Superman Returns why WB is so confident this time?

they will, possibly, loose money off of SR if it doesn't make it's money back in DVD sales. Lois & Clark and Smallville do make money for the studio, but they make money for their television and home entertainment departments.
 
XCharlieX said:
I know... i saw it like a remix. A remake with a respectful remix of Donners. I dont see a problem.
the problem is the storyline's setup was exactly like Donner's film.
open with Krypton, flight through space, 3D opening, crash land in Smallville, life on the farm, off to Metropolis, Daily Planet, Lois is on an aircraft, aircraft has trouble, Superman saves it and says the exact same lines as Donners. Luthor begins to make his plans known which are far too similar to Donner's film, he even has the campy sidekicks to go along with it. Kitty was Miss Tessmaucher - end of story.

plus, there's the whole improbable ending where somehow Superman is able to lift an entire continent out of the water while Kryptonite is growing all around him - he should've died sooner.

and the gaping lapse of logic that was Lois Lane, and her character was way off-base. but now, i'm just getting off topic.
 
One point i find.. everyone likes bragging rights in the form of $$$$, but what i find true bragging rights is a film that stood on its own smarts and got a bit less than others. Thats honorable imo and i find that sucessful.
 
hunter rider said:
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
DING DING DING!
this Pirates argument is tired. the point is this, if Singer's Superman film had shown itself to bring something new and interesting to the general public about the Superman mythos then it would've done stellar, it didn't. the public saw the clips, trailers, and tv spots and thought too much of it had a "been there, done that" feeling to it, and truth be told, it did.
 
Excel said:
what went wrong with superman was release date.
That still doesn't excuse Singer's cutting of a $10 million sequence as well as other scenes which would have added a lot to the theme that he had been trying to focus on in the beginning. I felt that he completely lost sight of what the message of SR was supposed to be. People were saying that SR was about Supes finding his place in a world that doesn't need him. Tell me where it showed that, please, somebody. SR was all about Superman's feelings for Lois. And frankly, the marketing did its job for me. If I had known from the beginning that it was actually only about Supes and Lois, I wouldn't have bothered to see it in the theater in the first place. :p

We wouldn't be voicing extremely strong box office disappointments if SR had cost as much as BB to make. Yeah, somebody would still have gone, "Superman should have been the biggest thing this summer!" but if it had made its money back at the B.O., the situation wouldn't be so bad.

Excel said:
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.
I did like it, in general. It wasn't a bad movie. It just wasn't good enough for me to see again, or to recommend it whole-heartedly to other people. Even a relatively good movie can have bad word of mouth.
 
XCharlieX said:
One point i find.. everyone likes bragging rights in the form of $$$$, but what i find true bragging rights is a film that stood on its own smarts and got a bit less than others. Thats honorable imo and i find that sucessful.
normally, yes. i would argee with you, but SR stood on the smarts/downfalls of Donner's Superman and not a true, unique, and original vision. that's the problem with the film.

it's a good character drama, but it's not a good Superman film. that's the difference.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
the problem is the storyline's setup was exactly like Donner's film.
open with Krypton, flight through space, 3D opening, crash land in Smallville, life on the farm, off to Metropolis, Daily Planet, Lois is on an aircraft, aircraft has trouble, Superman saves it and says the exact same lines as Donners. Luthor begins to make his plans known which are far too similar to Donner's film, he even has the campy sidekicks to go along with it. Kitty was Miss Tessmaucher - end of story.

But what you dont see is what he changed this time. The mythos were modernized this time, clarks not as bumbling comic as before, the plot is forefront of "god among men" and it took the material more serious than before. That noteworthy piece is what made the film a successful remix, because to some fans the ideas in superman were cool, it just needed some updating, and in this respect, Singer nailed it. The folks i see annoyed are people who think Routh was expressionless etc.... this is a trait of those who preferred Reeves comedic antics etc and not the more straight faced approach, so this is what I see went wrong with Returns to some.

newwaveboy87 said:
it's a good character drama, but it's not a good Superman film. that's the difference.

So in comes the new fans like me lol
 
XCharlieX said:
But what you dont see is what he changed this time. The mythos were modernized this time, clarks not as bumbling comic as before, the plot is forefront of "god among men" and it took the material more serious than before. That noteworthy piece is what made the film a successful remix, because to some fans the ideas in superman were cool, it just needed some updating, and in this respect, Singer nailed it. The folks i see annoyed are people who think Routh was expressionless etc.... this is a trait of those who preferred Reeves comedic antics etc and not the more straight faced approach, so this is what I see went wrong with Returns to some.



So in comes the new fans like me lol
but you fail to understand that Routh was a good Superman but a TERRIBLE Clark Kent. but, this isn't entirely his fault. most of this lies in Singer's hands. Lois Lane is supposed to be tough, smart, and sassy, she was rarely any of those things in the film. where was the spitfire from the comics? Kent is supposed to be an awe-shucks farmboy. where was this? Superman would NEVER EVER EVER leave the Earth for 5 years, not tell anybody, randomly return, and then discover that he had an illegitimate child. he would also never follow Lois Lane to her house, snoop around, and ease drop on her conversations.

Luthor was also completely off.

again, as a film it's fine. as a Superman film, it falls apart.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
but you fail to understand that Routh was a good Superman but a TERRIBLE Clark Kent. but, this isn't entirely his fault. most of this lies in Singer's hands. Lois Lane is supposed to be tough, smart, and sassy, she was rarely any of those things in the film. where was the spitfire from the comics? Kent is supposed to be an awe-shucks farmboy. where was this? Superman would NEVER EVER EVER leave the Earth for 5 years, not tell anybody, randomly return, and then discover that he had an illegitimate child. he would also never follow Lois Lane to her house, snoop around, and ease drop on her conversations.

Luthor was also completely off.

again, as a film it's fine. as a Superman film, it falls apart.

Well, not with the style hes made... see.. this is a strange phenominon... Singer has swung the pendulum more of my way, thats the more realistic approach. Existing fans dont like this but he tried to be a politician and give us an update at the same time. You may not understand it, but i do perfectly, and "off" is dead on to this style, even though from your perspective it IS off.

I wasnt expecting Singer to swing it my way as that was a surprise, it just happened heh.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
DING DING DING!
this Pirates argument is tired. the point is this, if Singer's Superman film had shown itself to bring something new and interesting to the general public about the Superman mythos then it would've done stellar, it didn't. the public saw the clips, trailers, and tv spots and thought too much of it had a "been there, done that" feeling to it, and truth be told, it did.
Wonderfully said.
 
Oh and Lex Luthor, people from my side of the tracks appreciated that he didnt act silly, he was more of a calculated criminal with some fashion sense this time and a luxury car and sharp clothes to count for it heh. He reminded me of a don when he walked outside to his balcony and read the paper like a Big time crook. :up:

These are alterations that the classic fan might not appreciate, but others do. Fantastic remix imo.
 
He was like a gameshow host.

What is Otisberg for BILLIONS Mr. Luthor?

WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG.
 
XCharlieX said:
Well, not with the style hes made... see.. this is a strange phenominon... Singer has swung the pendulum more of my way, thats the more realistic approach. Existing fans dont like this but he tried to be a politician and give us an update at the same time. You may not understand it, but i do perfectly, and "off" is dead on to this style, even though from your perspective it IS off.

I wasnt expecting Singer to swing it my way as that was a surprise, it just happened heh.
you can do Superman realistically, but when you bastardize his character through your storyline, i have a problem with that. you obviously aren't understanding what i'm saying.
 
XCharlieX said:
Oh and Lex Luthor, people from my side of the tracks appreciated that he didnt act silly, he was more of a calculated criminal with some fashion sense this time and a luxury car and sharp clothes to count for it heh. He reminded me of a don when he walked outside to his balcony and read the paper like a Big time crook. :up:

These are alterations that the classic fan might not appreciate, but others do. Fantastic remix imo.
except....at times, he WAS over-the-top. the now infamous "WRONG!" or when he was prancing around and saying "Kryptonite" in the wierdest, lamest, and gayest way imaginable.

Luthor was off...yet again. at least with Hackman he was having some fun with the role. Spacey just looked dead/bored half the time.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
except....at times, he WAS over-the-top. the now infamous "WRONG!" or when he was prancing around and saying "Kryptonite" in the wierdest, lamest, and gayest way imaginable.

Except that was a mere wink at the previous luthor and if you like to characterize it as "gay" then you said it not me lmao. Overall it was a new luthor. Those brief moments were noted.

Clark feeling wooden accounts for this realism approach, as does Luthor being done what some would describe as "wrong", but they did wink at the previous incarnations at times with the sillyness, but the volume of it was quite diminished and controlled this time around. For instance, the "WRONG!" was followed by a pause and reaction from lois, to play up his psycotic side, not just silly. Singer played politician but he IS Singer, who made X-Men with an authentic feel, as he always states in the dvds.

I can understand people being annoyed at the alterations. If someone did the reverse to Batman Begins id be annoyed also. But since Returns was to my liking and dropped in my lap, i will support it.
 
it was not a new Luthor by any stretch of the imagination. Spacey did his best Hackman Luthor impression. there was nothing commadning, scary, seductive, or intelligent about the new Luthor. he was just like Donner's. right down to his motivation and grand scheme. sidekicks included.

where and why did Singer go so off with his realization of Superman? that's the real question many fans are trying to ask themselves.

i think it also speaks volumes that Singer refuses to acknowledge that the movie hasn't made it's money back, wanted to use Zod, and blames Pirates for a less than stellar box office. i wonder how he felt when the fans at Comic Con told him that they had been Superman fans for years and years, looked forward to his Superman film, and in the end felt disappointed. which caused some of the crowd to cheer along....makes you think.

there's nothing wrong with wanting realism for a comic character's big screen transformation, but Superman had no sense of grandeur, fun, and none of the characters seemed like themselves.

thank god for Nolan fixing the Batman franchise, cause Superman isn't looking too good right now.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
it was not a new Luthor by any stretch of the imagination. Spacey did his best Hackman Luthor impression. there was nothing commadning, scary, seductive, or intelligent about the new Luthor. he was just like Donner's. right down to his motivation and grand scheme. sidekicks included.

And i 1000% disagree. It followed the same mold, but altered the overall mood, mostly due to singer.

Clark looking like he wants to slug Richard White wouldve never happened in Donners, so I find it just not acknowledging the fact that Singer has made this film different and more today. People will continue to slam the film as making no sense until they accept what changes were made.
 
it followed the same old of an out-dated Luthor. Singer didn't bring anything new to Luthor.

and, yes, Superman never would've slugged Richard in Donner's version, because at the time Donner FOLLOWED the comic characterizations. Singer abandonned them all completely. that is the difference. that is why fans are mad. you can't just come along and hollow out the characters and except the fans to be happy. i'm not even a Superman fan, but even i knew things just weren't right about the film.

he did bring something new to Lois and Superman, but in the end - should he have done that?
 
Thank god for Nolan. Cheers

*raises glass*
 
newwaveboy87 said:
it followed the same old of an out-dated Luthor. Singer didn't bring anything new to Luthor.

Well have to agree to disagree... ive found the communication problem with the fans and the film as far as im concerned. Its slightly different, and because folks say its just like the others yet crappier, theyll continue to not get it. Thats their issue not the films imo.
 
...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!
 
newwaveboy87 said:
...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!

thank god for Nolan
 
newwaveboy87 said:
...you STILL don't get it.

fans are mad because Singer completely abadonned YEARS of comic book continuity and replaced the characters with hollowed out and out-dated models of themselves from 30 years ago.


THAT IS/WAS/SHALL FOREVER BE THE PROBLEM!

Well the fans say weird things dont they? All I know is that new school superman is lost on the fans. They dont get it. Its a tightrope with homaging previous movies, but with a new spin. Wooden acting etc are prominent complaints ive read on the boards as they elevate Hackman and Reeve, so it does exist and this part is obviously from the toning down of the larger than life personality side of the superman films imo. So while they categorize it as outdated, there are small things that they still miss ("hollowed out" shows this) and deem it a cheap knockoff because they do not and will never acknowledge this new slant put in the films, as manifested by you lol. Superman Returns is a politician type of film. It tries to please everyone. Its today while being yesterday at the same time. This is why Wb felt confident about this script and director.
 
so, you're ok with a Superman that fathered an illegitimate child, left the earth without telling anyone, comes back randomly, follows around a woman, ease drops on her conversations, and looks inside of her house?

you're ok with a Lois Lane who while supposedly being a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist takes her young son abroad a yacht where a dangerous black out was found to have been at the location that caused it? a Lois Lane that has lost of her spunk, liveliness, smarts, and tough girl attitude, and has been replaced with a really angry soccer mom?

a Lex Luthor that has yet to have a scheme that doesn't feel repetitive, has yet to build his empire, and yet to lay claim to Metropolis has his city? a Luthor that still keeps around people who will turn around and backstab him at any moment? a Luthor that keeps around campy, and useless sidekicks?

you're ok with a son being introduced that makes no plausible sense, and yes, i know he lost his powers. but Superman can never have children with Lois even if he lost his powers - he's not human. human's can't reproduce with other species, and seeing as how Superman is from a different planet - he's a different species.

you're ok with a Martha Kent that has been almost completely written out of his storyline? despite the fact that Martha Kent is as important to Superman, if not more so, than Aunt May is to Spider-Man? and what about Lana? we should've seen how Superman's return affected her as well - she's extremely important to the Superman mythos.
 
hmmm, today while being yesterday

*explodes*

Thank god for Nolan
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,331
Messages
21,662,617
Members
45,470
Latest member
rdouglas0425
Back
Top