Superman Returns We don't like how this movie is looking (merged)

[IT is Batgirl]

Once and for all: what is the budget of the film? It is 180 Million, isn't it? Not 200 Million, not EVEN 250-300 Million, thats nuts.

I believe the film was budgeted for 180 million, but the actual budget could reach around 200 million after everything's said and done.

 

[skruloos]

I completely agree with the thread starter. Singer is ruining the franchise and I personally hope this movie bombs so that we could get a proper Superman.

A "proper" Superman or merely your preferred version of the character?

You know what would really make me laugh? If Singer's film is a blockbuster and becomes both a crtitic's darling as well as accepted by the general audience, then the WB will milk it for at least another two movies. Would he be ruining the franchise then? Or would he be bringing the franchise into a different direction?

I'm fully prepared for the possibility of the film flopping. I'm also prepared for the possibility that the film will disappoint me. Would you be prepared for the possbility of the film succeeding?

 

[Super Kal]

A "proper" Superman or merely your preferred version of the character?

You know what would really make me laugh? If Singer's film is a blockbuster and becomes both a crtitic's darling as well as accepted by the general audience, then the WB will milk it for at least another two movies. Would he be ruining the franchise then? Or would he be bringing the franchise into a different direction?

I'm fully prepared for the possibility of the film flopping. I'm also prepared for the possibility that the film will disappoint me. Would you be prepared for the possbility of the film succeeding?

that's exactly what I was thinking... people are just hating just because it wasn't made the way they want it to be.

This isn't your movie... it's Singer's movie. If you want your own version, go make your own, and leave Singer in peace.

 

[Venom71]

that's exactly what I was thinking... people are just hating just because it wasn't made the way they want it to be.

This isn't your movie... it's Singer's movie. If you want your own version, go make your own, and leave Signer in peace.

Well said Kak! Nice to see you basck.

 

[Excel]

this will not flop,i assure you. look at the marketing plan.

 

[Spare-Flair]

A "proper" Superman or merely your preferred version of the character?

You know what would really make me laugh? If Singer's film is a blockbuster and becomes both a crtitic's darling as well as accepted by the general audience, then the WB will milk it for at least another two movies. Would he be ruining the franchise then? Or would he be bringing the franchise into a different direction?

I'm fully prepared for the possibility of the film flopping. I'm also prepared for the possibility that the film will disappoint me. Would you be prepared for the possbility of the film succeeding?

I don't believe that my "preferred" Superman is a minority opinion, everyone I show images of Superman to complains that he doesn't look Superman. I guarantee that many critics who review Superman will say the same thing about how Routh and the suit don't look like Superman. Like it or not, Superman is an iconic character even in the non-comic reading public and I don't have any doubts in saying that people will be questing this Superman's validity when they see it in the theatres because the traditional look of Superman is so well established and Singer's revisionist attempt really runs in contrast to the aesthetics of many people including Superman's writers and artists in the comic industry (as stated by them in several intreviews that I have read).

That said, this film WILL NOT FLOP. Fantastic Four was a horrible movie and yet it was a financial success almost guaranteeing a sequel. This is Superman, and the name (if not the image) will make it a blockbuster. That's my problem, this film is guaranteed a sequel just because it is Superman...and I really am loathe to be stuck with this image of Superman for basically the next 5-7 years of this trilogy. I really hope that by the 3rd film at least, Routh will look more mature and the suit will be altered to be more traditional.

For me, this Supersuit is the same kind of controversial travesty to the Superman image as was the decision to turn him into an energy being in the comics. I believe the Singer Supersuit (and even the hairstyle) really removes the "super" in Superman for me....or maybe it's the other way and it take's the man out of "Super".

 

[Nivek]

I'm fully prepared for the possibility of the film flopping. I'm also prepared for the possibility that the film will disappoint me. Would you be prepared for the possbility of the film succeeding?

Thats pretty much my feeling on SR. Im not some Uber-fanboy who knows every comic appearence, but I deeply respect the character and have very good childhood memories of the first 3 movies.

Yes, I would be very dissapointed if the film doesn't get much attention, but if I like it, screw the public, the critics, and the cynical fanboys who linger to attack the next big movie.

If it dissapoints me as a movie itself however, I will say my peace, and move on. Just like I did with Daredevil, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Electra, The Punisher, ect...


But I will see it first before I gut it and pull out its still beating heart with my sharpend knife of spite and heartbreak.

 

[Spare-Flair]

I'm fully prepared for the possibility of the film flopping. I'm also prepared for the possibility that the film will disappoint me. Would you be prepared for the possbility of the film succeeding?

I am confident that the film WILL NOT flop (FF4 was a horrible film but a commercial success and this...this is Superman). I am confident that the film WILL disappoint me. I am devastated because I am confident that the film WILL succeed ergo establishing a franchise based upon this Superman and this cast of characters.

 

[Venom71]

Thats pretty much my feeling on SR. Im not some Uber-fanboy who knows every comic appearence, but I deeply respect the character and have very good childhood memories of the first 3 movies.

Yes, I would be very dissapointed if the film doesn't get much attention, but if I like it, screw the public, the critics, and the cynical fanboys who linger to attack the next big movie.

If it dissapoints me as a movie itself however, I will say my peace, and move on. Just like I did with Daredevil, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Electra, The Punisher, ect...


But I will see it first before I gut it and pull out its still beating heart with my sharpend knife of spite and heartbreak.

co-sign

 

[skruloos]

I don't believe that my "preferred" Superman is a minority opinion, everyone I show images of Superman to complains that he doesn't look Superman. I guarantee that many critics who review Superman will say the same thing about how Routh and the suit don't look like Superman. Like it or not, Superman is an iconic character even in the non-comic reading public and I don't have any doubts in saying that people will be questing this Superman's validity when they see it in the theatres because the traditional look of Superman is so well established and Singer's revisionist attempt really runs in contrast to the aesthetics of many people including Superman's writers and artists in the comic industry (as stated by them in several intreviews that I have read).

And ultimately, all this talk about being revisionist might not matter in the slightest. Maybe it does to you, but in the grand scheme of things, it might just fall by the wayside along with the organics arguments of yesteryear.

That said, this film WILL NOT FLOP. Fantastic Four was a horrible movie and yet it was a financial success almost guaranteeing a sequel. This is Superman, and the name (if not the image) will make it a blockbuster. That's my problem, this film is guaranteed a sequel just because it is Superman...and I really am loathe to be stuck with this image of Superman for basically the next 5-7 years of this trilogy.

This is the thought that really brings a smile to me face. If the film finds a place with the audience, then you ARE stuck with it. And who knows what repurcussions it might have on the comic books?

 

[Spare-Flair]

And ultimately, all this talk about being revisionist might not matter in the slightest. Maybe it does to you, but in the grand scheme of things, it might just fall by the wayside along with the organics arguments of yesteryear.


This is the thought that really brings a smile to me face. If the film finds a place with the audience, then you ARE stuck with it. And who knows what repurcussions it might have on the comic books?

BTW, I've changed my mind. I determined that ultimately, my problem is just with Superman's hair as per my thread here:
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232558

If they change that, I could possibly live with the next two possible installments.

 

[Visionary]

I do not understand this thinking. When a romantic comedy fails, people don't stop going to see romantic comedies. Do people think "there are too many action films or cop thrillers or romantic comedies being released"? Then why single out comic book films? SUPERMAN RETURNS is not likely to fail at the box office. At all. Previous comic book films not doing so hot (DAREDEVIL, LXG, even HULK in some ways) have not affected the market that strongly.

I see what you're saying, but when Batman 3 and 4 bombed, movie studios would spit in your face if you dare mentioned a comic book film. Avi Arad mentioned this when he was trying to get Blade movie distributed, he said that they couldn't even use the name MARVEL, in fear that people would know it's a comic book film. I say when the big 4 (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men) began to fail at the box office, it's not a good sign. It's not the people I'm talking about, but the studios who think "oh crap, the comic book trend is over, again." Plus, the budget on these damn comic book films are huge and they're growing, that's something else that could help kill comic book films, that don't measure up on all fronts.

 

[Excel]

batman 3-batman forever- was a megahit, the biggst film of the year.

 

[Nivek]

And Batman and Robin pulled in big box office as well, it was later in the release that people realized the huge level of suck.

 

[Spare-Flair]

I see what you're saying, but when Batman 3 and 4 bombed, movie studios would spit in your face if you dare mentioned a comic book film. Avi Arad mentioned this when he was trying to get Blade movie distributed, he said that they couldn't even use the name MARVEL, in fear that people would know it's a comic book film. I say when the big 4 (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men) began to fail at the box office, it's not a good sign. It's not the people I'm talking about, but the studios who think "oh crap, the comic book trend is over, again." Plus, the budget on these damn comic book films are huge and they're growing, that's something else that could help kill comic book films, that don't measure up on all fronts.

The thing is, I believe Superman transcends comic book movies. It is quite simply an event movie engrained into popular culture and he is basically the penultimate Superhero film or even large scale event movie.

What other Superhero franchise has sustained a live action television series in some form almost continuously from 1988 to pretty much 2008 (Superboy, Lois & Clark, Smallville). That's almost 20 years of a Superman TV show being on air on a major network and surviving in the turbulent world of television. Superman is that much stronger than any other franchise that it appeals to mass audiences even on TV for that long. If you think about it, that means there's been a filmed version of Superman almost continuously since 1978 so that's 30 years of not having to going very few years without some sort of Superman on the big screen or on the tube.

 

[Nivek]

The thing is, I believe Superman transcends comic book movies. It is quite simply an event movie engrained into popular culture and he is basically the penultimate Superhero film or even large scale event movie.

What other Superhero franchise has sustained a live action television series in some form almost continuously from 1988 to pretty much 2008 (Superboy, Lois & Clark, Smallville). That's almost 20 years of a Superman TV show being on air on a major network and surviving in the turbulent world of television. Superman is that much stronger than any other franchise that it appeals to mass audiences even on TV for that long. If you think about it, that means there's been a filmed version of Superman almost continuously since 1978 so that's 30 years of not having to going very few years without some sort of Superman on the big screen or on the tube.

Actually, if you count the movie serials and Cartoons he's appeared in, he's pretty much ALWAYS been around in some media form or another.

 

[Visionary]

How well did these movies do, because studios didn't want to see a comic book film after them?

 

[Strgts]

Jay & Silent Bob say

 

[Visionary]

The thing is, I believe Superman transcends comic book movies. It is quite simply an event movie engrained into popular culture and he is basically the penultimate Superhero film or even large scale event movie.

What other Superhero franchise has sustained a live action television series in some form almost continuously from 1988 to pretty much 2008 (Superboy, Lois & Clark, Smallville). That's almost 20 years of a Superman TV show being on air on a major network and surviving in the turbulent world of television. Superman is that much stronger than any other franchise that it appeals to mass audiences even on TV for that long. If you think about it, that means there's been a filmed version of Superman almost continuously since 1978 so that's 30 years of not having to going very few years without some sort of Superman on the big screen or on the tube.

I'm aware of that, but I'm strictly talking movies. Just because you have various films spanning 30 years doesn't mean much, if you have a few that flopped, and pretty much stops other films from being made, like Superman 3 and 4....it's a big deal. Take Star Wars, which is a massive hit each and everytime one is released, that's when you can brag of success on film for 30 years.

 

[Spare-Flair]

I'm aware of that, but I'm strictly talking movies. Just because you have various films spanning 30 years doesn't mean much, if you have a few that flopped, and pretty much stops other films from being made, like Superman 3 and 4....it's a big deal. Take Star Wars, which is a massive hit each and everytime one is released, that's when you can brag of success on film for 30 years.

Star Wars was a hit because of the name. I think many people would agree the prequel movies actually suck and they only watched it because it was "Star Wars".

As for Superman 3 and 4, I think basically Cannon films wasted the money and lost the liscense after those films. If they didn't lose the liscense, they would have continued to milk the franchise with bad movies just to make money because that company cared about nothing but greed. They took the money budgeted for Superman and raised by WB and spent half of it to do their other films.

 

[The Guard]

I see what you're saying, but when Batman 3 and 4 bombed

I'm pretty sure BATMAN FOREVER was one of, if not THE biggest movie of the year.

movie studios would spit in your face if you dare mentioned a comic book film.

Untrue. WB tried to get a BATMAN 5 off the ground for several years.

Avi Arad mentioned this when he was trying to get Blade movie distributed, he said that they couldn't even use the name MARVEL, in fear that people would know it's a comic book film.

He forgot to mention that previous MARVEL films had sucked ass, because someone sold the rights to movie studios for a song way back when.

I say when the big 4 (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men) began to fail at the box office, it's not a good sign.

The big four are not likely to ever fail at the box office. Not anytime soon.

It's not the people I'm talking about, but the studios who think "oh crap, the comic book trend is over, again."

And, like other genres, they will continue to milk it. SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND ring a bell?

Plus, the budget on these damn comic book films are huge and they're growing, that's something else that could help kill comic book films, that don't measure up on all fronts.

Not all comic book films have huge budgets.

 

[Speedball]

my predictions.
1. Pirates of the Caribbean 2
2. Superman Returns
3. X-men 3
4. Leonardo Code (thats what i call it. He was from Vinci, that's not his last name)
5. Snakes on a Plane

 

[Nightwing1977]

Actually, if you count the movie serials and Cartoons he's appeared in, he's pretty much ALWAYS been around in some media form or another.

There you go. Superman isn't just a comic book character. He's a world icon. Everywhere you go, you will see a "S" shield or Supes himself on certain things. Like t-shirt, stickers on the car, shoes, cap, etc.

 

[skruloos]

The big four are not likely to ever fail at the box office. Not anytime soon.

I'm not so sure about that. It's entirely possible for people to get burnt out on a genre. Remember when Die Hard ripoffs were all the rage? These were the action movies that could be described as "Die Hard on a (insert location here)". Pretty soon, people tired of this sub-genre of action movie. They died out. It doesn't mean they won't ever come back but it IS possible for a genre to fall out of favor with an audience.

 

[Speedball]

He's still on TV now. JLU, Krypto, and the comics are finally returning to greatness, thanks to Busiek. wish he would stay with Action Comics and Superman for forever.