying technology already exists, the film will be about 30 million cheaper (Alan Horn says so). Meaning if it does say 350 million worldwide, the movie will still be a success. We'll have to wait for The Dark Knight to come out and see if it does 400 million or 300 million, before we can more accurately judge Superman.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

My final thought on Superman Returns is a wonderful movie, but not the one today's audiences wanted.

 

[Matt]

You spin me right round baby right round. Like a record baby right round, right round.

Jourmugand, the turnout was average because of the budget, but it still drew more than every other modern era comic book movie bar the two Spiderman movies and two X-Men sequels. Now that the sets, costumes, flying technology already exists, the film will be about 30 million cheaper (Alan Horn says so). Meaning if it does say 350 million worldwide, the movie will still be a success. We'll have to wait for The Dark Knight to come out and see if it does 400 million or 300 million, before we can more accurately judge Superman.

Comparrison of The Dark Knight and SR is unfair. They have two entirely different audiences. Superman can best be compared to Spider-Man in terms of demographics.

 

[Showtime]

Comparrison of The Dark Knight and SR is unfair. They have two entirely different audiences. Superman can best be compared to Spider-Man in terms of demographics.

I agree with that, and I believe that Spiderman stole Superman's thunder because Superman was in development hell for so long.

 

[Cryogenic]

Don't like this film.

It suffered from WAY too many problems.

One of them was too much realism (like BB) -- bleak photography, average lines, brutality (e.g. Lois getting flung around inside the plane, Lois being struck on the head, Superman being kicked, punched and stabbed). Quite a sinister film, really.

It also opened in the most antithetical way possible -- with Lex Luthor and a darkened mansion in a lightning storm. Was this Superman or Batman?

The CG was very mixed -- sometimes heart-stopping, but often just plain bad.

Routh and Bosworth were far too young to be playing iconic characters that are meant to have had a history. Routh was the same age as Reeve in STM, but at least Reeve still LOOKED older, and was playing the character in his early stages. Bosworth was 21 -- almost ten years younger than Margot Kidder, yet she was meant to have slept with Superman five years earlier, making Superman 19/20 and her 16! Utterly ridiculous.

Too much was lifted from Supermans I and II. SR felt more like a fanfilm.

The cinematography was awful -- all blues and greys. The texture of the entire film was off. The Genesis camera was a mistake from an artistic POV (though I bet it saved them money). Contrast was very harsh with little detail. Singer also shot most of the film in closeup or medium; very few wide shots of any distinction or note. It looked somewhere between a TV movie and an actual feature film. From a colour/contrast POV, even "Smallville" has better photography. Comparing this to Unsworth and Paynter's work on "Superman The Movie" and "Superman II" is a joke.

The music was dull and average at best. Williams' Main Theme was heavily truncated in the opening credits sequence, Ottman's own themes were bland, and he chopped up and messed around with Williams' other themes (e.g. "Leaving Home" was played when Martha was looking up at the hospital -- completely destroying the bucolic feel of the piece).

Production design was unremarkable. The Art Deco stylings were nice, but hardly taken anywhere. It was like everyone was either inept or too shy to do anything different. Everything in the first Superman movies stood out -- Krypton, Smallville, Luthor's lair, the Daily Planet, Lois' apartment...

There was virtually no sense of fun and excitement. Lois and Clark had hardly any scenes or chemistry, ditto Clark and Lex, Superman's return was extremely underwhelming (e.g. the alleyway transformation wasn't a patch on anything Donner did or Lester's own alley scene from "Superman II", the plane rescue sequence was edited into a thousand pieces, there was very little emphasis on Superman's absence / return etc.) and the whole thing was moody and morose. Even the Fortress of Solitude was a dark and threatening place in this movie -- completely contradicting what Richard Donner and John Barry achieved. Perry was also dour and acted like he'd had a lobotomy.

Superman's son was glossed over. There was no real connection between the two until the end -- in which Singer just ripped Jor El's speech wholesale from the first film. He probably thought this was cute, but it was just trite and obvious.

Most of the actors looked like they were just going through the motions. Spacey was a bore, Bosworth just played a moody mother and even Routh didn't do a great deal. This film needed a different approach. Parker Posey should have been cast as an older Lois. She's got the looks and the acting chops. Everything could have been built from there.

I saw this ONCE in the cinema and it was enough.

P.S. I wish Brandon Routh the best of luck. He was a natural for this part -- but too young, and Singer didn't allow him to spread his wings. I hope he finds greater success in the future.

 

[lexlives]

Don't like this film.

It suffered from WAY too many problems.

One of them was too much realism (like BB) -- bleak photography, average lines, brutality (e.g. Lois getting flung around inside the plane, Lois being struck on the head, Superman being kicked, punched and stabbed). Quite a sinister film, really.

It also opened in the most antithetical way possible -- with Lex Luthor and a darkened mansion in a lightning storm. Was this Superman or Batman?

The CG was very mixed -- sometimes heart-stopping, but often just plain bad.

Routh and Bosworth were far too young to be playing iconic characters that are meant to have had a history. Routh was the same age as Reeve in STM, but at least Reeve still LOOKED older, and was playing the character in his early stages. Bosworth was 21 -- almost ten years younger than Margot Kidder, yet she was meant to have slept with Superman five years earlier, making Superman 19/20 and her 16! Utterly ridiculous.

Too much was lifted from Supermans I and II. SR felt more like a fanfilm.

The cinematography was awful -- all blues and greys. The texture of the entire film was off. The Genesis camera was a mistake from an artistic POV (though I bet it saved them money). Contrast was very harsh with little detail. Singer also shot most of the film in closeup or medium; very few wide shots of any distinction or note. It looked somewhere between a TV movie and an actual feature film. From a colour/contrast POV, even "Smallville" has better photography. Comparing this to Unsworth and Paynter's work on "Superman The Movie" and "Superman II" is a joke.

The music was dull and average at best. Williams' Main Theme was heavily truncated in the opening credits sequence, Ottman's own themes were bland, and he chopped up and messed around with Williams' other themes (e.g. "Leaving Home" was played when Martha was looking up at the hospital -- completely destroying the bucolic feel of the piece).

Production design was unremarkable. The Art Deco stylings were nice, but hardly taken anywhere. It was like everyone was either inept or too shy to do anything different. Everything in the first Superman movies stood out -- Krypton, Smallville, Luthor's lair, the Daily Planet, Lois' apartment...

There was virtually no sense of fun and excitement. Lois and Clark had hardly any scenes or chemistry, ditto Clark and Lex, Superman's return was extremely underwhelming (e.g. the alleyway transformation wasn't a patch on anything Donner did or Lester's own alley scene from "Superman II", the plane rescue sequence was edited into a thousand pieces, there was very little emphasis on Superman's absence / return etc.) and the whole thing was moody and morose. Even the Fortress of Solitude was a dark and threatening place in this movie -- completely contradicting what Richard Donner and John Barry achieved. Perry was also dour and acted like he'd had a lobotomy.

Superman's son was glossed over. There was no real connection between the two until the end -- in which Singer just ripped Jor El's speech wholesale from the first film. He probably thought this was cute, but it was just trite and obvious.

Most of the actors looked like they were just going through the motions. Spacey was a bore, Bosworth just played a moody mother and even Routh didn't do a great deal. This film needed a different approach. Parker Posey should have been cast as an older Lois. She's got the looks and the acting chops. Everything could have been built from there.

I saw this ONCE in the cinema and it was enough.

P.S. I wish Brandon Routh the best of luck. He was a natural for this part -- but too young, and Singer didn't allow him to spread his wings. I hope he finds greater success in the future.

This is quite an excellent post. The problems are so pervasive it simply cannot be fixed and its time for WB to bring the franchise to an end for a long while.

What is especially troubling was, as you generally noted, the technical aspects of SR were second rate at best. It had neither the feel nor the look of an epic film.

Like where did the 223 million go?! Singer may be a good director, but the day-to-day mechanics of administering a huge film budget he obviously did not get - or whomever he may have delegated that to. Fans did not get their monies worth? Forget that, WB did not get its monies worth.

Sure, films are never perfect but Singer missed the mark on almost everything. Frankly, I don't understand how it could have been this bad - a friend says chalk it up to the Superman curse. Funny but not really.

Routh, and I read or heard this recently, was dealt a bad hand. I agree. In the long run SR will hurt more than help him careerwise IMO. It might be worth it if he got beaucoup bucks, but I have read he got just around a million. I say "just" as the typical middle class home in SoCal is around 800,000. And in the Bay Area and in Seattle. So sadly for him his paycheck from SR has not "set' him financially.

I don't see a sequel - my big question now is how long will WB wait before trying a restart? I hope no more than 10 years but if Flash and WW do well and with batman sure to get 3 films but likely go beyond that a la Spiderman, it may be the studio does not even need the Superman film franchise anymore.

I've seen speculation a while back on the soap boards that Routh may try to return to daytime. Frankly, IMO that is the best thing he could do. Greg Vaughan of GH tried to move beyond primetime and some films (nothing like Superman) and vaughan has a charm that puts not just Routh but most actors to shame. But he did not make it. He "settled" for playing Lucky on GH and has become beloved. Just got a re-up 3 year contract, is doing commericals (he replaced Fabio as the butter guy) and is having the time of his life. Routh IMO needs to think in those terms and he may end up finding a daytime career, like Vaughan has now, that sets him for life. The reality is , no matter what Singer told him, he simply is not star/leading man material.

 

[Cryogenic]

Singer just wasn't right for this film.

He proved with the "X-Men" films that he can't handle epic fantasy filmmaking.

Honestly: I'd rather have seen Tim Burton directing! (Yes, yes, his take would have been very odd for Superman, but you can bet your ass that it would have been well-crafted, interesting and entertaining).

A more realistic alternative would have been Martin Scorsese. I've heard he's always wanted to take on an iconic character like Superman.

Just to further support my Parker Posey thesis. Look at this woman. She's gorgeous and would have made the perfect older Lois: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz...ose_Cohen_9135539_400.jpg.html?hint=tt0348150

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now.

But just where did that money go? I've asked that question a lot recently.

"Spider-Man" -- Cost £139 million, looked < $100 million
"Pirates of the Caribbean" -- Cost $140 million, looked < $100 million
"Batman Begins" -- Cost $150 million, looked < $100 million
"Superman Returns" -- Cost $270 million, looked < $100 million

The budgets are all from IMDb. You have to take them with a pinch of salt, but only a pinch.

It's really sickening when you look back and think how much VASTLY SUPERIOR productions like "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" (cost $20 million; adj. for inflation approx. $65 million), "Alien" (cost $11 million; adj. for inflation approx. $30 million), "The Empire Strikes Back" (cost $18 million; adj. for inflation approx. $50 million), "Blade Runner" (cost $28 million; adj. for inflation approx. $60 million) all made in the late 70's / early 80's all came in at.

In fact, if you add all those earlier films' adjusted-for-inflation budgets up, they come to $205 million -- still LESS than "Superman Returns"!!! You could literally make all those classic films and still come up with enough change to produce another "Close Encounters", "Alien", "Empire" or "Blade Runner". Isn't that a sickening thought?

Now, granted, some other films of that same period were absolute behemoths for their day -- e.g. "Superman" and "Superman II" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". In fact, even though "Superman" and "Superman II" were shot back-to-back, making them something of a special case, both of those sets of films were the most expensive films of all time when they were made. But they STILL cost less than "Superman Returns" (individually, not collectively).

And what do ALL of those older films have in common? They all look and sound bloody fantastic! The money is up on the screen.

If anyone would like to assert that digital technology costs more, I've got three words for you: Star. Wars. Prequels. Granted, Lucas owns ILM and other companies, so he can definitely get reductions, but he bought each of the prequel films in for less than $130 million. To be true, I feel he cut a few too many corners in parts, but there's no denying their still epic scale and lavish look and feel. Digital technology is ultimately designed to save money, not waste it. "Terminator 2" cost more for its technology than latter films because it was a) brand new, and b) featured Arnold Schwarzenegger (who supposedly took a whopping pay cheque).

To be fair to SR and Bryan Singer, we must bear in mind that a substantial sum of money was sunk into the project before he even came aboard, but SR still cost a frightening sum under his watch. It's a sum that doesn't show in the finished product. SR is just one in a long line of financially bloated, artistically thin entries in the modern cinematic canon.

 

[lexlives]

Singer just wasn't right for this film.

He proved with the "X-Men" films that he can't handle epic fantasy filmmaking.

Honestly: I'd rather have seen Tim Burton directing! (Yes, yes, his take would have been very odd for Superman, but you can bet your ass that it would have been well-crafted, interesting and entertaining).

A more realistic alternative would have been Martin Scorsese. I've heard he's always wanted to take on an iconic character like Superman.

Just to further support my Parker Posey thesis. Look at this woman. She's gorgeous and would have made the perfect older Lois: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz...ose_Cohen_9135539_400.jpg.html?hint=tt0348150

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now.

But just where did that money go? I've asked that question a lot recently.

"Spider-Man" -- Cost £139 million, looked < $100 million
"Pirates of the Caribbean" -- Cost $140 million, looked < $100 million
"Batman Begins" -- Cost $150 million, looked < $100 million
"Superman Returns" -- Cost $270 million, looked < $100 million

The budgets are all from IMDb. You have to take them with a pinch of salt, but only a pinch.

It's really sickening when you look back and think how much VASTLY SUPERIOR productions like "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" (cost $20 million; adj. for inflation approx. $65 million), "Alien" (cost $11 million; adj. for inflation approx. $30 million), "The Empire Strikes Back" (cost $18 million; adj. for inflation approx. $50 million), "Blade Runner" (cost $28 million; adj. for inflation approx. $60 million) all made in the late 70's / early 80's all came in at.

In fact, if you add all those earlier films' adjusted-for-inflation budgets up, they come to $205 million -- still LESS than "Superman Returns"!!! You could literally make all those classic films and still come up with enough change to produce another "Close Encounters", "Alien", "Empire" or "Blade Runner". Isn't that a sickening thought?

Now, granted, some other films of that same period were absolute behemoths for their day -- e.g. "Superman" and "Superman II" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". In fact, even though "Superman" and "Superman II" were shot back-to-back, making them something of a special case, both of those sets of films were the most expensive films of all time when they were made. But they STILL cost less than "Superman Returns" (individually, not collectively).

And what do ALL of those older films have in common? They all look and sound bloody fantastic! The money is up on the screen.

If anyone would like to assert that digital technology costs more, I've got three words for you: Star. Wars. Prequels. Granted, Lucas owns ILM and other companies, so he can definitely get reductions, but he bought each of the prequel films in for less than $130 million. To be true, I feel he cut a few too many corners in parts, but there's no denying their still epic scale and lavish look and feel. Digital technology is ultimately designed to save money, not waste it. "Terminator 2" cost more for its technology than latter films because it was a) brand new, and b) featured Arnold Schwarzenegger (who supposedly took a whopping pay cheque).

To be fair to SR and Bryan Singer, we must bear in mind that a substantial sum of money was sunk into the project before he even came aboard, but SR still cost a frightening sum under his watch. It's a sum that doesn't show in the finished product. SR is just one in a long line of financially bloated, artistically thin entries in the modern cinematic canon.

I agree about Singer. He can't do an epic film and, if Superman or a Superman film is not epic, well what is the point?!

WB was at the end of their rope when Ratner walked and Horn/Robinov could have been out of jobs. Singer generally had this image - he was the "white knight" so to speak. Heck, at BT, long before I was summarily banned in 01/06, I praised Singer to high Heaven after the initial announcement. We were all lead astray - in the moment - so to speak.

The money was not on the screen for SR. It had absolutely no epic feel. Your description of the close-up/mid shots speaks to that perfectly. Spiderman 1, 2 and now 3 look first rate to SR's third rate. We deserved more, but WB surely so for their investment.

Not that WB is faultless. Horn should never had OK'd the bastard son storyline. Even if it meant Singer walked.

Beyond that, where was WB during the summer of 05 when filming was underway?! AWOL it seems. They did not realize there were major problems apparently till 09/05 when Singer was called back to the States. Bosworth has said of that time that they did not know what they were doing. The production was a disaster .

They should have caught a clue in April 05 when the first shot, the supposed iconic shot, of Routh was released. What - the guy is standing in a warehouse? Forget the silly look of the costume - that shot was fourth rate to the iconic Reeve shots or Spiderman shots or now FF2 shots.

I am at a loss as to what Horn/Robinov and WB were thinking or doing between April 05 and September when they finally wised up.

Sadly, IMHO, I think they simply don't care for the Superman franchise as they do for Batman or Potter.

What went on with SR is, IMO, inexcusable.

Scorsese wanted to do Superman?! Never heard that before. Now, as 'Departed' has proved, that is a director I could get on board with.

 

[Cryogenic]

Heck, at BT, long before I was summarily banned in 01/06, I praised Singer to high Heaven after the initial announcement. We were all lead astray - in the moment - so to speak.

What were you banned for? I also walked out on a Superman board. You can PM me if you like.

The money was not on the screen for SR. It had absolutely no epic feel. Your description of the close-up/mid shots speaks to that perfectly. Spiderman 1, 2 and now 3 look first rate to SR's third rate. We deserved more, but WB surely so for their investment.

Absolutely.

Beyond that, where was WB during the summer of 05 when filming was underway?! AWOL it seems. They did not realize there were major problems apparently till 09/05 when Singer was called back to the States. Bosworth has said of that time that they did not know what they were doing. The production was a disaster .

Couldn't agree more.

I also heard that Singer had a near breakdown and / or went on some kind of party spree towards the end.

They should have caught a clue in April 05 when the first shot, the supposed iconic shot, of Routh was released. What - the guy is standing in a warehouse? Forget the silly look of the costume - that shot was fourth rate to the iconic Reeve shots or Spiderman shots or now FF2 shots.

Gah! That shot sucked so much ass. The lighting was flat, Routh looked so pale and boyish, his hair was too long and not even black, and yes ... the costume was attrocious. His pose and expression were really stiff, too. If they were trying to say "Superman", then that shot was the farthest thing from.

The only pre-release material that thoroughly impressed me was the final poster (the one of Superman hovering above the Earth). Now, if more of the film and the marketing had been up to that quality, we might really have had something.

I am at a loss as to what Horn/Robinov and WB were thinking or doing between April 05 and September when they finally wised up.

Sadly, IMHO, I think they simply don't care for the Superman franchise as they do for Batman or Potter.

What went on with SR is, IMO, inexcusable.

Do you know about this site?

http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/

I pulled this great article from it. It's an insider's look at SR (a VFX guy):

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85763

Even the people working on it realised they weren't dealing in anything close to greatness.

Scorsese wanted to do Superman?! Never heard that before. Now, as 'Departed' has proved, that is a director I could get on board with.

Just a rumour I heard. I better be careful about that one. But I heard it from a guy from a guy. I'm the third person it's filtered to. Better not say anymore on that one.

You seem like a cool guy, lexlives. Although looks can be deceptive. (No slight against you; just my almost-24 years of experience talking). I'd like to hear about why you were booted from BlueTights. I *think* I signed up and made about two posts. I THINK. It's been a long time. All I know is that it seemed VERY pro-SR, even after the film came out. I could never post at a place like that.

SR is not the worst film I have ever seen. Its heart actually seemed to be in the right place (sorta). I can always admire that. But the production and end result were a total mess, IMO.

 

[superbaby]

my final thought of superman returns is a hollow, soulless and pretentious movie.

 

[lexlives]

What were you banned for? I also walked out on a Superman board. You can PM me if you like.



Absolutely.



Couldn't agree more.

I also heard that Singer had a near breakdown and / or went on some kind of party spree towards the end.



Gah! That shot sucked so much ass. The lighting was flat, Routh looked so pale and boyish, his hair was too long and not even black, and yes ... the costume was attrocious. His pose and expression were really stiff, too. If they were trying to say "Superman", then that shot was the farthest thing from.

The only pre-release material that thoroughly impressed me was the final poster (the one of Superman hovering above the Earth). Now, if more of the film and the marketing had been up to that quality, we might really have had something.



Do you know about this site?

http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/

I pulled this great article from it. It's an insider's look at SR (a VFX guy):

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc07/index.cgi?read=85763

Even the people working on it realised they weren't dealing in anything close to greatness.



Just a rumour I heard. I better be careful about that one. But I heard it from a guy from a guy. I'm the third person it's filtered to. Better not say anymore on that one.

You seem like a cool guy, lexlives. Although looks can be deceptive. (No slight against you; just my almost-24 years of experience talking). I'd like to hear about why you were booted from BlueTights. I *think* I signed up and made about two posts. I THINK. It's been a long time. All I know is that it seemed VERY pro-SR, even after the film came out. I could never post at a place like that.

SR is not the worst film I have ever seen. Its heart actually seemed to be in the right place (sorta). I can always admire that. But the production and end result were a total mess, IMO.

I read thje article from the VFX guy. Obvioulsy some knew that something was way off with the project. Bosworth's comments are scary.

As to who is cool and not I know. With the net you can never be sure. i trusted sites like BT and others early on and was, to put it mildly, used by these sites and their loyalty to Singer/WB/Routh first and Superman only second. I'm funny that way, a Superman site should, if it has to shill, at least shill for Superman.

No need to PM on this, I was banned for predicting and arguing SR would make just around 200 million, that there was not going to be any action, that Routh was an average actor based on virtually every post I saw on the OLTL boards, that the kid had to be Superman's - BT tried to finesse that way too long. Tje list goes on. The owner inisited otherwise and when I refused to back down - well, it is his site. But the diversion of posters who questioned SR or Singer or WB at that site in hindsight says it all. Especially as that site had an "in" supposedly. They sure got it wrong for having an in.

 

[Cryogenic]

You've never gone by the name "fanofsupes", have you?

 

[lexlives]

Today's audiences are looking for something different so I agree.