Superman Returns Why Don't Some Superman Fans Like Superman Returns?

- BB tried to stay close to the comic books and it made less than SR.

- FF tried to stay close to the comic books and made less than SR.

- Sin city was exactly like the comic books and made less than SR.

The Spider-Man franchise stayed extremely close to the original comic books and made more money in it's lifetime than all these movies put together.

so don't make this out to be SR is better than all of them, because it's not.
 
The Spider-Man franchise stayed extremely close to the original comic books and made more money in it's lifetime than all these movies put together.

One swallow will make this summer for us?
 
it most certainly did for Sony... and we both know that the name of the game in the movie business is making money.
 
I don't hate Superman Returns. I LOVED IT!

Bryan Singer gave us some special homage from Richard Donner's and Christopher Reeve's Superman The Movie (1978) for Superman Returns. It was an honorable for Christopher Reeve. The story was good and it has an excellent epic. Loved the romance, dramatic and everything, especially airplane rescue scene.
 
- BB tried to stay close to the comic books and it made less than SR.

- FF tried to stay close to the comic books and made less than SR.

- Sin city was exactly like the comic books and made less than SR.

Most of the people who watched the spider man movies don't even read comic books. So they don't know or care if the stories are faithful or not. I love spiderman but I'm pretty sure it's success is not based on how faithful it is.

Look at the Batman movie of 1989, that movie is even less faithful than SR and it made a lot of money.

It's not rocket science :whatever:
Oh Lord. Why is it you guys always use the stupid :whatever: or this:rolleyes: emoticon. Just curious.

Batman Begins had to lure people back to see a Batman movie after Batman and Robin. It is a hightly respected film, and those who stayed away in the theater found it on DVD and Cable. It also made domestic over it's production budget. SR didn't. BB had good legs and was pulling in good numbers every week even against bigger films. SR made a lot of it's money in the first two weeks. After that, it was not making much because of bad WOM. Batman Begins constistently made more money in it's same week out from opening than SR did. There is very high experctation for The Dark Knight. It will make a lot of money this time.

Sin City cost nearly nothing to make. A lot of it was shot in Rodriguezes house for crying out loud.
 
it most certainly did for Sony... and we both know that the name of the game in the movie business is making money.

But the point wasn't that. It was about how faithfulness to the comics would somehow mean better numbers.

Btw, have you made any cent out of SR?

Because if not, I'm afraid we're out of that game. And therefore to talk about it excluding the personal appreciation would be extremely ridiculous.
 
Oh Lord. Why is it you guys always use the stupid :whatever: or this:rolleyes: emoticon. Just curious.

Batman Begins had to lure people back to see a Batman movie after Batman and Robin. It is a hightly respected film, and those who stayed away in the theater found it on DVD and Cable. It also made domestic over it's production budget. SR didn't. BB had good legs and was pulling in good numbers every week even against bigger films. SR made a lot of it's money in the first two weeks. After that, it was not making much because of bad WOM. Batman Begins constistently made more money in it's same week out from opening than SR did. There is very high experctation for The Dark Knight. It will make a lot of money this time.

Sin City cost nearly nothing to make. A lot of it was shot in Rodriguezes house for crying out loud.

Exactly. Then we can say that the financial success of a comic movie depends in the cost of it vs the BO. And not about faithfulness to the comics.
 
Oh Lord. Why is it you guys always use the stupid :whatever: or this:rolleyes: emoticon. Just curious.

Batman Begins had to lure people back to see a Batman movie after Batman and Robin. It is a hightly respected film, and those who stayed away in the theater found it on DVD and Cable. It also made domestic over it's production budget. SR didn't. BB had good legs and was pulling in good numbers every week even against bigger films. SR made a lot of it's money in the first two weeks. After that, it was not making much because of bad WOM. Batman Begins constistently made more money in it's same week out from opening than SR did. There is very high experctation for The Dark Knight. It will make a lot of money this time.

Sin City cost nearly nothing to make. A lot of it was shot in Rodriguezes house for crying out loud.

I don't care if Sin City was completely shot at Rodriguezes bathroom, movies with less budget than SC, made millions at the box office.

Remember, you were the one pointing out the reason SR failed and Spidey is a hit, is because the first one doesn't use the comics and the second one did. SR, with all the flaws you say it has, made more than Daredevil, FF, BB, Sin City. If BB is so great and popular why didn't it make spidey numbers, Batman is as popular as Spiderman and Superman. Batman 1989 is the proof of that.

And you use the Batman and Robin excuse for BB, for why it's box office wasn't that great. But I'm pretty sure I can't use that excuse with SR, because before we had Superman III and IV, because they were like 20 years ago. And I'm pretty sure you need to defend Batman because you loved BB, but hated SR.I love BB by the way. And you are the one praising the box office. Fact is more people watched SR than BB at the theaters. And I don't think BB sold a great difference of DVD than SR. If you hate SR, that's I couldn't care less, but don't act like your opinion is the absoulute truth, and everyone agrees with you.
 
The Spider-Man franchise stayed extremely close to the original comic books and made more money in it's lifetime than all these movies put together.

so don't make this out to be SR is better than all of them, because it's not.

My point is that not always you have to stay close to the material to make gazillions of dollars, example Batman 1989, in those years it had the same kind of impact that the Spidey films do right now. And Burton took a lot of liberties and people still went to see the movie. I know SR was way far from spiderman numbers, but it made more than the 80% of all the other comic book movies.IMO the only spidey film superior to SR is SM2, SM3 was good, great action but no story.
 
I don't hate Superman Returns. I LOVED IT!

Bryan Singer gave us some special homage from Richard Donner's and Christopher Reeve's Superman The Movie (1978) for Superman Returns. It was an honorable for Christopher Reeve. The story was good and it has an excellent epic. Loved the romance, dramatic and everything, especially airplane rescue scene.

Too bad so many people on this forums only want a mindless action Superman movie directed by Michael Bay or the Wachowsky bros.
 
Accuracy to the comic books means nothing, People forget how much comics have changed over time. B89 is more accurate than BB, depending on which era you look at. Hell, the campy Batman series is more accurate depending on where you take your batman from.
 
Accuracy to the comic books means nothing, People forget how much comics have changed over time. B89 is more accurate than BB, depending on which era you look at. Hell, the campy Batman series is more accurate depending on where you take your batman from.

I agree totally with you about that accuracy to the comics means nothing. Although, I think Batman 89 takes a lot of liberties and is less faithful than BB.
That's why comic book fans love BB because they feel the director and writers cared about the fans.
 
Well if you take the very early incarnations of Batman, some of the first Bob Kane stuff, B89 resembles them a lot more than BB does.
 
- BB tried to stay close to the comic books and it made less than SR.

- FF tried to stay close to the comic books and made less than SR.

- Sin city was exactly like the comic books and made less than SR.


SR also had more WW marketing, more theatrical openings, and an IMAX release over these other movies you've mentioned(and SR still made less then BB domestically). I happen to agree about the overrated "faithfulness to comics" argument, but don't say "It's not rocket science" when clearly there are several complicated contributing factors to a movies box office.
 
Btw, have you made any cent out of SR?

Maybe it'd be helpful if you read the rest.

I did, and I still don't understand what you mean... if you mean have I made money from Superman Returns, then no, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Lighthouse said:
SR also had more WW marketing, more theatrical openings, and an IMAX release over these other movies you've mentioned.
and yet it still did an underwhelming performance...

there was definitely something wrong with the movie. What was wrong is debatable, but there was something wrong.
 
- BB tried to stay close to the comic books and it made less than SR.

- FF tried to stay close to the comic books and made less than SR.

- Sin city was exactly like the comic books and made less than SR.

Most of the people who watched the spider man movies don't even read comic books. So they don't know or care if the stories are faithful or not. I love spiderman but I'm pretty sure it's success is not based on how faithful it is.

Look at the Batman movie of 1989, that movie is even less faithful than SR and it made a lot of money.

It's not rocket science :whatever:
Owned.
 
SR also had more WW marketing, more theatrical openings, and an IMAX release over these other movies you've mentioned(and SR still made less then BB domestically). I happen to agree about the overrated "faithfulness to comics" argument, but don't say "It's not rocket science" when clearly there are several complicated contributing factors to a movies box office.

I know SR was a disappointment at the box office, I was expecting 300 million domestic. WB was expecting much more. But if you compare it to FF and BB theatrical openings it's not such a big difference. BB was on IMAX too. And I was talking about worldwide, SR made more than BB. The "ROCKET SCIENCE" was a sarcastic comment to someone that posted it before.
 
I did, and I still don't understand what you mean... if you mean have I made money from Superman Returns, then no, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


and yet it still did an underwhelming performance...

there was definitely something wrong with the movie. What was wrong is debatable, but there was something wrong.

IMO lack of action. And maybe something you've mentioned before kakarot, lack of bright colors. I love SR, but I understand some of you for not liking it. What really surprises me is how some people express about this movie, like if it's even worse than B & R, Superman III - IV, Daredevil. IMO that's going too far
 
IMO lack of action. And maybe something you've mentioned before kakarot, lack of bright colors. I love SR, but I understand some of you for not liking it. What really surprises me is how some people express about this movie, like if it's even worse than B & R, Superman III - IV, Daredevil. IMO that's going too far

It is going too far, but the reason fans feel that way sometimes is because they had a lot more invested in Superman Returns then in those movies. Movies like Ghost Rider and Batman & Robin were pure and absolute crap, but I was able to shrug them off and forget about them. SR is more disappointing to me than those movies because I really care about the Superman character, and Singer gave me a Superman that I felt absolutely no connection to. Is Superman Returns worse than Superman III and Daredevil? No, but it hurts more than those movies.
 
It is going too far, but the reason fans feel that way sometimes is because they had a lot more invested in Superman Returns then in those movies. Movies like Ghost Rider and Batman & Robin were pure and absolute crap, but I was able to shrug them off and forget about them. SR is more disappointing to me than those movies because I really care about the Superman character, and Singer gave me a Superman that I felt absolutely no connection to. Is Superman Returns worse than Superman III and Daredevil? No, but it hurts more than those movies.

It must be really frustrating not getting the Superman movie you wanted. Maybe if there's a sequel it will be more the way you want a Superman movie.
 
It must be really frustrating not getting the Superman movie you wanted. Maybe if there's a sequel it will be more the way you want a Superman movie.

Problem is all the stuff thats left to explore at the end of SR is stuff I really don't care to see in the sequel. I felt the "Superman's Son" plot, while interesting, was very poorly thought out, with lots of plot holes and vague explanations. The kid was also completely lifeless and dull. I just don't have any interest in where this story is heading.
 
I agree lighthouse.

the loose-ends that Singer left at the end of SR don't really interest me.

And, if there is a Singer sequel, no matter how much action Singer packs into it........we still must deal with the loose-ends in SR........

The idea is to make ppl WANT to see the sequel.....to make them say....."Man, I can't wait for the sequel!"

I don't feel that at all with SR........
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,932
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"