The Official Start/Release Date & Location Thread

[Maze]

But Singer did make him dark, Singer did make him broody. That wasn't the problem. The problem was he was unrelatable. Singer tried so hard to alienate him, that he ended up alienating him from the audience as well.

Superman can be dark and broody and yet still relatable, likable, and maintain all the classic elements that make the character great (look no further than A Superman For All Seasons)...Singer ignored the relatable, likable, and classic elements...and that is why it failed.

I agree that he made him more dark (but, again personnaly i think he made him more human and more relatable in the process) i maintain that people had preconception about the character.

Matt , i don't know you but i know a lot of people who didn't wan't to see the movie , because they just had preconception about the characters.

now i know people who saw it who didn't like Superman before and fell in love with him and found him more relatable than ever ( and i know a lot of Superman 78 fans who loved the movie , and i know people who were bored to death lol it's fifty fifty on the matter )

 

[Weadazoid]

Why is this thread still going? I thought this argum,ent was put to rest a week ago. Am i wrong, or are singer haters just keeping this and Wlakchosky rebooot thread going to anoy others.


I am in the middle, part of me wants to see SInger take it as far as a 2nd film, but there were definite aspects of returns that I did not care for

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Freddy, Dude...I am not going to argue the intended demographics of Batman Begins with you, because you both know as well as I do that it was intended for an older demographic than the Spider-Man audience and you know it. To say WB expected Spider-Man numbers for it is absurd. And again, there is no point arguing BB as you can not use another movie's shortcomings to justify Bryan Singer's.

I'm not trying to argue anything with you, Matt. Arguing on the internet is dumb. Now debating, that's a different issue. I just don't see how anyone can say that Warner Brothers wasn't hoping that kids would go to the new Batman movie in droves. Was it dark? Yes, but so was Burton's and that was popular for adults and children.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I was just saying that all superhero films are expected to bring a younger demographic in, not just Superman, not just Spider-man, but a dark brooding character such as Batman as well.

 

[Majestic]

I'll give you that, but you should also take into account that Batman 89 had several things going for it that Superman 78 did not.

Firstly, it had a revolutionary marketing campaign the likes of Hollywood had never seen before.

Second, it had a much larger cast than either Superman or Spider-Man (Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Keaton...these are all A-listers and at the time were all huge box office draws).

I still maintain comparrisons to Spider-Man are far more fair than comparrisons to Batman, 89 or Begins.

I have to agree with you somewhat. But it is almost impossible to compare the release of the original superman to spiderman because of how the industry has changed since 1978. Less so with 89 batman which was meant to be a so called movie event which they do today. Supermans widest release was 817 theaters, not 4000 and that was built upon as the movie gained popularity. Superman established the genre in the first place!

 

[Ita-KalEl]

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).

 

[GreenKToo]

I agree with you on this. IMHO for good or bad singer chose to go the realistic route with superman, pretty much ignoring the younger audience. Now the older crowd (mostly) liked/loved it, but the younger crowd (mostly) didnt, and they are the ones that make a B.O. huge with multiple viewings. They need to find the perfect balance in the sequel, and not stray to far either way and the B.O. could be huge. I'm glad I dont have the job, a headache for sure.

superman is more for kids plus he is more fantasy. so i also think that he should make more money than batman.

 

[Super Kal]

I agree with dark b... Superman is a character that is aimed for younger people because he is a light hearted character... and that's probably why I didn't like the movie.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

I wouldn't say the movie was aimed for either (old/young) but wholly to the braindead. You have to suspend alot of disbelief to accept the choppy, unrealistic and deadly boring story.
The sequel must make a complete "180" to even have a chance of making another $200 mill in the end. Good luck.

I think that the "perception" of the SR boxoffice numbers will drastically change next summer.

Yep, you and your friends will finally see how well working franchises make money at the BO. Which means: one lesser point for you too brag about. t:

 

[Weadazoid]

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 hate to break it to you but Spiderman kicks off Summer....it is a spot that MI3 had last year and many predicted big numbers for MI 3 simply based on that fact alone

300 already proved people are about action and a good story and it's not even Summer, Spiderman will break open huge...I think it may well beat out Pirates 2 record opening day.

My 50+ year old father in law knows when Spiderman 3 is coming out for gods sakes... Everyone will be there.

It has the same kind of competion as Spiderman 1 whcih had Star wars to contend with

Spiderman 3 will make over 400 Million..esspecialy with Memorial day still in shot of giving it a serious boost...even if it is in 3rd place by that point.

Last year was weird

Face it MI3 crapped out and still beneifited from being the first action movie..Posiedon Bombed, The Code got terrible reviews and X men was just sitting there waiting with alot of hope and hype form the previous movies....

X3 may have gotten even better moves at the Box office had it opened first..last year everyone had to wait it out..this year everyone going to be there to kick it off

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Mark my words: Spiderman 3 will be beaten at least by two other summer blockbusters.
IMO the he first movie is Transformers wich is going to be the real surprise of the summer. Then I would say POTC3...or maybe Shrek III...I don't know.

If you look at the release schedule Spiderman III will have 2 weeks without any significant competition, but then it will have two monsters: Shrek III and POTC3.

IMO it will be very frontloaded, and if it is lucky the total gross will be similar to Spiderman2 (330-370m), not more.

But the best part is the situation of The FantasticFour2. If Evan Almighty, Ratatouille are going to be two great hits (more than 230m), and expecially if POTC3 shows some great legs, it will have few chances to cross the 160m mark.

If SM3 doesn't set any new record and the FF2 doesn't cross the 170m mark in the US, Superman Returns and Batman Begins have to be considered the most successful "new" sh franchises (behind Spiderman and the XMEN sequels).

 

[Showtime]

Mark my words: Spiderman 3 will be beaten at least by two other summer blockbusters.
IMO the he first movie is Transformers wich is going to be the real surprise of the summer. Then I would say POTC3...or maybe Shrek III...I don't know.

If you look at the release schedule Spiderman III will have 2 weeks without any significant competition, but then it will have two monsters: Shrek III and POTC3.

IMO it will be very frontloaded, and if it is lucky the total gross will be similar to Spiderman2 (330-370m), not more.

But the best part is the situation of The FantasticFour2. If Evan Almighty, Ratatouille are going to be two great hits (more than 230m), and expecially if POTC3 shows some great legs, it will have few chances to cross the 160m mark.

If SM3 doesn't set any new record and the FF2 doesn't cross the 170m

Spiderman has two weeks to earn big money and there is no doubt it will have legs. Don't forget this movie will be in IMAX as well, this movie should easily pass 400 million domestic proving Spiderman has taken Superman's place.

In regards to FF2, the best comparision is to look at the increase of BO from X-Men to X2. Just as I said that Daredevil was a good guage on what Ghost Rider would do.

 

[dark_b]

300 proved that people like very easy action movies.
i laso think that the reaso nwhy 300 made so much money was because a lot of people went in the theater thinking that they will watch a history movie like troy,..... of course it was not like thta.
plus 300 is something new when it comes to visual. the story and dialoge in 300 is very simple.

i will say again: if oyu find the right balance between story,action and good pacing you have a good movie that critics will like and it will make enough money.
the story should be serious but it should not be to complicated for little kids.

the theme in SR was IMO in nooo way for little kids. again i am not a kid anymore thats why i like hulk and SR but i want that the kids also enjoy in those movies like i did as a kid enjoy batman and superman. ohhh the old times.

 

[true316]

But Singer did make him dark, Singer did make him broody. That wasn't the problem. The problem was he was unrelatable. Singer tried so hard to alienate him, that he ended up alienating him from the audience as well.

Superman can be dark and broody and yet still relatable, likable, and maintain all the classic elements that make the character great (look no further than A Superman For All Seasons)...Singer ignored the relatable, likable, and classic elements...and that is why it failed.

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her ) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks!

 

[Super Kal]

the biggest problem IMO was it's similarity to STM...


that and the lighting

 

[Maze]

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her ) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks!

Nothing to add

 

[Matt]

I don't know. To me, it seems like you are oversimplifying things. I know a lot of Superman fans want to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT (it's easier than saying: my favorite character got owned at the box office)! In my opinion their are a lot of reasons that were contributing factors to SR not making Spider-Man type numbers. I'll just throw out some possible ideas here (I'm just speculating), you can take them how you want:

1. Superman just isn't perceived to be cool anymore!
Is there a greater crime to a teenage audience than to be uncool? Spider-man and Batman are seen as cool by most of the general audience. Spider-man is the relatable superhero. Batman is the ultimate bad***. Superman? He's the lame boyscout. I've never had to defend Batman or Spider-Man to my friends (in real life). Superman? All the time! My girlfriend, who is absolutely the sweetest person I've ever met, a person whom I have never heard say anything derogatory about anyone, has no problem making fun of Superman (I admit, she does it partly just to razz me, but I still like her ) . My best friend who saw the movie with me shares this attitude. I asked him what he thought after watching SR, this is what he said: "Well, I still think Superman's lame...but, it was a pretty good movie." He liked the movie, but he still felt he had to preface his opinion with the idea that Superman is lame. That is how deeply engrained the idea is to many people. That is an attitude that Singer did nothing to create, but is having to deal with.

2. The "Been There, Done That" Attitude!
Superman has been done so many times it is remarkable. Spider-Man was the first time audiences got to see a huge big budget spectacle about that hero. SR is definitely not the first time audiences have gotten Superman. I think this attitude also was partly responsible for BB average box office. I honestly believe Superman has about as many beloved incarnations as any fictional character around. The Fleischer Cartoons, The Adventures Of Superman, Superman 1-4, Lois & Clark, Smallville (I'm not even mentioning them all, just the ones most people are familiar with). I think a lot of people thought: "Superman? I've already seen him a bunch of times before." Even the second Spidey movie didn't make as much as the first one.

3. The Marketplace is FAR more flooded!
In the 70's, if you wanted to see a big budget, epic superhero movie, you couldn't watch Spider-man, Batman, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, or anything else like that. Superman was the only game in town. I think that makes a huge difference. It just isn't as big of a deal for a new Superman movie to come out because we see superhero movies all the time.

4. Inherent "Problems" with the Superman mythology!
If you are like me you have probably known people who scoff at some of the basic things that occur in Superman's world. "How come nobody recognizes him as Clark Kent? He's just wearing a pair of glasses! That's so stupid!" Also complaints I've heard include: the spit curl and the underwear on the outside of the pants. If you are a Superman fan you take these things in stride. Singer opted to include all of them in SR because they are classic elements. But what do you do if you are a general audience member? One of the great things about Smallvile is that it doesn't have to deal with any of this stuff. There is no ridiculous costume complete with underwear on the outside pants or a spit curl. There is no glasses disguise because he hasn't officially become Superman yet.

5. POTC 2!
Seriously, did Spider-man, or Batman (1989) have competition anywhere near as stiff as this? Also the fact that Disney opened their movie this close to SR tells me exactly how they figured the general audience would react to a new Superman movie. POTC 2 had popular characters, popular actors, and was a sequel to a well received, popular movie.


I think I could go on with more reasons but I think you have the idea. I don't mean to completely absolve Singer of any responsibility. I've heard he had a lot of influence on the marketing campaign. I think the marketing could have been a lot better as far as reaching out to the general audience. Also as far as the film itself, if it would have had more action (I'm just speculating) it could have gotten a little more repeat business. I know it might be easier to say IT'S ALL SINGER'S FAULT! I just think there are more factors to consider. Sorry for being so long-winded. If you took the time to read all this, thanks!

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.

 

[Eros]

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.

Like the post your quoted already said, people don't even find him cool anymore, hell after superman returns people just find him to be even more boring. Hell most superman fans, don't even thinkthe character is "cool" they like him for other reasons.

 

[Super Kal]

that's why you gotta make him cool again...

 

[BareKnucklez]

You need to make Superman a MAN again... Singer's Superman was a wimp!
A Low life, and everything Superman is not.
Singer is about 80% at fault for the failure that was SR.. The others to blame are the writers, actors, and yes the lame lame marketing.
The WB should think twice before letting Singer hack his way threw another 200million.

 

[Eros]

You need to make Superman a MAN again... Singer's Superman was a wimp!
A Low life, and everything Superman is not.
Singer is about 80% at fault for the failure that was SR.. The others to blame are the writers, actors, and yes the lame lame marketing.
The WB should think twice before letting Singer hack his way threw another 200million.

How was a "wimp" exactly?

 

[DarkMajin]

How was a "wimp" exactly?

Well, personally I was wondering what was going through the two screenwriter's and Singer's heads when they decided Superman wouldn't actually fight anyone in the whole film, but would get kicked around himself.

Also add in how he tended to mope around a lot and the soap operatics...and well, he just wasn't a "strong" Superman.

Imagine if they made a Batman film like that.

This was meant to be a reintroduction of a franchise...and today we have the ability to truly bring stories of Superman proportion to life...and well, they didn't.

 

[BareKnucklez]

How was a "wimp" exactly?

Well, personally I was wondering what was going through the two screenwriter's and Singer's heads when they decided Superman wouldn't actually fight anyone in the whole film, but would get kicked around himself.

Also add in how he tended to mope around a lot and the soap operatics...and well, he just wasn't a "strong" Superman.

Imagine if they made a Batman film like that.

This was meant to be a reintroduction of a franchise...and today we have the ability to truly bring stories of Superman proportion to life...and well, they didn't.

What he said ^^^ t:

Nacho Libre had more Action then Superman Returns!

 

[patrickbateman]

FOR ME BRYAN JUST DOESN’T GET SUPERMAN

He get’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’t get? he is suppose to be alone in his adoptive world till he finds kara . He’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’t gel with the character. With singer’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’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’t stand for what it did back in the donner reeve era. So yes that’s where we need a new take on character pertaining to the current times what defined Sam raimi’s Spiderman and Nolan’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’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’t see superman abandoning his earth planet after superman 2 let alone him stalking lois. Most importantly in this past decade Reeve’s has become Superman. Reeve’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’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’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 .

 

[true316]

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'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.

 

[Canis Sapiens]

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.

Also, to make Superman "cool" as Matt said, maybe Singer would have to get rid of the glasses as disguise, of the spitcurl, of the outside underwear, etc. How would the fans react to that? And most importantly: would WB allow him to do that?