The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[El Payaso]

And yet, for the most part, the movie did manage to get decent to good reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

It always seemed strange to me, a movie that had decent reviews, but the majority of fans did not care for (including me) and it is considered a failure, even though it did make decent money and got decent reviews.

Absolutely. It got decent reviews (76% on RT. Thor got 77%) and made decent money. Fans dissapointed? I can't care less.

But it was clearly not the kind of mass-pleasing movie everyone was expecting. It certainly needed more action and less STM quotes.

I think that is what it was. That maybe it made less money than projected. But when you look at other films that have similar ratings, for the most part, a better portion of the audience liked it than 67%. In fact, I think most of the time when almost 80% of the critics like it, a much bigger majority of the audience liked it, something like around 80% or so. It is odd to see that the audience didn't care for it as much as the critics, especially when it comes to a summer movie. Most of the summer action movie blockbusters get so-so reviews. Like for example with 300, where it had a "rotten" rating, 59% but 90% from the audience. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/

Or with Transformers http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_dark_of_the_moon/ the audience still liked it better than the critics, but the opposite happened with Superman.

Maybe the critics are not looking for in a Superman movie the same things that the comic book fans are looking for in a movie and the general audience may also be looking for something different in a Superman movie. Critics may want one thing, general audience another, and the comic book fans even another thing.

I agree.

Nevertheless, audiences on RT got Transformers: ROTF 76% - against reviewers' 20%. I wouldn't trust this audiences ratings.

That’s contentious. In debates about SR, I’ve seen firm critics concede that many of its elements (the alleged “peeping tom” scene, Supes wooing an engaged Lois) would scarcely raise eyebrows in another film. These would simply be accommodated as dramatic complications. Yet, they were deemed highly inappropriate for Superman. Well, fair enough. But this raises an implicit distinction between (what works for) “most films” and what’s acceptable for a “Superman story.”

As Superman_200 mentioned, SR earned a 76% aggregate approval on RT. I’d wager that the majority of these reviewers weren’t particularly Superman fans or experts; they were just judging “a movie.”

Which is why their argument sounds more appropriate for a movie review. You don't need to be some expert - or geek with airs of expert - to enjoy a movie. Superman have dome some questionable things before on movies.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

I think its more interesting that a lot of people have never even heard of it.

Or "saw it a long time ago, was boring, and the guy didn't look much like Superman, if I remember right".

 

[camp Blood]

i like it i'd like to see it with the yellow back in the symbol

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing too.

As a huge Superman fan, I was totally hyped about seeing Superman Returns, and I chewed up ever piece of news, every spy shot and every trailer and TV spot that came out before the film's release.

And I came out of the cinema pretty impressed, I felt like I enjoyed the film a lot. But I'll happily admit now that I was probably swayed a lot by the fact that this was the first big-screen Superman adaption in 20 years, and also by the few epic & memorable moments in the film - the plane save, lifting New Krypton, etc.

The film just does not stand up to subsequent viewings. It's only on subsequent viewings (and never the first viewing) that you get little deeper into the story and dialogue, and can look at the film as a whole without the anticipation of how it might end or without the WOW factor of seeing a brand new Superman up on that big screen.

I've watched it 6 or 7 times since that first showing, and each time it irritates me a little more and I find myself fast-forwarding through some of the more plodding scenes. Why does it irritate me? The CGi is poor. The kid should just not be in the story at all. Superman as a glorified peeping-tom/stalker goes against a lot of what the character stands for. The lack of action. A bad portrayal of Lois Lane. A dubious storyline with Superman deserting Earth for 5 years, which doesn't seem like something he'd do. Yet another evil real-estate plan by Lex Luthor. Superman/Christ parallels so obvious they almost hit you in the face. Disastrous colour filters which ruin the look of the Superman suit and give the whole a film a sickly sheen. Too many Donner references.

The whole concept of linking this brand new Superman film, with a new cast, a new director, and an updated look ................... to two previous Superman films from 20 years before - whilst simultaneously ignoring Superman III and IV- is so obviously flawed that it's crazy to think we fans pretty much bought it at the time.

The film has some good moments, but they're heavily outweighed by the bad.

Completely agreed.

I came out of the cinema literally on cloud 9. My friends who I went to see it with, simply did not understand why I loved it so much. They thought it was 'okay'.

But I was just totally overtaken by that initial buzz of seeing a new Superman film. But yeah, I've never been able to get that buzz back, and actually now regret being so enthusiastic about it back then because it's embarrasingly bad with hindsight.

I think as I'm older now, I am taking more into account what other people will see when they watch the film, and not just my own giddy fan reaction. That's why it's sort of more important to me this time around that they get MOS right for the GA, not just for me or any section of the fandom.

 

[elgaz]

Superman needs a totally new approach, and I'm glad to glad to say (based on what we've seen so far) that it appears Snyder is taking that approach.

Imagine Christoper Nolan had brought out a 2005 Batman film with a new cast, which carried on with the gothic style and story of Burton's 1989 Batman & 1992 Batman Returns, but totally ignored Batman Forever and Batman & Robin .............. and in that film, Batman has left Gotham for 5 years, only to return and find out that Selina Kyle has had a kid thanks to their liaison in Batman Returns ........ and Batman doesn't actually fight anyone in the entire film, he just stops bad situations from occurring. While he spies on Selina and the kid. I'd find that hard to buy, even considering that 'Batman' and 'surveillance' go hand in hand. For Superman to do it was just totally out of character.

Luckily, Nolan took a totally new approach which worked very well in the form of Batman Begins, and I hope it works just as well for MOS.

 

[camp Blood]

why am i the only person who dreads a nolan infused superman movie

 

[C. Lee]

why am i the only person who dreads a nolan infused superman movie

It probably has something to do with the diving helmet you're wearing.

 

[not_a_victim]

So it made $200 million instead of the $500 they had hoped for and so it failed? That's just so much bull to me. 76% of the critics gave it a thumbs up and 67% of the fans. That's still most of them. It's all about money these days, nothing more and nothing less.... It frustrates me.

Exactly, it's about money.
A critical success that fails at the box office will not spawn sequels.
A critical failure that has box office success will produce sequels, even if they hadn't been planned beforehand.
And I would hardly call a 76% positive rating a hugely successful film.
And yes, when a film is targeted/expected to make 500 million, and it makes half that, it is from the studio's perspective a failure.

 

[Kurosawa]

why am i the only person who dreads a nolan infused superman movie

I don't exactly dread it, as I think Nolan is an excellent filmmaker, but I never trust Batman guys with Superman either.

 

[not_a_victim]

Completely agreed.

I came out of the cinema literally on cloud 9. My friends who I went to see it with, simply did not understand why I loved it so much. They thought it was 'okay'.

But I was just totally overtaken by that initial buzz of seeing a new Superman film. But yeah, I've never been able to get that buzz back, and actually now regret being so enthusiastic about it back then because it's embarrasingly bad with hindsight.

I think as I'm older now, I am taking more into account what other people will see when they watch the film, and not just my own giddy fan reaction. That's why it's sort of more important to me this time around that they get MOS right for the GA, not just for me or any section of the fandom.

I agree.
I can watch the original STM and get extremely hyped at the first appearance/rescue by Supes, and just about every other scene where Supes takes action.
On the other hand, the only scene I get really excited about in SR is when he lifts New Krypton. I think it has a lot to do with Supes realizing he is a father (like myself), and fighting past the fact the Kryptonite is slowly killing him while he is putting for the effort, but he still does it to save Lois and his son...
Other than that, not a whole lot to get amped about in the film...

 

[camp Blood]

exactly nolan has a dark style of filming to dark for a bright positive character like superman

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing too.

As a huge Superman fan, I was totally hyped about seeing Superman Returns, and I chewed up ever piece of news, every spy shot and every trailer and TV spot that came out before the film's release.

And I came out of the cinema pretty impressed, I felt like I enjoyed the film a lot. But I'll happily admit now that I was probably swayed a lot by the fact that this was the first big-screen Superman adaption in 20 years, and also by the few epic & memorable moments in the film - the plane save, lifting New Krypton, etc.

The film just does not stand up to subsequent viewings. It's only on subsequent viewings (and never the first viewing) that you get little deeper into the story and dialogue, and can look at the film as a whole without the anticipation of how it might end or without the WOW factor of seeing a brand new Superman up on that big screen.

I've watched it 6 or 7 times since that first showing, and each time it irritates me a little more and I find myself fast-forwarding through some of the more plodding scenes. Why does it irritate me? The CGi is poor. The kid should just not be in the story at all. Superman as a glorified peeping-tom/stalker goes against a lot of what the character stands for. The lack of action. A bad portrayal of Lois Lane. A dubious storyline with Superman deserting Earth for 5 years, which doesn't seem like something he'd do. Yet another evil real-estate plan by Lex Luthor. Superman/Christ parallels so obvious they almost hit you in the face. Disastrous colour filters which ruin the look of the Superman suit and give the whole a film a sickly sheen. Too many Donner references.

The whole concept of linking this brand new Superman film, with a new cast, a new director, and an updated look ................... to two previous Superman films from 20 years before - whilst simultaneously ignoring Superman III and IV- is so obviously flawed that it's crazy to think we fans pretty much bought it at the time.

The film has some good moments, but they're heavily outweighed by the bad.

I wanted to like this movie so much. Especially after such a long time waiting and all the false starts. But I pretty much agree with all the above.

 

[KingKane88]

I don't exactly dread it, as I think Nolan is an excellent filmmaker, but I never trust Batman guys with Superman either.

I take it this is in response to Tim Burton? If so, that's not a good way of looking at it considering it's "Tim Burton".

 

[not_a_victim]

why am i the only person who dreads a nolan infused superman movie

I don't dread it, but I am fascinated at the possibility. I'd love to see the Superman mythos dragged into the 21st century properly.

 

[camp Blood]

It probably has something to do with the diving helmet you're wearing.

its from a movie called robot monster

 

[SuperMike335!!]

I take it this is in response to Tim Burton? If so, that's not a good way of looking at it considering it's "Tim Burton".

Exactly, Tim Burton's style would only work for Batman, as he likes everything to be stylized in a dark way.

No need to worry about the same for Nolan and Superman, in that Nolan is not Micro Managing this, nor does he insist on the same style for his movies the way Burtons are all obviously, well Burtonized.

Snyder is the director. The only things Nolan may be insisting on is to keep things serious, and avoid camp.

My only issues with Nolan are that in terms of visuals, his Batman world is not nearly as impressive as it should be. He also over-emphasizes realism and completely tosses out all the sci-fi elements of the Batman mythos.

With Snyder and Superman those things are less of a concern, as Snyder is excellent when it comes to visuals, and when dealing with Superman science fiction and fantasy already have to be there, so there is no need to worry about anyone kneeling to the alter of realism.

 

[KingKane88]

exactly nolan had a dark style of filming to dark for a bright positive character like superman

It looks pretty bright in the 'Set Pics" I've seen, from Smallville to Canada, the sun is out, birds are chirping, the camera's are rolling?


In all seriousness though, when you have a man with one movie that grossed over a Billion $$$ (TDK), and a 2nd that came dang close to hitting the billion mark (Inception), then that man must know what he is doing; and judging from the success/numbers he has put up from his previous work, I'm sure he's smart enough to know how to handle Superman (fingers crossed! hehe).



We shall see

 

[El Payaso]

And I would hardly call a 76% positive rating a hugely successful film.

No?

Iron Man 2 – Reviewers: 74% and it's getting a sequel
Capt. America – 79% (RT reviewers) 76% (RT audiences)
Spider-Man – Although it got 89% from RT reviewers, it got only 65% from RT audiences (1 less than SR right?)

And even when liked by fans, TIH got 66% by RT reviewers and 75% only from audiences.

It's as you say: money is what makes it have a sequel.

And yes, when a film is targeted/expected to make 500 million, and it makes half that, it is from the studio's perspective a failure.

Well, it was their problem they needed to make that much to strat with. And therefore I agree; it was their expectation and a failure according to their perspective.

 

[camp Blood]

It looks pretty bright in the 'Set Pics" I've seen, from Smallville to Canada, the sun is out, birds are chirping, the camera's are rolling?


In all seriousness though, when you have a man with one movie that grossed over a Billion $$$ (TDK), and a 2nd that came dang close to hitting the billion mark (Inception), then that man must know what he is doing; and judging from the success/numbers he has put up from his previous work, I'm sure he's smart enough to know how to handle Superman (fingers crossed! hehe).



We shall see

i respect nolan the prestige is one of my favorite movies but i haven't enjoyed another nolan film as much since then

so i dont like him as much as you i would say my favortie english film maker is danny boyle

 

[Kurosawa]

I take it this is in response to Tim Burton? If so, that's not a good way of looking at it considering it's "Tim Burton".

Maybe Burton a little, but more along the lines of Batman guys amongst comics writers-Frank Miller, Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart, John Byrne, etc, who always want to cut Superman's power or make him an overbearing ass or a stupid naive moron, etc.

As far as I am concerned as soon as a writer starts talking about cutting down Superman's power level, he just needs to be sent to the Batman editor to work on Batman because he obviously doesn't have what it takes to handle Supes.

 

[blueboy2010]

Exactly, it's about money.
A critical success that fails at the box office will not spawn sequels.
A critical failure that has box office success will produce sequels, even if they hadn't been planned beforehand.
And I would hardly call a 76% positive rating a hugely successful film.
And yes, when a film is targeted/expected to make 500 million, and it makes half that, it is from the studio's perspective a failure.

Hang on guys, lets just make sure we get the numbers right. There's been too much bull spoken about the SR numbers. I got so sick of people saying it cost over 250 million to make.
The other guy said they wanted it to make $500m and it only made $200m. Huh?
It made a little over 200 in the US. It made 391 worldwide if I'm not mistaken. The studio would've liked at least a 500m box office worldwide, not just in the US! How many films make 500m domestically?
So to be accurate, it didn't make 'half' of the expected 500m. It made 391, which was more than Batman Begins, a film which had no trouble getting a sequel underway.
It wasn't only about the money. It was the lack of love/interest from the movie-going public for the film, and the way it left the character at the film's end.
I seem to remember a Warner Bros guy saying that it didn't 'position' the character as well as they'd hoped. This refers both to how successfully the character was reintroduced to the audience and also where the character was at the end of the film. They screwed up with the screenplay, the character had been written into a corner with nowhere to go. This issue should've been addressed in pre-production. And there's no doubt that the public just weren't that interested in the film.
I've always been a defender of this film. But I was under no illusions about its shortcomings when I left the cinema. And if you look at the tone of the film, the pacing of it, there was no way it was gonna be a huge hit. Also, I just don't think it was a good time for a Superman movie to be released. Hopefully the public will be feeling it a bit more come 2013. (It also didn't help that they released it within a week of POTC2, suicide).
Anyway, it's in the past now. It'll remain as a bookend to the Chris Reeve/ Richard Donner era.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

No?

Iron Man 2 – Reviewers: 74% and it's getting a sequel
Capt. America – 79% (RT reviewers) 76% (RT audiences)
Spider-Man – Although it got 89% from RT reviewers, it got only 65% from RT audiences (1 less than SR right?)

And even when liked by fans, TIH got 66% by RT reviewers and 75% only from audiences.

It's as you say: money is what makes it have a sequel.


Well, it was their problem they needed to make that much to strat with. And therefore I agree; it was their expectation and a failure according to their perspective.

Argumentum ad Populum is all the % of so and so liked, and the % of user reviews means to me.

I did not like SR, and I wont pay one cent to see it again.

Generally yes. Money making is it.

Clearly it underperformed bad enough for us to be getting a re-boot.

 

[El Payaso]

Hang on guys, lets just make sure we get the numbers right. There's been too much bull spoken about the SR numbers. I got so sick of people saying it cost over 250 million to make.
The other guy said they wanted it to make $500m and it only made $200m. Huh?
It made a little over 200 in the US. It made 391 worldwide if I'm not mistaken. The studio would've liked at least a 500m box office worldwide, not just in the US! How many films make 500m domestically?
So to be accurate, it didn't make 'half' of the expected 500m. It made 391, which was more than Batman Begins, a film which had no trouble getting a sequel underway.

I completely agree.

They screwed up with the screenplay, the character had been written into a corner with nowhere to go.

With all due respect, I have never quite got this.

Superman was written no more into a corner than Batman was in TDK.

Argumentum ad Populum is all the % of so and so liked, and the % of user reviews means to me.

I did not like SR, and I wont pay one cent to see it again.

Generally yes. Money making is it.

Clearly it underperformed bad enough for us to be getting a re-boot.

For the executives expectations. 391 millions are not bad at all since B Begins made less thgan that and it got a sequel as they weren't expecting much after B&R. They were expecting more with Superman though, since, for starters, they had already spent millions before Singer was even hired. Understandable.

 

[Vagosnati]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing too.

As a huge Superman fan, I was totally hyped about seeing Superman Returns, and I chewed up ever piece of news, every spy shot and every trailer and TV spot that came out before the film's release.

And I came out of the cinema pretty impressed, I felt like I enjoyed the film a lot. But I'll happily admit now that I was probably swayed a lot by the fact that this was the first big-screen Superman adaption in 20 years, and also by the few epic & memorable moments in the film - the plane save, lifting New Krypton, etc.

The film just does not stand up to subsequent viewings. It's only on subsequent viewings (and never the first viewing) that you get little deeper into the story and dialogue, and can look at the film as a whole without the anticipation of how it might end or without the WOW factor of seeing a brand new Superman up on that big screen.

I've watched it 6 or 7 times since that first showing, and each time it irritates me a little more and I find myself fast-forwarding through some of the more plodding scenes. Why does it irritate me? The CGi is poor. The kid should just not be in the story at all. Superman as a glorified peeping-tom/stalker goes against a lot of what the character stands for. The lack of action. A bad portrayal of Lois Lane. A dubious storyline with Superman deserting Earth for 5 years, which doesn't seem like something he'd do. Yet another evil real-estate plan by Lex Luthor. Superman/Christ parallels so obvious they almost hit you in the face. Disastrous colour filters which ruin the look of the Superman suit and give the whole a film a sickly sheen. Too many Donner references.

The whole concept of linking this brand new Superman film, with a new cast, a new director, and an updated look ................... to two previous Superman films from 20 years before - whilst simultaneously ignoring Superman III and IV- is so obviously flawed that it's crazy to think we fans pretty much bought it at the time.

The film has some good moments, but they're heavily outweighed by the bad.

Me too man.And when i saw it i was so dissapointed...From where to start?Superman with a child.Stupid thinking.He disapeared for 5 years without telling Lois.Without telling to the world.The hero and protector of earth,just dissapeared like this.Who thought of that,anyway?And the worst of all..Kryptonite in the land Luthor created...Superman had the strength to lift the entire think until the space,but not the strength to resist to luthor and his men..The only good moment for me,was on the plane rescue...38 minutes until we saw superman..Singer,go to direct kid movies,man.
By the way.i have read somewhere,that the new man of steel costume will be somethink like symbiot..it will be allways on him,on a ball or something...maybe on this yellow ball in his belt?does anyone read something?

 

[Kurosawa]

Me too man.And when i saw it i was so dissapointed...From where to start?Superman with a child.Stupid thinking.He disapeared for 5 years without telling Lois.Without telling to the world.The hero and protector of earth,just dissapeared like this.Who thought of that,anyway?And the worst of all..Kryptonite in the land Luthor created...Superman had the strength to lift the entire think until the space,but not the strength to resist to luthor and his men..The only good moment for me,was on the plane rescue...38 minutes until we saw superman..Singer,go to direct kid movies,man.
By the way.i have read somewhere,that the new man of steel costume will be somethink like symbiot..it will be allways on him,on a ball or something...maybe on this yellow ball in his belt?does anyone read something?

That's just speculation. It is clear that it is Kryptonian clothing of some kind, as Zod's costume is a black version of it and Jor-El wears a blue version of it under his armor.