Superman Returns why WB is so confident this time?

FanboyX_Returns said:
NOW THAT WAS ORIGINAL!

Good job Pickle_Fu**r you should work for Bryan Singer... :o
Click to expand...

You realize you have hardly scratched the surface of Pickle-El's vast Shhhhhhhhh...potential....:o

Talk dirty to me X-treme....do your worst.

It's a no wonder Dan Harris cut your AOL IM conversation short.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. :supes:
 
hehehe...old thread...
what would the "Bryan is a great director" guys say?
 
CConn said:
Firstly, I think one of the big things was how Chris Nolan was/did handle Batman Begins. With BB, WB knew they had a hit on their hands over a year before it was a released. They, I think, realized what a giving a great director the freedom and money to do what he wants can do for a film. And how much money it can make.
Click to expand...
And again I'm left wondering...what went wrong with SR? WB saw that letting Nolan do what he wanted resulted in an awesome movie, and I can't really blame them for trusting Singer the same way. This was the guy who DID do X1 and X2, right? (Nevermind the fact that I personally think the X-men movies are overrated..) Yet, Singer went overboard with the budget and lost sight of what SR was supposed to be about. Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him? Hardly. The movie turned out to be about Supes finding his place in the life of a woman who doesn't need him.

I don't get it. On paper, Nolan should have been the one wasting money on special effects and unused sequences since he had never seen a budget even a THIRD as large as BB's. Nolan's biggest film before BB was Insomnia and even that cost less than $50 million. Singer had some experience with blockbusters- he had a tight leash on X1 ($75 million) but he was able to get a $100+ million budget for X2. But then something went terribly wrong when he was handed $200+ million for SR.

Is what happened with SR and Singer an anomaly, or is it the norm? I mean...you see it all the time in real life: guy gets a fat raise, and the next thing you know, he's buying luxury cars and designer clothes and crap that he simply doesn't need. But does that happen regularly with first-time big-budget directors? Or is Nolan the rare director who is able to keep perspective no matter what? (Ironic that during an interview for Memento, he described himself as a mainstream filmmaker. *snort* For a mainstream filmmaker, he sure doesn't operate like one.)

I just don't know. Singer did have some good ideas that jived with his original conflict of Supes returning to a world that doesn't need him, but that just got lost somewhere during production....

CConn said:
Does the world need superheroes? That's something no other movie has yet asked.
Click to expand...
Just a general question...but what about The Incredibles? I thought that conveyed the "does the world need superheroes?" theme than anything I've ever seen. SR included, now that we've seen it and we know that it actually doesn't ask that question at all...
 
This time, i think they had the respect for the past films while bringing it into a new age. Tim Burtons stuff even sounds like a losing formula, so I dont blame them for saying "hey, we'll wait until we get something that feels right."

Honestly i dont think superman couldve stood without acknowledging 78s. Its too iconic and people would have said "this is nothing compared to donner", so Singer stayed close, and he got some backlash for that too, but i think he made a good choice because he didnt RIP OFF Donner imo, he looked to the past to bridge to the future. It showed some humility i feel, and if that wasnt there, the fans and critics wouldve really went bonkers i think.
 
IF WB wishes to dump more money down this dry hole and go the way of United Arists then let'em. If they thought this pos was a flop try making another one.
 
XCharlieX said:
This time, i think they had the respect for the past films while bringing it into a new age. Tim Burtons stuff even sounds like a losing formula, so I dont blame them for saying "hey, we'll wait until we get something that feels right."

Honestly i dont think superman couldve stood without acknowledging 78s. Its too iconic and people would have said "this is nothing compared to donner", so Singer stayed close, and he got some backlash for that too, but i think he made a good choice because he didnt RIP OFF Donner imo, he looked to the past to bridge to the future. It showed some humility i feel, and if that wasnt there, the fans and critics wouldve really went bonkers i think.
Click to expand...
you know the difference between a vague sequel and a requel?
what singer did was not just a sequel. there were to many homages. they even copyed the lines.
 
Anita18 said:
And again I'm left wondering...what went wrong with SR? WB saw that letting Nolan do what he wanted resulted in an awesome movie, and I can't really blame them for trusting Singer the same way. This was the guy who DID do X1 and X2, right? (Nevermind the fact that I personally think the X-men movies are overrated..) Yet, Singer went overboard with the budget and lost sight of what SR was supposed to be about. Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him? Hardly. The movie turned out to be about Supes finding his place in the life of a woman who doesn't need him.

I don't get it. On paper, Nolan should have been the one wasting money on special effects and unused sequences since he had never seen a budget even a THIRD as large as BB's. Nolan's biggest film before BB was Insomnia and even that cost less than $50 million. Singer had some experience with blockbusters- he had a tight leash on X1 ($75 million) but he was able to get a $100+ million budget for X2. But then something went terribly wrong when he was handed $200+ million for SR.

Is what happened with SR and Singer an anomaly, or is it the norm? I mean...you see it all the time in real life: guy gets a fat raise, and the next thing you know, he's buying luxury cars and designer clothes and crap that he simply doesn't need. But does that happen regularly with first-time big-budget directors? Or is Nolan the rare director who is able to keep perspective no matter what? (Ironic that during an interview for Memento, he described himself as a mainstream filmmaker. *snort* For a mainstream filmmaker, he sure doesn't operate like one.)

I just don't know. Singer did have some good ideas that jived with his original conflict of Supes returning to a world that doesn't need him, but that just got lost somewhere during production....


Just a general question...but what about The Incredibles? I thought that conveyed the "does the world need superheroes?" theme than anything I've ever seen. SR included, now that we've seen it and we know that it actually doesn't ask that question at all...
Click to expand...

what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
 
Excel said:
what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
Click to expand...

How is it up there with Spidey,passion and Potter 1 ? they made much more in 3 days than SR did in 5


You can;t lay all the blame on Pirates and marketing
 
hunter rider said:
WOW there is some heavy post seperating debating going on here.I think WB are so confident this Time b/c Superman was the first of the comic book characters to ever make the transition and he has the appeal of Spidey with the mainstream and we all know how well those movies did
Also now they have singer who has proven he can make a superhero movie a hit
Click to expand...
his appeal is NOWHERE near spidey....... not these days....... (and thats not saying much considerig there was no spidey movies back then)

singer proved he can make x-men.....not supes
 
xwolverine2 said:
his appeal is NOWHERE near spidey....... not these days....... (and thats not saying much considerig there was no spidey movies back then)

singer proved he can make x-men.....not supes
Click to expand...

That post you quoted is a year old,at the time there was no reason to believe Superman didn't still have a good chunk of popularity and that WB would obviously have faith in a director that had success in the genre prior to making SR
 
Excel said:
what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
Click to expand...

Did Singer brainwash you into believing that?
or did he simply bribe ya to come here and say it?
 
Pickle-El said:
You realize you have hardly scratched the surface of Pickle-El's vast Shhhhhhhhh...potential....:o

Talk dirty to me X-treme....do your worst.

It's a no wonder Dan Harris cut your AOL IM conversation short.

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing. :supes:
Click to expand...

Short? lol actually it was over 20mins long, and I am sure he's more pissed now that he witrnesses how right I was about the how the movro will do badly in theaters....
 
Excel said:
what went wrong with superman was release date. marketing got it 5th biggest opening week ever for a non sequel, meaning it IS up there with SPIDER-MAN, POTTER 1, POSSION OF THE CHRIST, and WOTW. the fact is its legs were destroyed ffrom the utter behomoth that was pirates 2.

and CONTRARY to popular belief, the movie WAS well recieved. i believe like 75% gave it 9 or 10 in ratings. its just the dissappointed fans are far more outspoken.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.
 
KaptainKrypton said:
Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....
 
X-Maniac said:
Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....
Click to expand...
Elaborate, please. Please don't tell me you mean fresh like in "Smallville" fresh...otherwise we have no point in conversing.
 
X-Maniac said:
Superman could have been FRESH too....

With a little imagination and an in-depth study of the rich comicbook mythology....

But it wasn't fresh... that's the problem....
Click to expand...

DING, DING, DING!!! We have a winner...:up:
 
KaptainKrypton said:
Bingo. The majority of the fans who've voted for the film (even on this site) have been in the "like it" category. I've had round after round with buggs on this, but even X3 would've been buried going up against Pirates. It's the runaway juggernaut of this summer, without question. Superman's been gone for 20 years, is considered old-hat by most kids, and Pirates is damn sure fresh in the American public consciousness. Pirates, Spidey, and Harry Potter are pretty much the three most unstoppable tentpole franchises going right now. Hopefully, the sequels to Batman and Superman can join up in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Not true. SR had plenty of time before Pirates to make money. it didn't. It had a poor opening and a poor first week. The Pirates excuse is tired and irrelevant. There is plenty of room for 2 successful films. Only one was a success. A blockbuster can have a huge opening, have longevity, or both. If a film has longevity, other films don't matter one bit. People will make room for more than one film. SR didn't have a good opening or longevity. Why don't you people blame global warming on SR failures. It makes as much sense as blaming Pirates.

Spider-Man made 114 million in it's first 3 days.

MIB 2, a sequel made 87million in 3 days.

Even the "flop" Mission Impossible 3 made almost $50 million in 3 days


In Superman Returns first 3 days, it made 52 million, without ANY competition.

You're going to blame that on Pirates?
 
matthooper said:
Not true. SR had plenty of time before Pirates to make money. it didn't. It had a poor opening and a poor first week. The Pirates excuse is tired and irrelevant. There is plenty of room for 2 successful films. Only one was a success. A blockbuster can have a huge opening, have longevity, or both. If a film has longevity, other films don't matter one bit. People will make room for more than one film. SR didn't have a good opening or longevity. Why don't you people blame global warming on SR failures. It makes as much sense as blaming Pirates.

Spider-Man made 114 million in it's first 3 days.

MIB 2, a sequel made 87million in 3 days.

Even the "flop" Mission Impossible 3 made almost $50 million in 3 days


In Superman Returns first 3 days, it made 52 million, without ANY competition.

You're going to blame that on Pirates?
Click to expand...
They weren't even competing in the first week, and Superman did decent numbers (not horrible...not great). And what did you expect to happen to any other movie in it's second week when Pirates eclipses the opening weekend record...OF ALL TIME. Even if SR was directed by Spielberg and edited by Jesus it wouldn't have been able to beat that. What I'm trying to get through to people is that it can't be expected to have any legs whatsoever when a titan like Pirates squashes EVERYTHING in its path (not just Superman). The box office take of SR would've likely been a bit different if Pirates was two weeks later. I know a lot of people who, when given the choice of which to see, went to Pirates instead (as evidenced by the opening take). People seemed to be frothing at the mouth to watch Jack Sparrow, but couldn't give a rat's ass about Kal-el.
 
My point was that it had a full week before Pirates to do well. It didn't. MI:3 made almost as much in it's first 3 days.

Plus, a film with legs will do well despite the competition.
 
matthooper said:
My point was that it had a full week before Pirates to do well. It didn't. MI:3 made almost as much in it's first 3 days.

Plus, a film with legs will do well despite the competition.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I thought that Returns was mediocre myself but it will make more money worldwide then Batman Begins. Begins only made $371 million total worldwide. Returns is at $348 million worldwide with the final openings in Japan, Germany and Italy it should have enough to surpass Begins and top out at around $400 million.

The movie did better then Begins it was only its bloated budget which makes it a failure. It just means WB needs to control the cost of the sequel and keep the budget in line with the Batman budgets.
 
Plus....I don't think any other WB movies this year even grossed more than 100 million??? So... overall...they've had a really bad year. lol. But again...people have to look at this at another angle. Did you see the amount of Superman related DVD's they released in conjunction with Superman returns this year. Almost a dozen. With all the merchandising alone it should give them 100 million alone. And for the sequel....you bet they will force Singer to put in a load of new villians just to amp up the toy merchandise again.


Smallville and Lois and Clark are both shows in syndication and DVD now...so they make the company 100's of million a year alone. They can afford Superman returns not making back it's budget. Cause their main goal is just to have Superman more aware in the world as a franchise right now.

All said and done.... WB will not lose in the end.
 
dark_b said:
you know the difference between a vague sequel and a requel?
what singer did was not just a sequel. there were to many homages. they even copyed the lines.
Click to expand...

I know... i saw it like a remix. A remake with a respectful remix of Donners. I dont see a problem. "Too many" shows a lack of the right view of it imo. If you see it from a different perspective youre like "what was he doing?" So this cannot be helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Members online

Total: 1,465 (members: 14, guests: 1,451)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,341
Messages
21,664,602
Members
45,475
Latest member
HulkZakPenn

Share this page

Back
Top