Superman Returns WB, Singer, and the Sequel

[xwolverine2]

Learn what? There's not much to learn from this. Most of this "budget, underperformance" crap comes from people who have blwon the issue way out of proportion, including media outlets. But even respectable media outlets seems to say that WB won out in the end, and even have casually discussed who its' going to make a profit, so who cares?

Perhaps it's that people think WB has only released Superamn in the past five years? Fact: Superman Returns is already paid for, and was probably written off against last year's financial statements or quarter, and probably still WB came out on top since, you know, THEY MAKE OTHER MOVIES. Any money it made will show as a HUGE profit this quarter and the stockholders will be pleased, either way -- especially if Superman is being seen as an investment.

you have completely lost me!!!!!!!


i dont know what your getting at!

 

[bosef982]

Well in the defense of Superman, he didn't even know that he impregnated Lois until the end of the movie. Now it is quite complicated because Jason thinks that Richard is his father. Richard thinks that he is the father. And Superman does want to step up to the responsibilities of a father. And Lois doesn't even know that Clark is Superman.

He can't just simply go up and say, "Hey, I came to see my kid and play in the park with him." He can't go up and say to Jason, "Hey kid, call me Dad from now on!"

You would think that would be understood by the majority here. But it's not. They can't grasp the ethical gray areas of Superman's situation and to them, perhaps that makes them uncomfortable. But people are always looking to judge first, understand later...

 

[bosef982]

you have completely lost me!!!!!!!


i dont know what your getting at!

The notion that Superman Returns was not profitable for WB is just plain ludicrous. Yet many here continue to amble on saying it wasn't.

 

[matthooper]

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

 

[xwolverine2]

Um, okay....

And X3 was just a bunch of flashy costumes, with a bridge.

hhhhhhh....... im not sure you saw my point.


just like i dont see yours

 

[Hunter Rider]

It underperformer by a $100M according to their own man Horn,my bet is Singer has the sequel mapped out and that they will back him but with a tighter budget as they look to the long term to make the big money with the sequels now he has re-established Superman

On the whole deadbeat dad angle,there are plenty of flaws in SR but that isn't one,you can't be a father to a son you don't know you had

 

[Maze]

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

Well i'm a fan of great cinema first and foremost and i did love it.

 

[xwolverine2]

You would think that would be understood by the majority here. But it's not.

you wanna know why?.... because they just ****ing had to make this a sequel.... and leave thousands of continuity errors that are extremely important.....

they made a sequel and ignored all the stupid ****...

 

[bosef982]

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

I was hyped about it beyond reason and I saw it, and was still blown away. I didn't get what I was expecting, but I got something far better. I loved the film. You don't have to believe me, but since I am me -- I'll go ahead and believe myself.

 

[hippie_hunter]

thats the perfect way to describe it.......

everyone i know describes the movie in the same way.... and trust me...ive heard it from alot of people .....people saying "the movie was about him coming back..........oh.....and he had a son"

thats what the movies was basically....... just a welcome back seminar.....with a baby shower.

Alan Horn was right. Yes, Superman Returns will probally make $400 million. But it's freaking Superman. It should have made anywhere between $500 million to Spider-Man numbers.

Now to make sure that I didn't come off as too arrogant in my post about the haters (I loved Superman Returns). I will say things that need to happen in the sequel.

- Respect that there are other interpretations of Superman besides Donner. In Batman Begins, Nolan took the best of various interpretations of Batman: Kane & Finger, Miller, Loeb, O'Neil, Timm & Dini of the animated series, etc. Singer needs to realise that there are other interpretations of Superman: Siegel & Shuster, Timm & Dini, Fleisher, Loeb, Byrne, Waid, etc.

- Take more from the comics. Introduce more characters: Supergirl, Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Mercy Graves, etc. Have a different villain besides LUTHOR OR ZOD. Metallo, Brainiac, Doomsday, Parasite, Toyman, Bizarro, Intergang, DARKSEID, etc. If Zod is used. Have Superman kill him like he did in the comics.

 

[bosef982]

you wanna know why?.... because they just ****ing had to make this a sequel.... and leave thousands of continuity errors that are extremely important.....

they made a sequel and ignored all the stupid ****...

What stupid ****?

 

[xwolverine2]

The notion that Superman Returns was not profitable for WB is just plain ludicrous. Yet many here continue to amble on saying it wasn't.

but..............why the **** did you quote me?

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

true......

 

[Hunter Rider]

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

I guess not being hyped increased my enjoyment,i knew it wasn;t the Superman movie i wanted but i thought it was a pretty good one with some great moments in it

 

[Hunter Rider]

What stupid ****?

The kids origin

 

[bosef982]

Alan Horn was right. Yes, Superman Returns will probally make $400 million. But it's freaking Superman. It should have made anywhere between $500 million to Spider-Man numbers.

Now to make sure that I didn't come off as too arrogant in my post about the haters (I loved Superman Returns). I will say things that need to happen in the sequel.

- Respect that there are other interpretations of Superman besides Donner. In Batman Begins, Nolan took the best of various interpretations of Batman: Kane & Finger, Miller, Loeb, O'Neil, Timm & Dini of the animated series, etc. Singer needs to realise that there are other interpretations of Superman: Siegel & Shuster, Timm & Dini, Byrne, Waid, etc.

- Take more from the comics. Introduce more characters: Supergirl, Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Mercy Graves, etc. Have a different villain besides LUTHOR OR ZOD. Metallo, Brainiac, Doomsday, Parasite, Toyman, Bizarro, Intergang, DARKSEID, etc. If Zod is used. Have Superman kill him like he did in the comics.

Singer has already confirmed, on his own accord, before the film even really started to show its potential or lack thereof, that he'd be introducing more modern elements into the film. He consistently said this film takes Superman from the Donnerverse and puts him into the Singerverse.

He has described the next film as having "really scary sci-fi" --now, that doesn't sound like Zod. That sounds like Brainiac, and a very dark, twisted version of Brainiac. And if Zod comes back, it's going to be at the behest of Brainiac I think.

Plus, he did introduce elements other than Donner. He did have Schulster and Siegel in there. He had Max Fleischer. He had George Reeve's Superman. He had Alex Ross's. There were a great many "visions" of Superman in that film integrated with Superman's own.

 

[xwolverine2]

What stupid ****?

.......

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry bosef..... i cant argue with you any more

 

[hippie_hunter]

I refuse to believe that anyone who was hyped about this film, especially fans of Superman, walked away from the film completely satisfied. Liking it, and loving it are light years away.

I am a huge Superman fan. He's my second favorite superhero (after Aquaman). I loved the film and I walked away completely satisfied.

 

[bosef982]

The kids origin

What is so difficult to understand about the kid's origin?

Lois and Superman meet. They like each other. Then love each other. Superman has sex with Lois. Superman then leaves Earth, not in anwya related to the prior action. Lois has a child.

This is what Singer means by vague continuity. It's the same with the Bond films; hell, even in some ways with the Star Trek films at times.

It's vague. You're not suppose to pick the minute details out.

Superman Returns never says whether or not Lois KNEW Jason was Superman's, so you have no plot hole there. Believe what you willl. That totally renders any discussion of the "amnesia kiss" a bit moot.

What other "plot holes" are there?

That she seems to not know that Clark is Superman? Especially since they slept together?

Well, Clark being a thin disgusie for Superman has always been, in all versions, the largest "stretch of disbelief" in any superhero franchise. You can't start making issues of it now.

About Lois knowing however, just because....well, she could've known and not said anything. Not wanted to press the issue. Not feeling "sure enough" to say anything. For God's Sake, Sam Raimi didn't get this much slack for Mary Jane's seeming disknowledge of Peter Parker's identity after in SM1, after they kiss, her face blatantly recognizes the touch and feel...yet, in SM2, it's played as a complete surprise first, then "I think I always knew..." This could be Lois, she knows, but she doesn't...

 

[Maze]

The notion that Superman Returns was not profitable for WB is just plain ludicrous. Yet many here continue to amble on saying it wasn't.

You know Bosef , i read that forum from time to time ..well let's say that i don't have the desire to post here much lol There is no place here for real debate about the movie..i find this place really sad....

You said it yourself ,fans here just can't see that maybe , just maybe there is a reason why that movie that they hate so much has been well recieved by critics and non fans ..and from here, maybe they could at least listen to why some have liked and even loved that movie...and then ,they could talk about their opinions.they could share it.

Just as ,maybe,then ,some including me could have the desire to talk about the richness that they saw in the movie ..and its flaws too..

but no there is no middle ground ,for some , their opinion are fact , that movie is bad.

give it up Bosef , you're wasting your time.

 

[xwolverine2]

- Take more from the comics. Introduce more characters: Supergirl, Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Mercy Graves, etc. Have a different villain besides LUTHOR OR ZOD. Metallo, Brainiac, Doomsday, Parasite, Toyman, Bizarro, Intergang, DARKSEID, etc. If Zod is used. Have Superman kill him like he did in the comics.

you see.... singer will NEVER do that.....

you have to understand that he just makes the movie better but not the best that it can be...

of all those characters you have mentioned he will prob use one.......and drag the whole movie on its shoulders.

its like hes holding back the series, from its true potential....

when x1 and x2 came out i knew it was PERFECT..... but now that x3 came out it feels like singer has been holding back the massiveness that makes x-men........he just added nightcrawler to x2 and said "there you go its better"

 

[Hunter Rider]

What is so difficult to understand about the kid's origin?

Lois and Superman meet. They like each other. Then love each other. Superman has sex with Lois. Superman then leaves Earth, not in anwya related to the prior action. Lois has a child.

This is what Singer means by vague continuity. It's the same with the Bond films; hell, even in some ways with the Star Trek films at times.

It's vague. You're not suppose to pick the minute details out.

Superman Returns never says whether or not Lois KNEW Jason was Superman's, so you have no plot hole there. Believe what you willl. That totally renders any discussion of the "amnesia kiss" a bit moot.

What other "plot holes" are there?

Anyway you break the kid down it doesn;t make sense

Lois and Superman have FOS sex,he wipes her memory-she has kid and is traumatized by emaculate conception or has shacked up with Richard so fast after Clark left that Richard beleives the kid is his

Lois and Superman have FOS sex and they leave out that part about him wiping her memory,She tells no one who the kid's father is and Richard wants to be with her anyway...fine she should know Clark is Superman when he returns

 

[hippie_hunter]

Singer has already confirmed, on his own accord, before the film even really started to show its potential or lack thereof, that he'd be introducing more modern elements into the film. He consistently said this film takes Superman from the Donnerverse and puts him into the Singerverse.

He has described the next film as having "really scary sci-fi" --now, that doesn't sound like Zod. That sounds like Brainiac, and a very dark, twisted version of Brainiac. And if Zod comes back, it's going to be at the behest of Brainiac I think.

Plus, he did introduce elements other than Donner. He did have Schulster and Siegel in there. He had Max Fleischer. He had George Reeve's Superman. He had Alex Ross's. There were a great many "visions" of Superman in that film integrated with Superman's own.

I didn't see any other interpretation of Superman besides Donner's in Superman Returns. And all of those interpretations are very old interpretations of Superman. In today's age, you do need to add in some modern interpretations such as Byrne, Timm & Dini, Waid, Morrison, etc.

 

[xwolverine2]

What is so difficult to understand about the kid's origin?

Lois and Superman meet. They like each other. Then love each other. Superman has sex with Lois. Superman then leaves Earth, not in anwya related to the prior action. Lois has a child.

This is what Singer means by vague continuity. It's the same with the Bond films; hell, even in some ways with the Star Trek films at times.

It's vague. You're not suppose to pick the minute details out.

Superman Returns never says whether or not Lois KNEW Jason was Superman's, so you have no plot hole there. Believe what you willl. That totally renders any discussion of the "amnesia kiss" a bit moot.

What other "plot holes" are there?

That she seems to not know that Clark is Superman? Especially since they slept together?

Well, Clark being a thin disgusie for Superman has always been, in all versions, the largest "stretch of disbelief" in any superhero franchise. You can't start making issues of it now.

About Lois knowing however, just because....well, she could've known and not said anything. Not wanted to press the issue. Not feeling "sure enough" to say anything. For God's Sake, Sam Raimi didn't get this much slack for Mary Jane's seeming disknowledge of Peter Parker's identity after in SM1, after they kiss, her face blatantly recognizes the touch and feel...yet, in SM2, it's played as a complete surprise first, then "I think I always knew..." This could be Lois, she knows, but she doesn't...

its made to be an epic gritty dark movie...........those details ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

 

[bosef982]

you see.... singer will NEVER do that.....

you have to understand that me just makes the movie better but not the best that it can be...

of all those characters you have mentioned he will prob use one.......and drag the whole movie on its shoulders.

its like hes holding back the series, from its true potential....

when x1 and x2 came out i knew it was PERFECT..... but now that x3 came out it feels like singer has been holding back the massiveness that makes x-men........he just added nightcrawler to x2 and said "there you go its better"

See, and I think the major flaw with X3 is that its an overload cluster**** of too many characters and too much going on.

 

[bosef982]

you see.... singer will NEVER do that.....

you have to understand that he just makes the movie better but not the best that it can be...

of all those characters you have mentioned he will prob use one.......and drag the whole movie on its shoulders.

its like hes holding back the series, from its true potential....

when x1 and x2 came out i knew it was PERFECT..... but now that x3 came out it feels like singer has been holding back the massiveness that makes x-men........he just added nightcrawler to x2 and said "there you go its better"

And if it was just about adding character, perhaps that'd be true. But he took the old charactesr and put them in new, more dangerous situations...that's why it was better.