The Official Start/Release Date & Location Thread

[Showtime]

When was Superman ever "cool" in the sense that he acted "cool" on screen? Kids thought he was cool because he was Superman and had the ability to do all the things that they only dreamed off. They thought it was "cool" that he could fly, use x-ray vision, heat vision, superbreath, and freezebreath.

The reason Superman became uncool is because he was out of the public's eye for so long. Sure I know there was other incarnations of Superman; comics, animated, tv, action figures, video games, and so on. The problem is WB took so long to bring the Man of Steel back that characters like Batman and Spiderman took his place. Then when "Superman Returns" they find that he just isn't as "cool" anymore. The question reamins is that because it was Donner's Superman and not a new modern version of Superman?

 

[dark_b]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that...but isn't it Singer's job as a director to find a way to make the character "cool" and relatable? Isn't it his job as a director to give us something new so the oversaturation of the market and the been there done that attitude is not a factor (and I hardly think giving us a sequel to a 30 year old movie is the way to shake those). Isn't it his job to work around plot holes and baggage that comes with the character as opposed to adding to it? And finally, isn't it his job to make a movie capable of standing up to a mammoth like Pirates?

I mean, all your factors are correct, but these are all factors people were aware of BEFORE THE FACT and Singer did nothing to correct them. That is why fault lies with him.

i also said many times that it is all singers fault. but i guess i made a mistake.
i have big respect for singer because he first wants to make a movie that he likes. an arrtist should be make something that he likes nto something that the people would like.
we just can not forget WB. WB are the ones who gave him 200 milions and full control. at the end of the day WB are the ones who f..... up a lot.

 

[mego joe]

When was Superman ever "cool" in the sense that he acted "cool" on screen? Kids thought he was cool because he was Superman and had the ability to do all the things that they only dreamed off. They thought it was "cool" that he could fly, use x-ray vision, heat vision, superbreath, and freezebreath.

You're right on about that.

The reason Superman became uncool is because he was out of the public's eye for so long. Sure I know there was other incarnations of Superman; comics, animated, tv, action figures, video games, and so on. The problem is WB took so long to bring the Man of Steel back that characters like Batman and Spiderman took his place. Then when "Superman Returns" they find that he just isn't as "cool" anymore. The question reamins is that because it was Donner's Superman and not a new modern version of Superman?

I think the problem with using the Donner version was that it was not totally the Donner version, IMO, as stated numerous times elsewhere. But also that it was almost all the same Donner moments and dialogue rehashed, with only small story elements changed.

And perhaps, all the coold things he could do seemed like afterthougths in the story instead of critical uses of his 'cool' powers that were meanigful to the plot.

 

[dark_b]

ohhh i hate the dialoge fro mdonner. this dialoge was only for singer and the fans. because the geeneral public didnk know that it was from S:TM. cheap.

 

[Excel]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.

Ummm ..... WHAT!???
Are you on drugs (prescribed or not)???
I agree that Raimi had the most freedom and could just do what he wanted to. But then again, he delivered two stories that are loved worldwide and took Spider-Man from zero to hero because he had a vision that matched the publics interest.

Nolan had the biggest fight of them all. Batman was dead. Read it slowly and internalise it: D-E-A-D.
Nolan made a kick-ass story and portrayed Batman as bad ass as it gets and so the movie marched for four months over every obstacle to make more money than anyone could've imagined at that point. Maybe WB expected it to hit big, but I sure as hell never heard any normal person care about this movie and was one of the few who even went to the theatres in the first week. The great story and resulting w-o-m made the movie and it still builds up a bigger fanbase week for week since it hit DVD. If the BB sequel can hold up to it's expectations - $500+ mill worldwide won't be a problem.

Superman had two big new versions on tv who already revived the character completly after the stupid-written Reeve movies and there was also a hell of a new comics origin (let's say "post-crisis" in general). And the latest show "Smallville" was the one that brought back the publics eye to even consider a new Superman movie. (Granted, the Matrix 3 helped the buzz, too.) In fact the third-party marketing around the franchise was much bigger and better than the final marketing for the new movie. But that's another thing.
So how in the hell are the comic writers the ones to blame for the movie when anyone in charge came to the conclusion it was the best to use the oldest incarnation of Superman they (the writers) already buried 20 years ago???
The biggest failure was to even consider the Reeve movies to be a great Superman version. They're not. Never were. They had villains and stories from the 60's/70's and some Jesus crap mixed within. If it wouldn't have been for the groundbreaking effects no one would've looked twice at them. Look at the BO from the first movie and then it's constant drops till the bomb S4.

Watch the "Look up into the Sky" documentary and hear some DC guy plain out say (something like that): "That era (<70s) of Superman was done, it was time for a new take. We brought John Byrne in ..."

And now tell me why DC have anything to do with the boring, lackluster Superman take Singer gave us, when any Superman comic and tv show has shown Superman handsome, cool and likeable over the past 20 years?
Do you really believe Superman comics would sell well if it wasn't for they're well-written stories and good take on the characters? (Of course, some comics are crap, but there's a good variety to choose from, unlike the ONE movie we have to live with now.)

If anything, the movie failed because unlike Spider-Man and Batman, WB took the high road and delivered a movie on the back of Chris Reeve's reputation rather than Superman's new meaning to a world who has changed drastically since the Cold War era. A sequel to an already wrong setup won't do anything but kill the character ... again.

 

[Justice Bringer]

I totally agree that the Reeve films are over-rated and outdated in the grand scope of Superman.

\S/ is a very different entity nowadays but I can't say that L+C and Smallville did a decent job of presenting that.

Only the animated Timm version and the comics seem to portray a modern Superman thats popular with the fanboys.

I'm not sure the extent Bryan refered to when he said the sequel would have basis in the contemporary comics but they need to move alot more towards that direction if we ever want to see a modern \S/ film somewhat reflective of the post 86 era.

 

[DarkMajin]

I myself love the Reeve films, but were I in charge of a new Superman franchise, I wouldn't be trying to recreate, recapture, or connect it with the Reeve films.
It needs to be new.
A problem with SR is that it was one half trying to be like the Donner films, and also trying to be really serious and dramatic. It tried to mix the Donner Superman with a Superman who feels alone on earth, doesn't have quite the character the Reeve Supes did, and one who has soap operatic problems with Lois...and her kid...and her lover, etc.

Didn't work out.

Fact is Superman is a boy scout. This is one of his greatest qualities and greatest weaknesses. His stories should highlight this.
Singer painted his Superman as this alien being who felt all alone on earth...and that isn't Superman.
Superman was raised from an infant on Earth, as an Earthling. He's more like an Earthling who discovers he's really an alien with superpowers. I mean, he was raised in Kansas...this is not at all Singer's Superman.

Superman's character is fine as he is supposed to be...he needs cool stories for his coolness factor to really come out.

 

[Matt]

i also said many times that it is all singers fault. but i guess i made a mistake.
i have big respect for singer because he first wants to make a movie that he likes. an arrtist should be make something that he likes nto something that the people would like.
we just can not forget WB. WB are the ones who gave him 200 milions and full control. at the end of the day WB are the ones who f..... up a lot.

With all respect, that is a load and if Singer actually believes that it is the most arrogant thing I have ever heard.

 

[Matt]

I'm glad you can see the validity of some of those points. You raise an excellent point also. The question is: As the director does Singer have the responsibility of dealing with stuff like like this? I say: ABSOLUTELY!

But here is my problem. Earlier in the thread you were raising the comparison to Spider-man. Let me ask you, did Sam Raimi have to deal with even half of these difficulties? In fact, looking at it there is only one of my points that might have hurt Raimi's Spider-man (flooding of the marketplace). Was Raimi asked to change the perception of a character from "uncool" to "cool?" Was Raimi asked to respect a past Spider-man film franchise while simultaneously setting the character in a new direction? Was he asked to get people excited about a character that they had already seen multiple times on film before? Was he asked to overcome people's problems with how Spidey disguises himself (Peter just covers his whole face with a mask, how can anyone not see through that? )? Did anything even remotely as powerful box office-wise, open the week after Spider-man?


What I'm talking about, is degree of difficulty. I take that into account when looking at a director's work. Singer had a lot to overcome in two and a half hours. If you try to over do it then it is obvious and becomes tacky. It is a huge challenge. Out of these three directors Raimi, Nolan, Singer, which had the most challenging job? I think it comes down to Nolan and Singer. Raimi really didn't have anykind of negative vibe to overcome. Nolan had the awful stink of Batman & Robin to deal with. More than anything the terrible memories of that movie kept people away from theaters. Singer has the whole negative perception of the character to deal with. It's not just that people disliked a show or a movie, many people flat-out dislike the character himself. To many people, he isn't THE MAN OF STEEL or THE WORLD's GREATEST SUPERHERO, he is simply THE LAME BOYSCOUT. I've heard people say "Superman is the most well known, iconic hero out there!" But I ask, what good does it do you if people have heard of you and they've already decided they don't like you!

Does Singer bear responsibility? Sure. But he doesn't bear responsibility alone. Under whose watch did this perception of Superman being lame, take hold? DC Comics. More than anyone else, they are the ones who have perpetuated the idea that Superman is lame. I give Singer credit for taking steps towards changing the attitude but it is going to take time imo.

I dare say, Raimi had the more difficult challenge. He had no ground work to go on, where as Singer pretty much copied Donner's origin and history. Raimi had to create his own universe and his own characters. Singer couldn't even do that. Even if Singer's challenge was more difficult, he took the easy way out. He didn't even TRY to live up to his challenge, he simply let someone else (Richard Donner) do it for him.

 

[El Payaso]

I dare say, Raimi had the more difficult challenge. He had no ground work to go on, where as Singer pretty much copied Donner's origin and history. Raimi had to create his own universe and his own characters. Singer couldn't even do that. Even if Singer's challenge was more difficult, he took the easy way out. He didn't even TRY to live up to his challenge, he simply let someone else (Richard Donner) do it for him.

Just to remind how much of Donner's origin movie Raimi did copy, not to mention his Superman's shirt opening shameless rip off and those stupid references to the Up up and away line, Shazam and Batman's utility belt.

Other than that Raimi just made Peter Parker the average 'funny' American movie nerd and then followed assgning the archetypes for the rest of the characters.

If anything the risky thing was to be so goddam well-worn and still suceed at the BO. But Raimi didn't take Spidey from zero to hero since Spiderman has a solid history in comic books and everybody's collective memory. He didn't create his own characters at all. For a first ever big budget well-marketed movie about such a popular character, we would have needed some really awful director to screw that up. I mean, even Fantastic Four had a decent BO and that was as bad as it's possible. But they're popular and never seen on big screen.

 

[Matt]

Just to remind how much of Donner's origin movie Raimi did copy, not to mention his Superman's shirt opening shameless rip off and those stupid references to the Up up and away line, Shazam and Batman's utility belt.

How much of his origin? Comeon, those are homages, little visuals and in jokes and are hardly the same as lifting plots and relying on a 30 year old movie to develop your characters for you.

Other than that Raimi just made Peter Parker the average 'funny' American movie nerd and then followed assgning the archetypes for the rest of the characters.

If anything the risky thing was to be so goddam well-worn and still suceed at the BO. But Raimi didn't take Spidey from zero to hero since Spiderman has a solid history in comic books and everybody's collective memory. He didn't create his own characters at all. For a first ever big budget well-marketed movie about such a popular character, we would have needed some really awful director to screw that up. I mean, even Fantastic Four had a decent BO and that was as bad as it's possible. But they're popular and never seen on big screen.

You can try to sell Raimi short all you want, but the sequel numbers imply he did something VERY right, otherwise there wouldn't have been such a huge return audience.

 

[El Payaso]

How much of his origin? Comeon, those are homages, little visuals and in jokes and are hardly the same as lifting plots and relying on a 30 year old movie to develop your characters for you.

The structure is pretty much the same. I misused the word 'copy.'

But he used the references as jokes the same way Singer used his refrences as winks. They're there just to please some fans but are rather unfunny and useless in both SR and Spiderman.

You can try to sell Raimi short all you want, but the sequel numbers imply he did something VERY right, otherwise there wouldn't have been such a huge return audience.

Of course. BO shows us he's a master pleasing masses. But that's about it as long as what S-M1 BO numbers imply. Now, for the sequel, that's a different story. Spiderman 2 was vastly better than the first one.

Very often masses who go to movies just to relax on weekends thank a lot for some crappy one liners that make them laugh for a while (or to their children,) that's why they keep doing that.

Once again, movies like Fantastic 4 have good BO and there's nothing right in them.

 

[Weadazoid]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.

While Excel and I differ on many things at times... I certainly do agree with all of his points and retorts in this thread.

I feel that X men 1 and 2 were Super serious in nature, even if there wasn't a love story attached as say in gladiator, but Singer has always brought stark realism to his work..... It's just with Superman when he interjected a little humor it didn't work as well... I look at the sequence at the end of x2 as a good example of well used humor in a serious movie..the little blys blue devil touge sticking out at Striker


in this one..they did that used It's a bird..It's a plane thing.....and it just came off as hokey...not because it wasn't well written or humous in theory...it's just..Superman.

Luthor could have had a few more "Boy Scout' or "goody goody" or "brains vs Brawn" lines to throw at Superman..... ala Wolverine and Cyclops witty banter IMO

 

[Matt]

The structure is pretty much the same. I misused the word 'copy.'

But he used the references as jokes the same way Singer used his refrences as winks. They're there just to please some fans but are rather unfunny and useless in both SR and Spiderman.

Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.

Of course. BO shows us he's a master pleasing masses. But that's about it as long as what S-M1 BO numbers imply. Now, for the sequel, that's a different story. Spiderman 2 was vastly better than the first one.

Very often masses who go to movies just to relax on weekends thank a lot for some crappy one liners that make them laugh for a while (or to their children,) that's why they keep doing that.

Once again, movies like Fantastic 4 have good BO and there's nothing right in them.

Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob. Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?

 

[dark_b]

Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.



Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob. Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?

opinions. only opinions.

 

[El Payaso]

Singer did not simply use 'winks'. Singer lifted the plot, relied on the Donner movies to establish his characters, and all in all used them as a crutch There is a huge difference between that and a few 'winks'.

No more than Raimi used Superman II for Spiderman 2. Or Nolan used STM for Batman Begins. Now yes, if you add to that the direct quotes and stuff it gives a worse impression.

Now, I have to mention that lifting a plot (that is not even from another franchise) is nothing wrong per se.

Your entire elitist "the masses are stupid" attitude just makes you come off as a snob.

But not wrong about it.

Furthermore, both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are much better reviewed than Superman Returns (nearly 15 % for Spider-Man, 20 % for Spider-Man 2). So are critics just stupid masses as well?

Not only as stupid but a lot more arrogant. And 95% of them just post his personal opinions - which everybody has - but they rely on the fact that since they're printed somewhere, those opinions are more valid or official than anyone else's. And I see you took the whole bait.

 

[Showtime]

In regards to Sam Raimi, he wen't overboard with overboard with his "tributes"
"nods", "winks" or whatever they may be called. That being said it worked for him. I can point to so many scenes, visuals, or sequences heavily influenced by the Donner movies. Let's just say he "nodded" until his neck got sore, or "winked" until his eyes stung.

That being said, it is on a different plane than what Singer did, he was continuing a storyline from a previous incarnation of Superman and moving forward with the same versions of the character living in the same world. He not only used the Donner Template from STM, actually used a hybrid of the plot points.

Apples and oranges.

 

[patrickbateman]

FOR ME BRYAN JUST DOESN&#8217;T GET SUPERMAN

He get&#8217;s his version of superman and wants to just shove it down our throats. This is what happens when a person with ego takes over a project the same can be said about Joel Schumacher who forced us with his take on batman and robin ignoring the different interpretations of the character out there that were true to the original intent of the character. Superman is the last son of krypton what part of that does singer doesn&#8217;t get? he is suppose to be alone in his adoptive world till he finds kara . He&#8217;s not suppose to be a father yeah father figure! Sure, as a role model yeah but not an actual father .Its one of the aspect that brings in the vulnerability trigger the envy inside of him. Its like Bruce Wayne and marriage just doesn&#8217;t gel with the character. With singer&#8217;s superman returns the character actually evolved to A SUPER-MAN gone was his weakness and vulnerability that defined the character even kryptonite that was once considered harmful and fatal is now just a joke. He is by the end of the day a reflection of ourselves only SUPER thanks to singer.

As for lex I was disappointed what did he do besides becoming a man **** to gain a huge mansion and a big boat? Yeah he wanted to built an island after all the vast improvements made that character in the comic books and other medium singer brought him down to a goofy guy who wanted to own his island. Again its singer shoving us with his love for the donner movies and Donald trump another attention ****e like singer. Where was the business man lex? The scentist lex? Why are we stuck with the real estate lex? Oooh real estates are as intimidating in a world of 2006 than they were back in the reeve-donner movies.

The donner universe ok I admit its classic but no way is it perfect for today world of 2006 post 9/11, the world is a very different place. Superman can&#8217;t stand for truth, hope and justice the American way. Cause the American way its self is at stake, may not be in its own country but globally America really doesn&#8217;t stand for what it did back in the donner reeve era. So yes that&#8217;s where we need a new take on character pertaining to the current times what defined Sam raimi&#8217;s Spiderman and Nolan&#8217;s batman acceptable were the post 9/11 settings. That day defiantly redefine superheroes and for one who claims to be on the top of that list, singer should have updated and modeled the settings to current times. For me the whole timeless frames didn&#8217;t work at all it felt out of place in terms of connecting it to the donner movies aswell as placing it with what I would consider acceptable. Yeah singer should have made a world of 2006 where in mankind does live in fear o their own system and he should have acknowledged it rather than inserting old newspaper articles.

Reeve the man above superman- now not many of you may agree to it but for me what hurt the franchise was the continuation to the reeve-donner movies. I felt it was disrespectful for butchering what the character stood for I really don&#8217;t see superman abandoning his earth planet after superman 2 let alone him stalking lois. Most importantly in this past decade Reeve&#8217;s has become Superman. Reeve&#8217;s the man really became Superman exceeding it o a level even more than anyone could imagine an actor could pull of. He became a source of inspiration to everyone, a role model , a fighter who was fighting against his own body, he stood for hope. Don&#8217;t even get me started on the confidence and drive the man had. So back to my point getting a look a like of Reeve and continuing from the donner reeve universe is really replacing him. Sure if it was an origin story the crowd would handle it much better but for those like my parents who were in the reeve-donner era, singer&#8217;s whole SUPERMAN RETURNS really implied that he was replacing him. How can you replace a man like Reeve who has define what Superman stood for off screen and on screen.You cant .

See I'm actually acting like Bryan singer right now being an attention ****e by quoting my own reply. Thus implementing my ideas down your throats really not giving a dam if you want to read or not t:

 

[Ita-KalEl]

well, if superman was "cool" in the film, fans would ***** to no end.

"routh didnt work out!"

a "cool" superman would have a muscle molded-rubber suit. like spidermans with a cape, with visible six pac and pecs.

"the actors are too young!"

a "cool" superman woulda starred josh hartnett,mischa barton, and johnny depp as supes, lois, and lex.....

theres a lot more too. All valid complaints; singer DID completely take awya ANY cool factor when he opted for the retro look(supes & metropolis looking out ofthe 30's) over the modern, stylized look (spider-man, batman begins).

But you need to realize, he wasn't trying make a big blockbuster like spider-man. He wanted a big, sweeping epic love story like a titanic, or a gladiator or lord of the rings (not including the love story), which is the film was SO damn serious and dramatic, and it did payoff with the very emotional finale, which in itself coulda been a lot better. I can see why Warners hired him because the story, when most imagine it, sounds a lot better than how it came out.

"Lois is still bitter at superman, but she saves his life anyways, only to have him actually say "good bye" and go off to certain death to save the world".

that is what happens in returns, but it coulda been a helluva lot better. A better plot for Luthor that Superman had to stop, and a better location(a plane wing?????wtf) woulda made the scenes a lot more effective.

The whole LOOK of the film, excluding the plane scene, was so....dull....energyless....it was hard to market as "cool". That siad, the movie wasnt that hard to market and they did a decent job oneverything aside from the theatrical trailers. Banners, poster, tv spots were all superb.

I can agree with the 90% of your post, but I don't think that the WB greenlited the movie because it looked "better" on paper.
I know a lot of guys that read the script in May 2006, and they didn't change their opinions (bad or good) after the release date.
The guys that loved the script, loved the movie.
The guys that disliked the script, dis****d the movie...

We have a lot of examples even on the web: Moriarty from AICN, the UGO.com journalist etc.
There was not any "OMG this movie sucks! I don't understand how it is possible, the script was great".
Singer did a good job, probably he even improved the script. For example the scene of the "false shirt-rip" sounded a little pathetic. The CGI edited scene wasn't great, but at least was better than the original one.

The WB greenlited SR because after the terrible reinterpretations of the character (Superman Lives and Ratner's Superman), they thought that a sort of reprise of the old and beloved franchise would have been a good idea.
The point is they have made a good epic (even in the lenght) movie for the '70ties, but NOT for the 2006 audience. They had to put more action in it. Nevertheless the movie remains good. I think that they can easily improve it with the sequel.
I personally don't like the "cool" movies. If you want to make a "cool" sh movie, you have great chances to do a bad movie. For example Ghost Rider. It was made to be cool and very teen-ager friendly, but IMO it is pure crap.

 

[superbaby]

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.
This time SM3 and FF2 will face a good competition and I doubt that we are going to see incredible numbers. SM3 will be lucky to finish close to the SM2 total gross, and the FF2 will struggle to cross the 170m mark.
By now SR did more than FF, BB and Ghost Rider. It was beaten only by X-Men: The Last Stand (the second anticipated sequel of a popular franchise).

i believe Spidey 3 will be the winner this summer. it has 3 clear weeks before the competition comes up. and its marketing is so extensive and excellent.

mark my words.

 

[GreenKToo]

Its going to be interesting to say the least. My money is on pirates 3 being the B.O. king this yr. (in a close one)
EDIT: if i'm not mistaken, spidey 3 has 2 weeks to itself before shrek the 3rd comes out.

i believe Spidey 3 will be the winner this summer. it has 3 clear weeks before the competition comes up. and its marketing is so extensive and excellent.

mark my words.

 

[superbaby]

Its going to be interesting to say the least. My money is on pirates 3 being the B.O. king this yr. (in a close one)
EDIT: if i'm not mistaken, spidey 3 has 2 weeks to itself before shrek the 3rd comes out.

the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3. furthermore, the market is superb... one of the best i have seen in the history. if nothing goes wrong, it will easily break SR's record in less than 10 days and make billions if not breaking pirate2's record.

 

[Angeloz]

the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3. furthermore, the market is superb... one of the best i have seen in the history. if nothing goes wrong, it will easily break SR's record in less than 10 days and make billions if not breaking pirate2's record.

LOL make billions in ten days. You're not lexlives? Or what?

Angeloz

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

the hype and positive buzz for spidey3 are HUGE!!! there isn't any big movie out before spidey. and it has three weeks to gross before pirates 3.

Shrek The Third opens just 2 weeks later than Spider-Man and will get a lot of the younger audience. It's a big fight in May.