Superman Returns Superman Returns:Final Thoughts

[LexCorp]

Your right. Donner got it right as you could get. Sure he took some liberties but it was due to budget and what he was allowed to do with a kids film (goofy lex) but he kicked ass. It is still considered teh best Superhero film to date by many people. And Singer, even though a lot of people are mad because he followed the Donner-verse, he so didn't. The Donner verse had a commanding, self assured Superman. This has a whimpy one. The Donner movie knew you needed action, and a story, and characters that got you involved and were fun to watch and had charisma. Reeve and Kidder were alive. Routh and Bosworth was like watching paint dry. And I don't blame them. I blame a lame script and a director that got a big head and forgot what made his earlier films so good. This was dull, and you could give a crap less if a nuke went off and everyone died. And there were so many plot holes and illogic it isn't even funny. He copied some things, but strayed so far away from the films it isn't even funny. And what is so funny is, for straying so far, he takes us on the "same journey" requel crap. But so little action. Supes who barely has lines. The suit. ARRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!! My head hurts just thinking about it. I am just going to bed.

Does it make me a bad person that no matter how hard I try I just cant love this film as much I want to. It hurts...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Does it make me a bad person that no matter how hard I try I just cant love this film as much I want to. It hurts...

Hey Lexcorp, how are things?

I thought you loved SR?

 

[LexCorp]

Hey Lexcorp, how are things?

I thought you loved SR?

I'm good dude. Long time not see on hype

Yep I love it...like you love a sister

But its not I want to have sex with you, marry you and have babies love. It never hit that spot. It hit lots of other spots just not all of them.

 

[GarudA]

I do find it curious that Superman had less lines than Neo in the original Matrix. That being said, I'm not sure if it was because of his inability to act (though I do not doubt for a second that Singer would've cast him based on resemblence to Reeve alone without even watching a screen test). A big theme of the film was Superman/Clark's isolation from everyone around him. If he were chattering his ass off he wouldn't exactly be isolated. But there in lies the problem. It sounds good on paper but when you cut the character off like that, you run the risk of isolating him from the audience as well, and that is exactly what happened (with me anyhow).

At any rate, with what we have to work with I don't think any of us can judge Routh's acting abilities. All we have to go on is Superman Returns (where he wasn't allowed to display them), an MTV dramedy, and a soap opera he was fired from. Sure, we could argue that his resume is evidence enough of his talent (or lack there of)...however, one could counter that by pointing out that the scripts have been weak in pretty much all of his work (keep in mind though, Vin Diesel fans use the same excuse). At any rate, I think we have yet to see enough evidence to send the jury into deliberation.

I was watching Revolutions and I thought it was a better Superman movie then SR, with all the flying and fights scenes.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm good dude. Long time not see on hype

Yep I love it...like you love a sister

But its not I want to have sex with you, marry you and have babies love. It never hit that spot. It hit lots of other spots just not all of them.

I mostly spend my time on here but i dont get much time to post anymore, been spending a lot of time on the GR boards as well.

Fair enough on your opinion of SR, i really love and its got me into the comics which i am enjoying.

 

[LexCorp]

I mostly spend my time on here but i dont get much time to post anymore, been spending a lot of time on the GR boards as well.

Fair enough on your opinion of SR, i really love and its got me into the comics which i am enjoying.

GR??

Awesome Sig by the way serenity still rules!

 

[lexlives]

GR doesn't have to hit 200 million to be a hit. IT DIDN'T COST 200 MILLION + TO MAKE.

SR did....

Anyway...it's all moot because it's for comic book fandom.

Personally, I could care less about the others. I want Supes to do well, yet he won't with BSinger...so I have to suck that up...I guess.

All it needs to do is 121 million and it performs better than SR. Cost 120 million - 121 million beats that.

SR - made 200 million but cost 203 million (adjusted tax credit figure as it really cost 223 million or so).

 

[SamuraiSon6]

lots of people complain about superman having a kid now, and how they feel that his character is now flawed, impure, a screw up, etc.

here is a question i would like to talk about, unfortunantly probably not worthy of its own thread...

Did you feel Superman was impure, flawed, etc. in the Donner films when he slept with Lois?

honestly, i kinda did, because of my personal morals/beliefs i don't believe in premaritial sex, and i was personally shocked when superman chose to make love to lois in the original movies. obviously, everyone doesn't feel that way, but unfortunantly, most people do see a child out of wedlock as immoral though. so there is my question.....is superman any more irresponsible now than he was in Superman II?

 

[lexlives]

I read all of this, but I still feel as though you didn't get me. That's here nor there, but in essence what I am saying is what I DID see of Routh's CK performance. I'm not saying it was the best, but the fact of the matter is I didn't see enough of anyone of them to get clear view. So, that must mean Singer didn't trust in Routh. It could be for the reasons you say, but I'm still saying that I think Routh can do it. I think his CK performance can ensure some of the necessary qualities needed for Superman. Yet, if Singer doesn't show them it won't be seen.

What I did see of Routh's CK just needed work....but all of what I saw of Singer's abilities needed serious help. My issue is if he didn't trust in his main character and knew this early on...why short Supes like that? If he knew the character wouldn't sell why not show the character attributes?

Why didn't Singer sell Superman instead of some lonely, ****ed up character with a cape

A little confused here.

Are you saying that Singer did not trust the Superman character to sell or that he did not trust his version of it to sell. Big difference and if either were true then why did he take the gig to begin with? I can't see either.

I think its more he knew Routh is not a good actor. Look at his delivery in his early scene with Martha. It is simply awful and exactly one of the reasons he was fired from OLTL.

I think it was Routh's average abilities Singer was trying to hide. My opinion of course, but I hold that opinion and it is why I am dead set against Routh coming back as Superman/Clark. A Superman film can never be successful unless the actor has very, very good acting skills to pull off the dual role. Can engage audiences which Routh simply didn't.

The problem was, as I see it, that Singer was so hung up on a literal re-creation of the Donner films that he went for the actor's looks and no deeper. He should have gone for an actor with Reeve's charisma, presence and thespian skills - if he found someone who also happened to look like Reeve fine but that should have been the secondary and not primary criteria.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

All it needs to do is 121 million and it performs better than SR. Cost 120 million - 121 million beats that.

SR - made 200 million but cost 203 million (adjusted tax credit figure as it really cost 223 million or so).

But for Ghost Rider to make a profit, it'd have to make at least $240 million domestic. So, actually, if it only made $120 million it'd be in the same camp as SR.

And, sorry, $204 million is the final number. When the studio gets a $19 million tax break, that's money never lost.

 

[lexlives]

But for Ghost Rider to make a profit, it'd have to make at least $240 million domestic. So, actually, if it only made $120 million it'd be in the same camp as SR.

And, sorry, $204 million is the final number. When the studio gets a $19 million tax break, that's money never lost.

Not sure where you came up with that 240 million figure for GR to make a profit - by that token SR needed to make 406 domestic to make a profit. If that is the case it did even worse than I had thought.

 

[lexlives]

But for Ghost Rider to make a profit, it'd have to make at least $240 million domestic. So, actually, if it only made $120 million it'd be in the same camp as SR.

And, sorry, $204 million is the final number. When the studio gets a $19 million tax break, that's money never lost.

204 is sort of the final number but not really. What you saw on screen cost 223 million - a budget of 170 million then is a huge cut. I read someone say the cut will be just around 30 million - no it will be 53 million plus. In actual dollars the sequel would get.

 

[Matt]

If Krueger is arguing that taxes effects film profits, that isn't entirely true. Warner Bros yearly income would be taxed. Not a movie-by-movie basis. Therefore, there is room in that area for something like Harry Potter to make up the losses.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Not sure where you came up with that 240 million figure for GR to make a profit - by that token SR needed to make 406 domestic to make a profit. If that is the case it did even worse than I had thought.

SR did need to make about $400 million to make profit on its production budget. It neared that worldwide ($391 million) and made up for it through DVD and ancillary sales. You figure a movie studio gets roughly half of the domestic gross, so if Ghost Rider makes $120 million, then the studio would probably only get about $60 million roughly (this is, of course, only domestic and not including ancillary sales).

And to correct myself, I shouldn't have said $240 million "domestic." Since worldwide sales would definitely bring in money towards the production budget as well.

If Krueger is arguing that taxes effects film profits, that isn't entirely true.

Oh no, not at all. I was simply saying that though about $223 million was spent, the tax break saved the studio $19 million--so basically it was $19 million that was "never spent." Although you are right, the studio be would be taxed as a whole, not on a movie by movie basis at the end of the year.

 

[charl_huntress]

A little confused here.

Are you saying that Singer did not trust the Superman character to sell or that he did not trust his version of it to sell. Big difference and if either were true then why did he take the gig to begin with? I can't see either.

I think its more he knew Routh is not a good actor. Look at his delivery in his early scene with Martha. It is simply awful and exactly one of the reasons he was fired from OLTL.

I think it was Routh's average abilities Singer was trying to hide. My opinion of course, but I hold that opinion and it is why I am dead set against Routh coming back as Superman/Clark. A Superman film can never be successful unless the actor has very, very good acting skills to pull off the dual role. Can engage audiences which Routh simply didn't.

The problem was, as I see it, that Singer was so hung up on a literal re-creation of the Donner films that he went for the actor's looks and no deeper. He should have gone for an actor with Reeve's charisma, presence and thespian skills - if he found someone who also happened to look like Reeve fine but that should have been the secondary and not primary criteria.

Hmmm...I don't agree with some of this because I don't think Singer really got Donner's vision...in as much as he couldn't recreate it. If you love something you should at least be able to copy it. Yet, it seems that he used Donner's vision to attempt to sell his own. Which for me is just a jacked up story about a dude who can fly and who wears a cape. It's not really a Superman story for me because it lacks so many of the common elements.

On the flip side though is the fact that there was very little Superman in the movie. There was very little of the alter persona. How does one tell a good Superman story without Superman? So, I think Singer may have lost confidence in Routh's ability to portray his story. Yet, I still think Routh is the perfect copy-kat of Reeve. Still....not even C. Reeve could have done Singer's story justice. It's a bad Superman story. So...I guess my comment might not make sense because I think Routh is a good Superman, but he nor his acting abilities can do anything with what Singer has working for Superman.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

A little confused here.

Are you saying that Singer did not trust the Superman character to sell or that he did not trust his version of it to sell. Big difference and if either were true then why did he take the gig to begin with? I can't see either.

I think its more he knew Routh is not a good actor. Look at his delivery in his early scene with Martha. It is simply awful and exactly one of the reasons he was fired from OLTL.

I think it was Routh's average abilities Singer was trying to hide. My opinion of course, but I hold that opinion and it is why I am dead set against Routh coming back as Superman/Clark. A Superman film can never be successful unless the actor has very, very good acting skills to pull off the dual role. Can engage audiences which Routh simply didn't.

The problem was, as I see it, that Singer was so hung up on a literal re-creation of the Donner films that he went for the actor's looks and no deeper. He should have gone for an actor with Reeve's charisma, presence and thespian skills - if he found someone who also happened to look like Reeve fine but that should have been the secondary and not primary criteria.

You are about the only person I know of that would blame SR on Routh's performance. That is quite simply the dumbest argument yet. He looks the part. Sounds the part. In my opinion the lack of screen time for Routh in certain scenes would be what hurts SR. He's talented and for a first movie put in a wonderful performance. Sorry but that's just a weak shot at Routh. He has as much charisma imo as Reeve btw and that says a lot.

 

[charl_huntress]

Even a good actor can be bad in a badly written film. I think that's the point here.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Even a good actor can be bad in a badly written film. I think that's the point here.

Lexlives is trying to say that Routh most likely wasn't a good actor in the first place, given the OLTL fiasco.

 

[buggs0268]

Even a good actor can be bad in a badly written film. I think that's the point here.

True. Hallie Berry is a good actress but nothing could save her from the writing of Catwoman. Also, the directors directing them is also another kiss of death. Only big name actors can do the character the way they want. for the rest, unless the director thinks the actors interpretation is cool, they will tell the actor how to do the role. That is one of the reason they are called directors.

 

[buggs0268]

If Krueger is arguing that taxes effects film profits, that isn't entirely true. Warner Bros yearly income would be taxed. Not a movie-by-movie basis. Therefore, there is room in that area for something like Harry Potter to make up the losses.

The profits hit films make pay for the losses that bad films for that studio makes. I believe Titanic was one of the few films that ever put the studio in the black for that year. So the money it made covered all the losses of all the other films. Movie studios, while business, are run really weird, and the same business model could not be applied to other corporations.

 

[buggs0268]

Does it make me a bad person that no matter how hard I try I just cant love this film as much I want to. It hurts...

Well to some pro-SR people here you are a heathen, you have a tube going from your but to your mouth, and you mom is a ****e. At least that is what they have told me and a few others here when we have posted anti-SR posts. To me it just says that the film was not your thing, and there are things in it that prevent you from liking it as much as you wished you would have had Singer and crew done the things right.

 

[Matt]

The profits hit films make pay for the losses that bad films for that studio makes. I believe Titanic was one of the few films that ever put the studio in the black for that year. So the money it made covered all the losses of all the other films. Movie studios, while business, are run really weird, and the same business model could not be applied to other corporations.

The problem for SR is, Warner Bros didn't have many (I think just one) hits this year and had several dissapointments to straight out bombs (Poseidon, SR, a couple animated bombs which are always expensive)

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

GR??

Ghost Rider

Awesome Sig by the way serenity still rules!

Ha ha, thought you'd like it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well to some pro-SR people here you are a heathen, you have a tube going from your but to your mouth, and you mom is a ****e. At least that is what they have told me and a few others here when we have posted anti-SR posts. To me it just says that the film was not your thing, and there are things in it that prevent you from liking it as much as you wished you would have had Singer and crew done the things right.

Dont know why your telling him this, i am an SR lover and i didnt say anything bad to him. I respect his views a lot.

 

[Showtime]

The problem for SR is, Warner Bros didn't have many (I think just one) hits this year and had several dissapointments to straight out bombs (Poseidon, SR, a couple animated bombs which are always expensive)

I think WB had bigger problems with movies like Lady In The Water, Ant Bully, and Poseidon. Superman ended up making money for WB in many branches of the tree. Not sure what can be said about the other three.