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

[bosef982]

I may not understand the business side of it, but I also don't care about it... why should I care about the business side of a movie that I hate?... you can tell me all the cost efforts and budget cuts and budget limits and whatnot, but it's not gonna do a bit of difference to me, because no matter what is said, it still won't change the fact that IMO, the movie was absolutely terrible.

just because they went through a lot of crap on the business side doesn't maker the movie any better.

If you are not willing to listen to the business side, then you have no right to make comments considering its performance at the box office since you cannot possibly be interested in such things.

I have no problem with you thinking the movie's terrible.

I have a problem with you confirming and validating box office points that you are now saying you don't care about or have no interest in or -- let me stop being generous -- don't understand.

 

[bosef982]

yeah, it completely underperformed because of the utter crap-tacular, lacking story that Singer gave it...


there were pieces in there that were original, yes, and I liked those pieces, but that doesn't mean that just because there were original pieces gives us the right to completely dismiss everything else in the movie that WAS a copy. Singer was too stuck in his love for Donner's STM (which is overrated, IMO) to actually have a movie that was free of the problems that were connected to the Donnerverse... and what's worse, he DID copy almost the entire movie, with the exception of certain elements...

just because there are pieces of chocolate in crap, it still won't make the crap taste or look good.

Just in case you were wondering where you were speaking about it underperforming....

How can you say such a thing when none of that matters to you or when you don't listen to the business side of stuff...

I mean, wow...jeez, you just walked yourself into that one like Helen Keller.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Perhaps, who cares?


This isn't Hulk. And I'm talking about indicators.

There are more indicators at the present moment saying it's happening.

You can't just presume the negative for the sake of doing so, or for the sake of your own displeasure in the movie.

You can perhaps wish it goes off track. Fine. Your choice.

But, you can't say that it's stupid to say that everything looks to be on track for a sequel when...well, it is.

And if I hear a stupid Hulk argument again...have you guys seen the little nugget of joy you'll be getting as a reboot to Lee's film? Yeah, go enjoy that one if you've already read the script.

I also love the band wagon.

When Begins succeeded, suddenly it was "BEGINS" everything. Superman Begins, X-Men Begins, James Bond Begins, Daredevil Begins, Passion of the Christ Begins -- you guys couldn't laud the concept enough, despite the overwhelmingly unique variables that lead to Begins' success.

Then, you what happens with Hulk. "VAGUE HISTORY" it. SUPERMAN VAGUE HISTORY, SPIDER-MAN VAGUE HISTORY...blah blah blah, wait a few years, see how Hulk does....

Then Iron Man's successful and it's "DC needs to retain the rights of their films and then all their movie will be as good as...Iron Man???" Oh yeah, Iron Man was the pinnacle of cinema. Fun, yes. But without major flaws: certainly not.

What Band Wagon's next? If Indiana Jones succeeds are we going to start discussing recasting Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, bringing back on Richard Donner, and hell, while we're at it, let's CGI Christopher Reeve back into the role! Awesome!

Have any of you had an original thought in a while?

Not needed Bosef, you are getting more and more heated by the post, take it down a notch dude.

This goes for others as well, this is a pointless back and forth, why not wait to moan and defend when there is actually something to moan about and defend.

 

[Super Kal]

Just in case you were wondering where you were speaking about it underperforming....

How can you say such a thing when none of that matters to you or when you don't listen to the business side of stuff...

I mean, wow...jeez, you just walked yourself into that one like Helen Keller.

i was talking about it from my mind... it underperformed for me. In fact, for me, it was worse than that.

 

[bosef982]

Yes, Hunger, noted.

My apologies.

I have to get to class anyway.

To the others, continue to laud my stupidity and burn me in effigy alongside solidsnake, Singer and Superman Returns. Look at that: alliteration. Got to love it!

 

[solidsnake86]

Actually for once I don't think this one got out of hand

 

[GreenKToo]

One thing is for sure, singer has his work cut out for him uniting the masses. I don't envy the man's job there.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Humble, wow...so why hasn't WB called you?

Maybe u should criticize it after u read it. There`s a chance that if u are a Superman fan, u might say: Woa..It`s really good!

Maybe u might even help me revise it since English is not my first language.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Actually WB OVERSPENT on SR and it ALSO UNDERPERFORMED.

 

[El Payaso]

edit

 

[The Guard]

LOL. It would be nice to hear Singer discuss the movie and hear him, not "The Guard" who may be able to reference every Superman comic ever made, cite what storylines influenced him. You obviously can't provide a quote or direct me to one because he has in fact never brought up any of those stories.

And until I hear Singer referring to anything comic related, I have no reason to believe he looked there. His take on Superman does not convince me of that, that's for sure.

I'm pretty sure he did discuss the nature of the comics and their influence over the year and a half that the movie was being produced, made, and released. He, Harris and Dougherty all talked at some point about DC providing them with a wealth of source material to draw from, and how they sat and did nothing but read comics for a week or so. I'm not going to sift through hundreds of interviews, but here's a quote from one of them that points to them using the comics as source material:

Plus we're taking elements from the books over the years. There've been so many incarnations of Superman, Superman's been around for so long, there have been so many different plotlines and so many kind of thing were we might say, "Oh yeah, that's from issue 742 and 1983", but it probably didn't come from that. It's like how many times did Superman rescue a plane, how many times did this happen. Y'know, lots, In lots of different ways and repeated different times. It's just an amalgam of all different inspirations from that and moving on from the old movie and the old books.

If you don't want to believe that the comics influenced this movie, then don't believe it. But some of the influences are obvious. The "Action Comics" moment, for instance. Bibbo Bibbowski is in the scene where Clark goes to the bar. There are clear homages to Alex Ross's work, and THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN among other things. And the comic book source material can be seen in things like the nature of Superman's ability to soak up the sun.

Chris Nolan did use the comic books as source material, but mostly for things like pulling a few lines from the comics here and there, or pulling an "idea" (such as the bat-calling device). He told a fairly faithful story, but really didn't stick to the comics that much overall. Bryan Singer's influence involved him taking ideas from existing storylines (WHATEVER HAPPENED, EXHILE, RETURN TO KRYPTON) and, realizing their universal nature (I.E, Superman has had many adventures along those lines over the years), worked that into the existing Superman movie franchise. Singer was also clearly influenced by the Fleischer Superman shorts.

there was a batman and robin movie in 1969??? wow...
just one movie, no sequel?

BATMAN: THE MOVIE. Do yourself a favor and rent or buy it. It's hilarious.

Yes, but my guess is that WB thought that SR would make the same impact on DVD as Batman Begins did. Clearly that wasn't the case, since word of mouth didn't help this film by any means.

As I recall, the SUPERMAN RETURNS DVD sales were what made WB believe a sequel could be profitable.

Superman Returns DVD Selling Faster than a Speeding Bullet

Warner Brothers home video "Superman Returns", took over the # 1 spot on national DVD sales and rental charts

 

[buggs0268]

Perhaps then you shouldn't attempt to refute the arguments of someone who does understand the business side of it.

While no movie is certain until it escapes post-production (since even shot movies can be canned). I'll give you that.

But there are more indicators to Singer returning for a continuation of Superman Returns then there are not.

The rest, I won't bother you with since you admit to not understanding it anyway.

Ummm. Since when have you understood "the business side of it"? Most of your posts have been just speculation on your own desires that have not happened. According to you a year ago, MOS would be shooting already. Is it? (Looks around). No. And all indications. No one knows what is going on. All we hear are the same stupid rumors that we have been hearing for the last two years. None of them have ringed at all any truth. Don't go spouting like you know what is going on. You don't. And your posting history on MOS clearly states that.

 

[buggs0268]

Yes, Hunger, noted.

My apologies.

I have to get to class anyway.

To the others, continue to laud my stupidity and burn me in effigy alongside solidsnake, Singer and Superman Returns. Look at that: alliteration. Got to love it!

Blah Blah Blah.

 

[Excel]

"The divisions amongst us are proof that we need a new direction"

 

[buggs0268]

If you are not willing to listen to the business side, then you have no right to make comments considering its performance at the box office since you cannot possibly be interested in such things.

I have no problem with you thinking the movie's terrible.

I have a problem with you confirming and validating box office points that you are now saying you don't care about or have no interest in or -- let me stop being generous -- don't understand.

Um. Again, for you pretending to listen the the business side, it is quite acknowledged in articles and by the studio head that SR severely underperformed. The NY Times ran and article about the WB's bad summer BO that stated (paraphrasing) "for the WB it all started with the under-performing of Superman Returns" The studio head said it underperformed. Under-performed is a nice way of telling the media it blew for us. High up people in the studio lost their jobs over it, even down the line 2 years after it's release. The fact is, the movie didn't makes it's production money back domestically. It barely made it and advertising back ww. A big summer movie needs to make 2.5 times domestic it's production budget to be considered a hit with the studio. SR was a tentpole film that was not a tentpole. It didn't even get close. So from the business side of it, it sucked.

 

[The Guard]

SUPERMAN RETURNS definitely didn't perform as well as WB had hoped, but as we've seen, WB had some fairly ridiculous expectations. That alone is not enough to say it "underperformed".

 

[buggs0268]

SUPERMAN RETURNS definitely didn't perform as well as WB had hoped, but as we've seen, WB had some fairly ridiculous expectations. That alone is not enough to say it "underperformed".

Actually it wasnt rediculous expectations. Movie studios don't put hundreds of millions of dollars into a movie to fail. There is formulas that studios follow and focus groups on what a film should do. The failure comes in the production team delivering something that will reach the movie going masses or not.

 

[superbaby]

SUPERMAN RETURNS definitely didn't perform as well as WB had hoped, but as we've seen, WB had some fairly ridiculous expectations. That alone is not enough to say it "underperformed".

shouldn't they have high expectation??? it's superman and they invested so much!

btw, as i said earlier, until WB has made the official statement, i will not stop on voicing up my displeasure with the intention to kick singer out.

yes. that's the purpose i'm here.

 

[VenomsMom]

Yes, Hunger, noted.

My apologies.

I have to get to class anyway.

To the others, continue to laud my stupidity and burn me in effigy alongside solidsnake, Singer and Superman Returns. Look at that: alliteration. Got to love it!

This is really bringing nothing new to the table as for well into 2 years now we have all compared the likes of SR to its homage STM as there are differences between the two as you stated as well as similarities. No need to be onesided if you really want to rehash this ancient argument. For two years now we have had discussion debate and disagreement.....hey what do you know more alliteration. However jugding from your post I wouldnt use stupidity as you explain yourself with commom sense and there is certainly no need to burn you in effigy. Its not that serious....

 

[VenomsMom]

shouldn't they have high expectation??? it's superman and they invested so much!

btw, as i said earlier, until WB has made the official statement, i will not stop on voicing up my displeasure with the intention to kick singer out.

yes. that's the purpose i'm here.

Would you have had high expectation after screening the final product. What would you say was a reasonable expectation?

 

[The Guard]

Actually it wasnt rediculous expectations. Movie studios don't put hundreds of millions of dollars into a movie to fail. There is formulas that studios follow and focus groups on what a film should do. The failure comes in the production team delivering something that will reach the movie going masses or not.

The movie was expected by WB top brass to make somewhere in the vicinity of SPIDER-MAN numbers. They wanted 6-700 million dollars worldwide. Given the film they greenlit and made (a decidedly more serious, adult, and risky version of Superman) their expectations were ridiculous.

shouldn't they have high expectation??? it's superman and they invested so much!

They invested $200 million dollars, not counting their failed SUPERMAN LIVES stuff or the marketing costs. High expectations for a movie are one thing, if you create a film with extremely broad appeal. SUPERMAN RETURNS was not that kind of a movie. Neither was BATMAN BEGINS. Now, maybe WB SHOULD have made that kind of movie, but expecting MASSIVE returns on the movie they allowed to be made is, again, ridiculous.

I watch SUPERMAN RETURNS and see it as something of a niche film. The built in audience is obvious, but it didn't have a ton of appeal for children and younger teens, who make up a large portion of the SPIDER-MAN, FANTASTIC FOUR and IRON MAN audiences.

 

[superbaby]

The movie was expected by WB top brass to make somewhere in the vicinity of SPIDER-MAN numbers. They wanted 6-700 million dollars worldwide. Given the film they greenlit and made (a decidedly more serious, adult, and risky version of Superman) their expectations were ridiculous.



They invested $200 million dollars, not counting their failed SUPERMAN LIVES stuff or the marketing costs. High expectations for a movie are one thing, if you create a film with extremely broad appeal. SUPERMAN RETURNS was not that kind of a movie. Neither was BATMAN BEGINS. Now, maybe WB SHOULD have made that kind of movie, but expecting MASSIVE returns on the movie they allowed to be made is, again, ridiculous.

I watch SUPERMAN RETURNS and see it as something of a niche film. The built in audience is obvious, but it didn't have a ton of appeal for children and younger teens, who make up a large portion of the SPIDER-MAN, FANTASTIC FOUR and IRON MAN audiences.

i think ironman has a high possible to acheive on their rediculous expectation. if ironman can, why superman cant?

c'mon those investers wouldn't care what type of story you gonna tell. they invested so much, they would expect the return so much. fell short, you failed.

 

[superbaby]

Would you have had high expectation after screening the final product. What would you say was a reasonable expectation?

you know... i'm a superman fan... when i knew it didn't do good... i tried to bring everyone to watch it... i watched it 6 times in the cinema with families and friends. t: (didn't watch it ever since then)

because i know that if it didn't do good, i will not have another superman movie for a long long time. and it's happening now...

 

[superbaby]

I don't really know if that is the case, since they signed him to a pay or play deal, which would have been completely idiotic if there was no interest.

i thought all of them were signed prior to SR release.
you know, before SR release, the talk about the sequel by WB was the loudest within these 2 years.

 

[Showtime]

Singer was not signed to any type of deal to do a sequel before the release, you are talking about the actors.