WB/DC: It's All Part Of The Plan

[Super Kal]

that word of mouth isn't the best way to market a movie...

 

[Dr. Fate]

Actors who look like college students are not convincing as the experienced Superman & Lois Lane.

Burgundy does not suit Superman.

Land schemes are not interesting, even if they involve giant alien crystals.

Giving Superman a bastard son is not a good human story.

Superman picking up cars and other similarly large objects gets boring after a while.

Employing Jesus Christ imagery does not make the film's story better.

Using a 30 year old film as the template of your continuity is never a good idea.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

Actors who look like college students are not convincing as the experienced Superman & Lois Lane.

Burgundy does not suit Superman.

Land schemes are not interesting, even if they involve giant alien crystals.

Giving Superman a bastard son is not a good human story.

Superman picking up cars and other similarly large objects gets boring after a while.

Employing Jesus Christ imagery does not make the film's story better.

Using a 30 year old film as the template of your continuity is never a good idea.

Amen.

 

[Excel]

+more action
+more humor
+more style / less classic feel
-land schemes
-jesus christ
+fighting
-burgandy suit


p.s. superman returns was marketed fantastically.

 

[dark_b]

+more action
+more humor
+more style / less classic feel
-land schemes
-jesus christ
+fighting
-burgandy suit


p.s. superman returns was marketed fantastically.

i agree. raimi is like singer. he also changed the colours. from blue to grey. WTF is wrong with you raimi?

 

[lexlives]

The absolute neccesity.need to play to the character’s core base

Bryan Singer said it all when he called Superman Returns a “chick flick” - barely a week before its premier. This was a candid admission and one he had to backtrack on, but it confirmed all the earlier suspicions that Superman Returns was not being geared to Superman fans in general and the key Superman demos in particular – young males and male teens.

Mr. Singer spoke repeatedly of how this was his funniest film, his most romantic film. But never, that I know of, about the greater concept of good versus evil, Cain versus Abel - the inherent mythological elements that make the character before all else. Foundational elements that were missing in the film and, because of which, the film never truly felt epic – like a “real” Superman story.

This is not to say Mr. Singer did this on purpose. Most likely it was more an act of omission and not one of commission. It seems the producers assumed that Superman fans would come along for the ride as long as the name ’Superman’ was attached to the film.

The other key demo overlooked was the traditional middle American, of any age group, who is Superman’s natural audience. Scoffed at, seen as not progressive enough, this still is a core part of the movie-going audience and the bread and butter of a Superman film. Giving Lois a child out-of-wedlock, no matter how common this is today, put this key group off and in a way that seriously diminished their interest in and desire to see Superman Returns.

Its commendable to try to expand the base audience for a franchise character like Superman, but this absolutely must be done in an organic, natural way – by building upon /growing from the existing audience base. This was not done with Superman Returns.

A visit to the message board of any generic Superman or specific Superman Returns site this past year showed a sharply divided fan-base with a lot of anger. By contrast a visit to any Spiderman 3 or TDK site shows incredible enthusiasm for those coming films.

The failure to engage a majority of the fan-base in support of Superman Returns took its toll. Non-Superman fans who visited Superman sites this past year were left with the impression that the film was not good – since so many die-hard fans were strongly negative on the film. If the die-hard fans weren’t planning on seeing it, then why should they?

And on opening day, this other target audience - young females - turned out for The Devil Wears Prada and not SR. Coupled with many in the core base having been turned off and not turning out either, SR ended up stumbling in a major way over a long opening weekend. The negative buzz set in and the rest is history.

The buzz was never positive on Superman Returns because the nexus from which that positive buzz builds – the fan-base – never embraced this vision of Superman. The polarization among fans was a red warning flag from day one that, unfortunately, was not paid heed to.

No director or studio, no matter how good, can afford to take for granted a franchise's core base - Superman Returns proved that in spades.

 

[Excel]

umm...no. superman NEEDS to be part chick flick; singer just sucked at balancing the swashbuckling adventure flick with the special effects extravaganza pic with the....chick flick.

spidey found the perfect balance in spidey 1, and burto nfound the perfect balance in batman 1989.

 

[lexlives]

umm...no. superman NEEDS to be part chick flick; singer just sucked at balancing the swashbuckling adventure flick with the special effects extravaganza pic with the....chick flick.

spidey found the perfect balance in spidey 1, and burto nfound the perfect balance in batman 1989.

As I said, SR needed to grow the audience from its natural core base. Nothing wrong with trying to bring young women in - which SR didn't do anyway - but not at the expense of driving young males away.

 

[bgshw44]

yes the burgandy red needs to go, a maroon crimson is fine, but rusty burgandy is a no. they need to hire a new marketing team, do a better job of balancing the romance and action, pick up the pace with good editing decisions. I have no problem w/he kid, thats the one thing I trust singer to handle well.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

What they should learn? That a superhero movie must have substance and tell an interesting, well-written story. Just looking like a clone of something that was there before doesn't make it good. Interesting for old fans maybe but not good.

 

[SatEL]

Actors who look like college students are not convincing as the experienced Superman & Lois Lane.

Burgundy does not suit Superman.

Land schemes are not interesting, even if they involve giant alien crystals.

Giving Superman a bastard son is not a good human story.

Superman picking up cars and other similarly large objects gets boring after a while.

Employing Jesus Christ imagery does not make the film's story better.

Using a 30 year old film as the template of your continuity is never a good idea.

Amen x2

 

[SatEL]

The absolute neccesity.need to play to the character’s core base

Bryan Singer said it all when he called Superman Returns a “chick flick” - barely a week before its premier. This was a candid admission and one he had to backtrack on, but it confirmed all the earlier suspicions that Superman Returns was not being geared to Superman fans in general and the key Superman demos in particular – young males and male teens.

Mr. Singer spoke repeatedly of how this was his funniest film, his most romantic film. But never, that I know of, about the greater concept of good versus evil, Cain versus Abel - the inherent mythological elements that make the character before all else. Foundational elements that were missing in the film and, because of which, the film never truly felt epic – like a “real” Superman story.

This is not to say Mr. Singer did this on purpose. Most likely it was more an act of omission and not one of commission. It seems the producers assumed that Superman fans would come along for the ride as long as the name ’Superman’ was attached to the film.

The other key demo overlooked was the traditional middle American, of any age group, who is Superman’s natural audience. Scoffed at, seen as not progressive enough, this still is a core part of the movie-going audience and the bread and butter of a Superman film. Giving Lois a child out-of-wedlock, no matter how common this is today, put this key group off and in a way that seriously diminished their interest in and desire to see Superman Returns.

Its commendable to try to expand the base audience for a franchise character like Superman, but this absolutely must be done in an organic, natural way – by building upon /growing from the existing audience base. This was not done with Superman Returns.

A visit to the message board of any generic Superman or specific Superman Returns site this past year showed a sharply divided fan-base with a lot of anger. By contrast a visit to any Spiderman 3 or TDK site shows incredible enthusiasm for those coming films.

The failure to engage a majority of the fan-base in support of Superman Returns took its toll. Non-Superman fans who visited Superman sites this past year were left with the impression that the film was not good – since so many die-hard fans were strongly negative on the film. If the die-hard fans weren’t planning on seeing it, then why should they?

And on opening day, this other target audience - young females - turned out for The Devil Wears Prada and not SR. Coupled with many in the core base having been turned off and not turning out either, SR ended up stumbling in a major way over a long opening weekend. The negative buzz set in and the rest is history.

The buzz was never positive on Superman Returns because the nexus from which that positive buzz builds – the fan-base – never embraced this vision of Superman. The polarization among fans was a red warning flag from day one that, unfortunately, was not paid heed to.

No director or studio, no matter how good, can afford to take for granted a franchise's core base - Superman Returns proved that in spades.

And the amazing thing was that it wasnt even funny just a bunch of awkard moments, Routh and Bosworth had no chemistry at all and the romance was well none existant just a bunch of looks exchanged between the two and left for the audience to decipher.

 

[dpm07]

The absolute neccesity.need to play to the character’s core base

Bryan Singer said it all when he called Superman Returns a “chick flick” - barely a week before its premier. This was a candid admission and one he had to backtrack on, but it confirmed all the earlier suspicions that Superman Returns was not being geared to Superman fans in general and the key Superman demos in particular – young males and male teens.

Mr. Singer spoke repeatedly of how this was his funniest film, his most romantic film. But never, that I know of, about the greater concept of good versus evil, Cain versus Abel - the inherent mythological elements that make the character before all else. Foundational elements that were missing in the film and, because of which, the film never truly felt epic – like a “real” Superman story.

This is not to say Mr. Singer did this on purpose. Most likely it was more an act of omission and not one of commission. It seems the producers assumed that Superman fans would come along for the ride as long as the name ’Superman’ was attached to the film.

The other key demo overlooked was the traditional middle American, of any age group, who is Superman’s natural audience. Scoffed at, seen as not progressive enough, this still is a core part of the movie-going audience and the bread and butter of a Superman film. Giving Lois a child out-of-wedlock, no matter how common this is today, put this key group off and in a way that seriously diminished their interest in and desire to see Superman Returns.

Its commendable to try to expand the base audience for a franchise character like Superman, but this absolutely must be done in an organic, natural way – by building upon /growing from the existing audience base. This was not done with Superman Returns.

A visit to the message board of any generic Superman or specific Superman Returns site this past year showed a sharply divided fan-base with a lot of anger. By contrast a visit to any Spiderman 3 or TDK site shows incredible enthusiasm for those coming films.

The failure to engage a majority of the fan-base in support of Superman Returns took its toll. Non-Superman fans who visited Superman sites this past year were left with the impression that the film was not good – since so many die-hard fans were strongly negative on the film. If the die-hard fans weren’t planning on seeing it, then why should they?

And on opening day, this other target audience - young females - turned out for The Devil Wears Prada and not SR. Coupled with many in the core base having been turned off and not turning out either, SR ended up stumbling in a major way over a long opening weekend. The negative buzz set in and the rest is history.

The buzz was never positive on Superman Returns because the nexus from which that positive buzz builds – the fan-base – never embraced this vision of Superman. The polarization among fans was a red warning flag from day one that, unfortunately, was not paid heed to.

No director or studio, no matter how good, can afford to take for granted a franchise's core base - Superman Returns proved that in spades.

That was a very well written post.

One thing I would add, is that the film was very lackluster. It just felt flat. There was no real climactic battle between a hero and villain that the fans could look forward toward. One could have crafted a great story with a balance of action and appealed to all demographics, but the fact that this film has people so divided is indicative that it did not bring that.

 

[superbaby]

metropolis
show us how grandeur it is. not just consist of 2 streets.

cgi superman
it's terrible. never do the close-up ever again and reduce it to as minimum as possible.

flying
if spiderman's swinging could be that exciting, superman's flying should wow the whole audience.

 

[BareKnucklez]

what they/WB/the next director should learn from SR?
discussion on all aspects, except for the storyline and the superman suit.

They should learn to listen to the fans, and not let someone with no vision get all that he wants.

Oh, and don't thread over Reeve's work... That was the worst part of SR.
It made a joke of the Reeve movies..

 

[Mr. Socko]

Actors who look like college students are not convincing as the experienced Superman & Lois Lane.

Burgundy does not suit Superman.

Land schemes are not interesting, even if they involve giant alien crystals.

Giving Superman a bastard son is not a good human story.

Superman picking up cars and other similarly large objects gets boring after a while.

Employing Jesus Christ imagery does not make the film's story better.

Using a 30 year old film as the template of your continuity is never a good idea.

Solid List.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

The absolute neccesity.need to play to the character’s core base

Bryan Singer said it all when he called Superman Returns a “chick flick” - barely a week before its premier. This was a candid admission and one he had to backtrack on, but it confirmed all the earlier suspicions that Superman Returns was not being geared to Superman fans in general and the key Superman demos in particular – young males and male teens.

Mr. Singer spoke repeatedly of how this was his funniest film, his most romantic film. But never, that I know of, about the greater concept of good versus evil, Cain versus Abel - the inherent mythological elements that make the character before all else. Foundational elements that were missing in the film and, because of which, the film never truly felt epic – like a “real” Superman story.

This is not to say Mr. Singer did this on purpose. Most likely it was more an act of omission and not one of commission. It seems the producers assumed that Superman fans would come along for the ride as long as the name ’Superman’ was attached to the film.

The other key demo overlooked was the traditional middle American, of any age group, who is Superman’s natural audience. Scoffed at, seen as not progressive enough, this still is a core part of the movie-going audience and the bread and butter of a Superman film. Giving Lois a child out-of-wedlock, no matter how common this is today, put this key group off and in a way that seriously diminished their interest in and desire to see Superman Returns.

Its commendable to try to expand the base audience for a franchise character like Superman, but this absolutely must be done in an organic, natural way – by building upon /growing from the existing audience base. This was not done with Superman Returns.

A visit to the message board of any generic Superman or specific Superman Returns site this past year showed a sharply divided fan-base with a lot of anger. By contrast a visit to any Spiderman 3 or TDK site shows incredible enthusiasm for those coming films.

The failure to engage a majority of the fan-base in support of Superman Returns took its toll. Non-Superman fans who visited Superman sites this past year were left with the impression that the film was not good – since so many die-hard fans were strongly negative on the film. If the die-hard fans weren’t planning on seeing it, then why should they?

And on opening day, this other target audience - young females - turned out for The Devil Wears Prada and not SR. Coupled with many in the core base having been turned off and not turning out either, SR ended up stumbling in a major way over a long opening weekend. The negative buzz set in and the rest is history.

The buzz was never positive on Superman Returns because the nexus from which that positive buzz builds – the fan-base – never embraced this vision of Superman. The polarization among fans was a red warning flag from day one that, unfortunately, was not paid heed to.

No director or studio, no matter how good, can afford to take for granted a franchise's core base - Superman Returns proved that in spades.

Very, very well put. This is the best criticism of the film I have ever read. Everything I was going to say was not only covered by your post, but elaborated on in such a way that would take me at least 20 minutes to put together.

Care to lend us your criticism in some other films?

 

[zanos]

Get younger actors to play Lois and Clark!

 

[dark_b]

They should learn to listen to the fans, and not let someone with no vision get all that he wants.

Oh, and don't thread over Reeve's work... That was the worst part of SR.
It made a joke of the Reeve movies..

sorry to ask this again. but why are fans better then everyone else? why are fans the ones who know everything about filmmaking? why do the fans think that they know everything?

if someone is a fan of the book doesnt mean that he will make a great adaptation.

 

[Showtime]

Weren't the fans of X-Men upset Singer wasn't using the yellow/blue suits? Yeah, fans know everything.

 

[Super Kal]

well, just look at the fan influence on Venom for Spiderman 3...

 

[lexlives]

Weren't the fans of X-Men upset Singer wasn't using the yellow/blue suits? Yeah, fans know everything.

That they were and despite that, after X-Men came out, fans pretty much embraced the film. That did not happen with SR - after it came out - and speaks to a key/core difference in the two films.

 

[lexlives]

well, just look at the fan influence on Venom for Spiderman 3...

Exactly - and after the franchise has been established as the biggest superhero franchise and one of the biggest film franchises ever. Sony/Marvel/Raimi are not resting on their laurels and that is why, though I am not a Marvel fanboy, I repsect how Marvel never ceases to raise the bar for its superhero film franchises.

 

[lexlives]

Very, very well put. This is the best criticism of the film I have ever read. Everything I was going to say was not only covered by your post, but elaborated on in such a way that would take me at least 20 minutes to put together.

Care to lend us your criticism in some other films?

I appreciate the compliment and I guess I need to do a hats off to going to a Catholic high school - which I fought as there were no co-eds. Oh well, in hindsight. We were drilled in English for 4 years, science for 4 years, math for 4 years and a foreign language for 4 years. But I'll leave it at that - public education, or the lack thereof, is another one of my passions/issues along with Superman.

Other films? I am not really a film buff and saw only 4 films this year. Maybe I can get hired as a film critic and earn pin money?! Just kidding.

I write, or take the time to write to put it more accurately, about Superman because I love this character and the mythos. Its one of many passions of mine. Interestingly enough, as I sort of said above, film in general is not.

Again, thank you.

 

[lexlives]

The storyline – a remake/requel is not how to revive a franchise

Requel/remake – no matter how much Mr. Singer and others tried to deny the obvious, it never washed. Indeed the film was a remake with the exception of the kid. Beat for beat, down to Parker Posey/Miss T., the almost verbatim lines taken from S: TM like “flying is the safest way to travel” and Lex Luthor’s land scheme – only this time it was the “right” coast.

The most memorable moments of Superman Returns were those that paid homage to S: TM. This is not how it should have been – Superman Returns needed to create its own memories not dependent on or beholding to S: TM. This was, after all, intended to be the foundation for a new franchise. That Superman Returns did not create its own moments, its own reason for being, it’s own identity is a failure on the film’s part - nothing more, nothing less. No matter how anyone tries to spin it.

So what’s the problem with a remake?

First, most of the movie-going audience is young and were either not born when S:TM came out or were too young to have seen it. They don’t know the back-story. To many viewers Superman Returns threw out a somewhat convoluted premise that did not make a whole lot of sense.

The producers tried. The whole return to Krypton part of Superman Returns was meant to fill in the back-story. But, in the end, that was cut. Again, the premise did not make sense/connect with much of the audience.

The other problem? The old adage you can’t go home. It’s true - believe me on that. The first date, the first time you believed a man could fly. You simply can’t go back and recapture those moments – if you try you are invariably disappointed – as were older movie-goers who saw Superman Returns and compared it to their memories of S:TM.

Superman Returns needed to create its own magic for a new generation with a totally new storyline, a re-imaged Superman, a tale for the new century and the new times. Batman Begins proved the absolute need to do this just two years ago. Comic writer Mark Millar said it best when he observed that Superman Returns felt like the end of a movie franchise and not the start.

Superman Returns was many things – a tribute to Superman: The Movie, a conclusion to Superman 2, a closure to the Donner era films, but it was not the one thing it needed to have been – a re-launch of the Superman film franchise.