Superman Returns Superman Returns: Happy 2 Year Anniversary

[El Payaso]

I understand quite well that this movie has fans, just as I hope you understand just as many people don't like the movie and it is this split that is the reason they are rebooting and this split is ultimately what makes SR a failure.

Nope. It is the fact that the executives needed SR to make even more money than it did. They (like everyone else) don't give a crap about fans being satisfied/dissatisfied.

 

[PemLam]

I understand quite well that this movie has fans, just as I hope you understand just as many people don't like the movie and it is this split that is the reason they are rebooting and this split is ultimately what makes SR a failure.

For the record, that's it. I'm not continuing this same argument again.

SR was the most disappointing movie I ever had the misfortune to pay to see.

Posting under multiple screen names does not equate to more than one person Mego/Mojo.

Being disappointed in a movie doesn't mean it was bad either, it just didn't meet expectations.

 

[mojo-x]

I am not mega-Joe. Is it really that hard for you guys to imagine more then one person did not like SR? Saying a movie was the most disappointing film I ever saw does indeed make it a very bad film IMO.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I understand quite well that this movie has fans, just as I hope you understand just as many people don't like the movie and it is this split that is the reason they are rebooting and this split is ultimately what makes SR a failure.

For the record, that's it. I'm not continuing this same argument again.

See, you are saying SR was a failure because it split the fanbase like its a fact. SR being a failure is NOT a fact and do you know how many classic movies have split the GA down the years?

I at least acknowledge that the movie has plenty of people out there who didnt like it, but just as many if not more did and you never seem to acknowledge.

SR was the most disappointing movie I ever had the misfortune to pay to see.

Doesnt make it a worse movie than B&R. X3 was THE most dissapointing experience let alone movie of my life, I HATE that movie with all of my being, but is it worse than B&R, no, not at all.

Nope. It is the fact that the executives needed SR to make even more money than it did. They (like everyone else) don't give a crap about fans being satisfied/dissatisfied.

Exactly, for some reason Mega Joe naively thinks that WB give a **** about the fan reaction to the movie and this is why they are re-booting. IT IS QUITE CLEAR they are re-booting for financial reasons, and THATS it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Being disappointed in a movie doesn't mean it was bad either, it just didn't meet YOUR expectations.

Fixed t:.

 

[PemLam]

Fixed t:.

Thank you.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Anytime

 

[mojo-x]

Why do people keep trying to change the way I feel about SR. How much one likes or dislikes a movie is all based on Opinion, and in my own opinion SR is the worst superhero movie I ever saw. I enjoy BR more because all the camp and puns reminds me of the old Adam West Batman series. I will take X3 over the first X-men movie; nether one had that great of a plot but at least X3 made more since. The reason I think SR was a failure is that it was suppose to be the launch of a new Superman franchise, the fact that WB are considering to reboot rather then make a sequel should mean it failed at some level.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why do people keep trying to change the way I feel about SR. How much one likes or dislikes a movie is all based on Opinion, and in my own opinion SR is the worst superhero movie I ever saw. I enjoy BR more because all the camp and puns reminds me of the old Adam West Batman series. I will take X3 over the first X-men movie; nether one had that great of a plot but at least X3 made more since. The reason I think SR was a failure is that it was suppose to be the launch of a new Superman franchise, the fact that WB are considering to reboot rather then make a sequel should mean it failed at some level.

WB re-booting doesnt mean it failed at all, WB has never had a clue about what to do with their CB properties, so it doesnt prove anything in my book. And no one is trying to change your opinion of SR, if you dont like it you dont like it.

From a personal point of view, I cant understand you saying you enjoy BR more than SR, and you have to admit that SR is the better movie, even if you enjoy BR more. And X3 making more sense than X1, are you kidding? x3 was a mess of a movie.

 

[BH/HHH]

After watching my new Dark Knight Blu Ray DVD (AWESOME BTW), I decided to stick in my Superman Returns one and I rewatched the plane sequence, all i can say is WOW, this is the most amazing Superman moment I have ever seen live-action. It just amazes me everytime.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I know what mean, even TDK, though overall the better movie, cant touch certain moments in SR for sheer poetic and emotional beauty, the plane save and the re-charge in the Sunlight being such two moments.

 

[Double Down]

^ I agree with that.

 

[mojo-x]

WB re-booting doesnt mean it failed at all, WB has never had a clue about what to do with their CB properties, so it doesnt prove anything in my book. And no one is trying to change your opinion of SR, if you dont like it you dont like it.

From a personal point of view, I cant understand you saying you enjoy BR more than SR, and you have to admit that SR is the better movie, even if you enjoy BR more. And X3 making more sense than X1, are you kidding? x3 was a mess of a movie.

SR was supposed to be the start of a successful franchise, if they reboot then that means it failed in starting a franchise. The fact that WB would even green light the treatment Singer gave it tells me WB doesn’t have any clue at all. As for X1 can some body please tell me why Magneto would give humans, his enemy, mutant powers? The only way that makes any kind of sense is if the mutation, being unnatural, made the humans weak like Senator Kelly. But this is never explained. It’s these kind of lack of detail that turns me off too Singers movies.

 

[I Am The Knight]

As for X1 can some body please tell me why Magneto would give humans, his enemy, mutant powers? The only way that makes any kind of sense is if the mutation, being unnatural, made the humans weak like Senator Kelly. But this is never explained. It’s these kind of lack of detail that turns me off too Singers movies.

You didn't get it, obviously. It is this kind of lack of attention to movies that turns me off mojo-x's posts.

 

[mojo-x]

Really that’s the best you can come up with? You most be a Singer apologists.

 

[Superark]

^I know what mean, even TDK, though overall the better movie, cant touch certain moments in SR for sheer poetic and emotional beauty, the plane save and the re-charge in the Sunlight being such two moments.

Absolutey, 100% agreed!

 

[stargazer]

^I know what mean, even TDK, though overall the better movie, cant touch certain moments in SR for sheer poetic and emotional beauty, the plane save and the re-charge in the Sunlight being such two moments.

I enjoy SR much more than TDK. I'm just not a Batman fan (but I'm a huge Supes fan), though I appreaciate both BB and TDK. I think I enjoy the character more in the comics. I prefer Singer X-Men movies to the recent Batman movies.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

SR was supposed to be the start of a successful franchise, if they reboot then that means it failed in starting a franchise. The fact that WB would even green light the treatment Singer gave it tells me WB doesn’t have any clue at all.

I feel the need to address these points seperately Mojo if you dont mind. I have said this before, but do you really think WB give a **** what the fans think about the movies as long as the money is coming in? If SR would have made $50 million more domestic, do you think they would have re-booted then? NO, their decision is purely financially based, with no artistic integraty involved at all. This is why I dont see the movie as a failure. If it is, then so is the likes of Memento, Braveheart, The Thing, Blade Runner, I could go on.

As for X1 can some body please tell me why Magneto would give humans, his enemy, mutant powers? The only way that makes any kind of sense is if the mutation, being unnatural, made the humans weak like Senator Kelly. But this is never explained. It’s these kind of lack of detail that turns me off too Singers movies.

Senator Kelly was an experiment. As for the reason, this is explained clearly in the movie Mojo-X. Do you think if the world leaders were mutants they would pass the registration act? Or in Magneto's words "...one just like it..." Magneto clearly explains that once he turns them into Mutants, "our cause will be their's" "Those people down there control our fate and the fate of every other mutant!" Not calling you stupid or nothin Mojo, that is not my intent, but this is clearly explained in the movie.

 

[El Payaso]

Why do people keep trying to change the way I feel about SR.

You're important to us.

How much one likes or dislikes a movie is all based on Opinion, and in my own opinion SR is the worst superhero movie I ever saw. I enjoy BR more because all the camp and puns reminds me of the old Adam West Batman series.

BR = Batman & Robin, right? (at fiurst I thought it was Batman Returns)

I couldn't start to prevent you from liking such... spectacle (cannot call it movie). I myself called Spiderman 3 the B&R of the spider-franmchise and was severely critizised for it. But to be sincere, no movie is worse than B&R. Nevertheless I accept your comparision in terms of the dramatic effect it has. B&R has become the eternal hyperbole for our distastes.

I will take X3 over the first X-men movie; nether one had that great of a plot but at least X3 made more since.

Ok, I don't want to leave you alone in this. I prefer X3 to X2. There, I said it.

The reason I think SR was a failure is that it was suppose to be the launch of a new Superman franchise,

In fact it was supposed to be a sequel to STM an SII. Not a new franchise from that point of view.

the fact that WB are considering to reboot rather then make a sequel should mean it failed at some level.

The financial level. It made good money but not enough.

SR was supposed to be the start of a successful franchise, if they reboot then that means it failed in starting a franchise. The fact that WB would even green light the treatment Singer gave it tells me WB doesn’t have any clue at all.

I sense a paradox. You're saying that WB is totally clueless because they greenlighted Singer's treatment. Then you say that WB deciding for a reboot is significant; it means SR failed.

But if WB is so totally clueless, could it mean that the reboot is just another of its clueless decisions? Or that greenlighting SR was another of its significant moments?

Or, as I suspect, WB is clueless just in the decisions you don't approve and significant in the ones you do?

As for X1 can some body please tell me why Magneto would give humans, his enemy, mutant powers? The only way that makes any kind of sense is if the mutation, being unnatural, made the humans weak like Senator Kelly. But this is never explained. It’s these kind of lack of detail that turns me off too Singers movies.

AVE already explained it to you. That's in the movie. So the things you don't like about Singer's movie are the ones you didn't understand from the plot.

 

[mego joe]

The financial level. It made good money but not enough.

It's really about sequel potential thought, isn't it? If BB and SR had similar box office #'s, why did BB get the sequel green light? It has to be about potential for a sequel as opposed to simply B.O. for the first film. What it boils down to IMO, is that BB left the door open for nearly anything, where as an SR sequel is required to deal with Richard/Jason. That subplot is the sequel killer to me in terms of SR. If you eliminate that you can move forward and do nearly anything. Any other of SR shortcomings can be addressed in a sequel- but you are stuck with the RIchard/ Jason storyline.

 

[El Payaso]

It's really about sequel potential thought, isn't it? If BB and SR had similar box office #'s, why did BB get the sequel green light?

Because BB cost significatly less than SR. Therefore if they make the same money, it will always mean more profit for BB.

It has to be about potential for a sequel as opposed to simply B.O. for the first film. What it boils down to IMO, is that BB left the door open for nearly anything, where as an SR sequel is required to deal with Richard/Jason. That subplot is the sequel killer to me in terms of SR. If you eliminate that you can move forward and do nearly anything. Any other of SR shortcomings can be addressed in a sequel- but you are stuck with the RIchard/ Jason storyline.

In fact BB ended leaving door open for... Joker. Not "anything." Joker was set up in the last scene and Joker is what we got. Of course you can add more things than just Joker, the same you can add more things than Richard/Jason for a SR sequel.

Now, explain me how Jason/Richard, who mean conflict and problems for Superman's personal life, could mean a dead end. If you explore the plot with some imagination and daring attitude (as they did in SR), you can go further. People who call it a dead end simply are unable to develop a plotline in their heads, but that's a completely diffrent issue.

 

[mego joe]

Because BB cost significatly less than SR. Therefore if they make the same money, it will always mean more profit for BB.



In fact BB ended leaving door open for... Joker. Not "anything." Joker was set up in the last scene and Joker is what we got. Of course you can add more things than just Joker, the same you can add more things than Richard/Jason for a SR sequel.

Now, explain me how Jason/Richard, who mean conflict and problems for Superman's personal life, could mean a dead end. If you explore the plot with some imagination and daring attitude (as they did in SR), you can go further. People who call it a dead end simply are unable to develop a plotline in their heads, but that's a completely diffrent issue.

It's all about what fits the character (back to faithfulness). The Joker fits Batman- dysfunctional, illegitimate children, broken family storylines don't fit the Superman character.

THe Joker got people excited. The Richard/ Jason storyline didn't. It's all about potential. Potential to connect with the audience in a manner in keeping with the character.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because BB cost significatly less than SR. Therefore if they make the same money, it will always mean more profit for BB.



In fact BB ended leaving door open for... Joker. Not "anything." Joker was set up in the last scene and Joker is what we got. Of course you can add more things than just Joker, the same you can add more things than Richard/Jason for a SR sequel.

Now, explain me how Jason/Richard, who mean conflict and problems for Superman's personal life, could mean a dead end. If you explore the plot with some imagination and daring attitude (as they did in SR), you can go further. People who call it a dead end simply are unable to develop a plotline in their heads, but that's a completely diffrent issue.

There are plenty of storylines they could come up with while involving Richard/Jason, these are professional screen-writers for pete's sake. I myself have come up with a few (what I though were) interesting scenario's myself, so if I can, I am sure a professional screen-writer can also.

 

[El Payaso]

It's all about what fits the character (back to faithfulness).

Sometimes. Sometimes not. In the end it's money what dictates the sequel.

The Joker fits Batman- dysfunctional, illegitimate children, broken family storylines don't fit the Superman character.

Yes, it does. Superman can't have a normal life. But he's a very paternal figure. And he became a Jor-El kind of figure now thanks to Jason.

As Jor-El before him, Kal-El has known now what's the price of being a true hero. Just as Jor-El had to sacrifice a normal life as a afther, Superman ahs to accept the joy of being a father in a not normal way.

Can't fit this version of Superman more.

THe Joker got people excited. The Richard/ Jason storyline didn't. It's all about potential. Potential to connect with the audience in a manner in keeping with the character.

Of course Joker did. No matter how crappy it would have been done, the Joker name do that for people since it's the most popular character in Batman's world and one of the most popular villains ever. That's play safe; big deal.

But Singer took some serious risk introducing a new dimension in the character's story. And still fatherhood is a topic present during STM and Donner's SII. And Richard was another big challenge since he truly loves Lois. I had the feeling Superman should leave them toghether since he might be more suited to be Lois' mate, but he knows he can't.

In the end it's about money. At WB nobody has a exciting machine other than the BO numbers.

SR with a giant robot and a 15 minutes CGI fight would have probably made it for a sequel. But Singer went too far being risky and then not offering action enough.

 

[afan]

There are plenty of storylines they could come up with while involving Richard/Jason, these are professional screen-writers for pete's sake. I myself have come up with a few (what I though were) interesting scenario's myself, so if I can, I am sure a professional screen-writer can also.

Of course there are, however while the Lois/Richard/Jason triumvirate is not a dramatic dead end it most definitely creates a long stretch of road that the character must follow.
And that's the point.....it may not be a decision based solely on financial success, but to avoid that road for Superman altogether.