July 22, 2006, 5:31 a.m. CST
July 22, 2006, 5:36 a.m. CST
I've seen it on TV many times
July 22, 2006, 5:41 a.m. CST
I hear that drives the ladies crazy...
July 22, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST
I was really looking forward to those ladies...
July 22, 2006, 5:45 a.m. CST
Just hope it can get to that $200m mark. Can't wait to see the new cut of Superman 2. I like the original Superman 2, but it's a bit tacky compared to the first (the music and sets and lighting look/sound cheaper). Plus, Lester isn't as solid a director as Donner.
July 22, 2006, 5:56 a.m. CST
Singer is obviously aware of the material and I think (given the god-like expectations of this movie) he did a good job. While I disagree with some of the choices he made (if Lois forgot that she had super-sex with Superman in 2, does she think he slipped her a super-roofie after she finds out she has a super-son?), I don't think anyone could've lived up to the hype of Superman Returns.
July 22, 2006, 5:58 a.m. CST
WTF, did no one there have the balls to call Singer out on the kid? The whole story about the crew member influencing the final scene seems factitious. And they shot the Return to Krypton sequence but he won't put it on the DVD, glad I don't plan on buying it, sucks for the people who did like the film though.
July 22, 2006, 6:10 a.m. CST
by Karl Childers
July 22, 2006, 6:38 a.m. CST
How much he rips off Wrath of Khan already? The end of X2 is Khan, and Luthor's use of the Fortress Crystal is identical to the genesis device. Even Luthor's motivations for wanting revenge are the same as Kahn's. What the fuck is left for him to copy? And it's Zod he wants to bring back...and if I'm not mistaken, Singer had heavy input into the marketing of Returns, so I don't know who the fuck he's blaming. He just pulled similar shit in a another interview, when it came to the budget. He blamed the media for coming up with a false number - when he was the one that first said the budget was over 250.
July 22, 2006, 6:40 a.m. CST
by Big McLargehuge
Hopefully Singer will adapt the "Death of Superman" storyline for the next ones. God, that would be so sweet, especially without John Peters and Tim Burton to fuck it up.
July 22, 2006, 6:50 a.m. CST
Talk of Sequel make HULK excited....and not in homo way!!!
July 22, 2006, 6:53 a.m. CST
Wow! Where has he been for the last 20 years?
July 22, 2006, 7:18 a.m. CST
You made a shit movie & tried to push it off on Donner because it was a sequel from "his movies". Now you're going out and trying to get some love again by hanging with Donner at Comic Con so that we might like your movie? Your movie blew and kissing donner's ass in public won't change anything
July 22, 2006, 7:24 a.m. CST
by Evil Hobbit
...they won't release the Return to Krypton sequence as a deleted scene either. But they probably will cut it into some special Imax version. Which will, of course, ultimately be release on dvd as the Imax cut, aka, the unofficial extended cut. Damn you marketing people, damn you!
July 22, 2006, 7:28 a.m. CST
There WILL be an Directors/Extended Cut DVD, but as per usual all talk of it is banned by the studio until the first version ships so they can get impulse buyers to double dip. My guess is it will be available mid-to-late 2007.
July 22, 2006, 7:37 a.m. CST
I don't know why, but all that shit between Lois and Superman really touched me. I feel like such a little bitch. Can't wait for the next one.
July 22, 2006, 7:44 a.m. CST
But first, Donners cut of both Superman films will be released on nov 28th 2006 as part of the year of Superman Deluxe package they are bringing out for christmas this year. onto next year. What has Ridley Scott being doing since KOH? well... Scott has been lcoked in Wb valuts re-editing, re-cutting and remastering his Magunum opus. BLADERUNNER. to Celebrate the 25th anniversary of Bladerunner, Scott has been wroking on this since 2000, got the greenlight finally to restor his directors cut of Blade runner and WB will release this back into cinemas and there will be deluxe box set on DVD to follow later in the year. By the way some one was saying about the crappy way SR was marketed. Who made the Iron Giant, dont tell me, let me guess. There is Spidey three, POTC 3, Harry potter 5 and tons more. Cant wait.
July 22, 2006, 7:54 a.m. CST
by Judge Briggs
But there better be some reference to the coming of Darkseid!!! He did it with Phoenix and he can do it with Darkseid... The animated series did a fucking wonderful job with Darkseid! I am in the Peace Corps right now and well, can't see the movie until it's out... no way I am getting a shitty bootleg version of it... but I do know that sitting in my grass hut with my portavble dvd player and Superman Returns... may bring tears to my eyes! I mean, I am already crying cause I can't see the movie. Argh!
July 22, 2006, 7:57 a.m. CST
Ok, so when the Phantom Menace is overhyped it pulls in over 400 million, but when Superman Returns is overhyped it'll barely sniff 200--so the overhyping argument is ludicrous. SR is on a ton of products/cross promotion so I don't see how it was marketed poorly. The only (objective) conclusion I can reach is that the film just wasn't good enough to get people in the theatre.
July 22, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST
I agree, the trailer just looked dull, no interesting story, no amazing action scenes, just looked really dull. Where did all the money go?
July 22, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST
I dig Lois' realization much more that way than Supes tripping over a pink bear and falling into the fire like a clumsy dumbass. I wanna see more!!!!
July 22, 2006, 8:17 a.m. CST
Despite your tireless effort trying to convince all us fans of SR and Singer what to think ... you just haven't gotten THROUGH yet. Beats me why not. Maybe if you and Superneal post another two dozen times about how much it OBJECTIVELY SUCKS, we'll all bow to the pressure and recognize that your opinion is really the ONLY way to view this. It's odd that we haven't listened to you yet ... I mean, you'd think enough posts on AICN and the word would go out - DIDN'T YOU HEAR? MOVIEMACK THINKS IT SUCKS! Oh, and thanks for your (objective) analysis, chrth, because you know that the ONLY reason a film makes any money is because it's (objectively) "good enough." Why do we even have critics? Fuck that, why do we even have our own opinions? Why not just wait to see what made the most money last weekend, and THAT'S the best film around. "LITTLE MAN"? I can hardly fucking wait! Did you see how much money it made last weekend? Why, it's (objectively) better than SR!!! Wow, I can't wait to (objectively) love that film. Oh, and Superneal? Just from my point of view, in the grand scheme of things, I might go to see Donnor ... I love the first Superman, and ... um, I guess I might ask what it was like to work with Mos Def ... but FUCKING SINGER, MAN!!! That I'd wait in line for. Fucking two great X-films, a good Supes film, and fucking USUAL SUSPECTS!!! Are you kidding me? (Oh, yeah, and Donnor did the first "Omen," right? Oh, wow, neato.)
July 22, 2006, 8:37 a.m. CST
I love this article. A lot.
July 22, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST
So dissapointed by SR. Sure the sequels will suck. Superman Returns 2:Superman and son? Lets get someone else in. Lets start over. They are doing it with the Hulk not long after the Ang Lee version they should do it with Superman. I am sure we can think of a Director that would give Superman the epic feel it deserves. Any suggestions?
July 22, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST
Are you out of your mind? You think Singer is that much better than Donner? At least he has proven he can work in many different genres unlike singer who did Usual Suspects ( awesome movie ) and some shitty comic movies..For your sake we wont touch Apt Pupil. If Donner is such a Scmuck- why did Singer use his outline for the Superman Returns story line? Its obivius Singer could not come up with anything original. Donner has done Horror- Omen..Action - Lethal Weapons... Comedy - Scrooged, The Toy... And Adveture- Goonies. Now go back to beating in the fact that Superman returns brought in A BILLION DOLLARS in merchandising like you always do...A billion dollars my ass
July 22, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST
When I first went to see Pulp Fiction I walked out of the movie and someone asked me if I liked it. I thought for a second and said,"I don't know". I really wasn't sure. However, after a few days I found myself still thinking about and realized, it had made an impression on me. The same thing happened with Supes. I saw it twice. Once in Imax, and then on the regular screen when some friends came to visit. I really appreciated it much more the second time. I think when many people put away thier god-like expectations for this movie, they will realize, this was a classy restoration of Superman. But that's just me.
July 22, 2006, 8:58 a.m. CST
except for maybe one, I can't even remember what it was. But jesus, I was 3 people away from asking him why in fuck's name did he use the retarded "real estate" Luthor with his goofy female side-kick. I swear to god, every question started with "ugh, I loved your movie" or "you've made the best superman ever" or "god I just want to tickle your penis." But cool on Peter Cullen, and cool on Clerks II, great movie.
July 22, 2006, 9:01 a.m. CST
Bullshit! No damage was done by X3. And I'll take on everyone who says otherwise in a dark alley behind William Robert Thorton's house.
July 22, 2006, 9:04 a.m. CST
When I saw the movie the second time, they make the point about the kid being a weakling (on all sorts of medications and he even got a "D" in gym). **SPOILERS** It is not Lex brings the Kryptonite close to him that he suddenly gains his super-strength. Kryponite is all around them after that. The kid then shows an ability to know where his parents are. He looks back at Louis - then she wakes up. As if he knew she was about to wake up. He points down to where Supes is stranded in the water, without really seeing him. **SPOILER END** Any way, this movie is a fine beginning. The kid story is not my first choice as a fan, but I suppose you can't argue that these are issues and emotions we haven't seen from Supes before. The real test if this story worked is to see how it is expanded in the next. For that reason, I truely hope to see a sequel from Singer. Sell me on the fact that I didn't begin to care for nothing.
July 22, 2006, 9:19 a.m. CST
there is a scene where the kid, thrashes a bad guy with a piano and you can see it building up to that point. I dont think Lois hasnt forgotten anything. She is faking it and has temporary Amnesia. In The scene with Supes she says Why did you leave us(he isreferring to her and the kid). White may look all smiles and that, but I think she is afraid to tell him the truth case he leans on his uncle to fire her. He is much more ruthless then appears. He aint going to be assistant editor for long. Lois Lane Loves and trusts Superman and if she figures out who Clark really is. she is going to keep that secret and protect her son. I dont think the kid had asthma either, even though he carried an inhaler. I think Singer put the kid in the film for a specific reason, that will become clear in the sequel.
July 22, 2006, 9:29 a.m. CST
There will be a sequel. After all the false starts of the past, after all the pay or play money that's been doled out, the executives will want to see green after they see that they're finally in the black. This movie's not in the red when you count the foreign box office take, all the merchandizing royalties, and the coming DVD revenue that's to be generated. It will be more than in the black. What the sequel will be about remains to be seen, but I sure hope They could easily do Bizarro or Doomsday 'cuz Superman bled on the Kryptonite cystals and got his DNA on them, and they morph into whatever they come in contact with, right? As for Jason, I wonder if Lois wore a Kryptonite ring to keep his powers in check, and keep him in a weakened state. I suspect she has yet to figure out how to cut his hair - unless Singer and company belong to the KAZAAM School of Cosmetology; I have never understood why so many Hollywood films feature little boys with hair as long as a girl's.
July 22, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST
I meant to add,"I sure hope it doesn't feature General Zod. Or Lex Luthor,unless it's to kill him off." Or! They could say that, when Superman tricked the Kryptonian villains at the end of Superman II, Lois and Lex both received latent powers during the "old switcheroo", and this was how Lois was able to smack Ursa in the face, and why Lex was recognized by the Kryptonian technology in this current movie. My buddy asked why Superman didn't share his technology, and I said, "well, maybe it's designed only for people with super strength, and if an earthling were to - for example - pull a lever, it would rip their arm off." Wouldn't it be a trip if Lex had latent powers all this time, and never figured it out?
July 22, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST
Wouldn't it be funny if Jason WASN'T Superman's son, and Richard was actually a superhero in disguise? Wouldn't that be a twist? It would turn the old "I am your father" routine on a whole new pivot. Superman would be devastated.
July 22, 2006, 9:42 a.m. CST
She was able to slap Ursa because they had turned human. Lex used the crystals to talk to Supes mother and historians in Superman 2 before the "switcheroo". Alright, I'm done being a geek. I do stand by my prediction with earlier SPOILERS I think the kid gets strength from Kryptonite. He will become strong when his father becomes weak. Read my earlier post if you are confused about this statement. Take it easy talk-backers
July 22, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST
I don't think Lois forgot that she spent time with Superman in the sac, just that Clark is Supes...right? So she could know the deal wtih the kid, though passing him off as Cyclops' kid means she went from Supes to the other guy pretty quick...quite the eager beaver, if you will.
July 22, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST
was poorly cut. There were far too many "moments".
July 22, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST
I know the Kryptonians had turned human, but I always wished Lois and Lex had been empowered when that happened; then Lex and Superman could have a knock-down drag-out fight, and Superman would have a good excuse for "accidentally" killing him...LOL...re: the kid gaining strength from the Krptonite, that would be a cool twist, too. It would make him like an Anti-Superman. However, based on the "reaction" of the kid to the Kryptonite (if you can call it that; I thought he barely acted scared, and the comments made by Lex seemed to imply that he believed the kid was 'reacting' came entirely from the script)- I doubt that will be the upcoming situation; it would be interesting, though.
July 22, 2006, 9:54 a.m. CST
The problem with that theory is that, when Superman became "human," he was neither Clark Kent the Kryptonian in disguise, nor Superman the Kryptonian in uniform. He was a new, hybrid of the two with no powers. His new clothes were supposed to represent this, I've always thought. If this is the case, then Lois would have to remember that she didn't sleep with either Superman or Clark, but someone in between. One of the weaknesses of the new film for me is Lois's seeming indifference to Clark altogether, like they're not even friendly beyond the offices of the Daily Planet. I suspect Singer wants us to belive that Superman and Lois had a one night stand, but this goes against what was said in Superman II. However! Superman slept with a mortal woman in Superman III, when he was the evil Superman. Oh, god. I sound like such a geek. Sorry, it's been brewin' in me since I was a fetus and my mom and dad listened to Superman on the radio. I came out of the womb reading Superman comics.
July 22, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST
won't be back no matter what shit he shoveled at CC. Gimme a fuckin' break here, they actually think people will go see the second one when they didn't go see the first one??? How fuckin' stupid are the dumb fucks at WB??? It's time for a new director
July 22, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST
My cousin and I went to see HOOK when it came out, and as I was leaving the theater, I couldn't decide if I liked the film or not. My cousin didn't hate it, but said he kept waiting for it to have a "moment," and for him it never did. Years later, when we went to see THE TWO TOWERS together, I asked him what he thought, and he said, "Well, that was...not so good..." - He predicted doom and gloom at the box office for RETURN OF THE KING, mainly because of his dislike for Gollum (he had never read the books). None of this has any bearing on your post. It just reminded me of these trivialities. I, myself, loved SUPERMAN RETURNS, and have seen it three times now. Haven't paid for even one ticket yet, though, because people keep paying my way in, giving me free tickets, or I have a pass...lucky me. I'm Superman's pal. :)
July 22, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST
...as Joel Schumacher discussing his plans for *Batman V* following the release of *Batman & Robin*. Different character, but same bat channel. The franchise is dead.
July 22, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST
Plus I wonder if the Richard White character maybe knows he's not the father and just chose to raise him as his own? Perhaps he becomes to Jason what Pa Kent was to Clark? I also kinda think they need to address whether Lois knows Clark is Supes or not - maybe she still remembered but chose not to say anything? I think Singer has a bit more class than turning Supes' kid into a high flying sidekick...and as much as I like the idea of the kid and how it affects the Superman story, pushing it into another direction, I wonder if Singer may have boxed himself into a corner though?
July 22, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST
Just checked www.Batman-on-film.com was hoping to find out the Ledger rumour was not true but... "Nolan has been in secret talks with Ledger for some time....The fan favorites like Paul Bettany, Crispin Glover and your fave pick, Lachy Hulme, were just grist for the mill. Ledger will be playing The Joker. The offer was made last night, and it will be a done deal.
July 22, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST
Batman and Robin only made $107 million back in '97. Superman Returns has been out for less than a month and is creeping toward $180 million. I don't see how the franchise can be called dead. Not in this age of DVD sales. Plus, Batman and Robin just plain sucked. Superman Returns is a really good movie and serves as a solid foundation for future adventures.
July 22, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST
dr_buggerlugs, I thought your comments were spot on. I found the idea of the kid intriguing, but I wonder where Singer goes from here? Here's hoping that if there's a sequel he can vastly improve upon the first one - and judging by X2, I'm sure he can. Then, he'll set us up for a really cool Superman 3... but bail on it to go to the Dazzler movie or something.
July 22, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST
and so is Bryan Singer....check out are take plus so much more Comic-Con stuff @ http://www.movietack.net/id924.html
July 22, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST
I am also disappointed by this but lets have faith in Nolan. At first it was like Gary Oldman as Gordon? But when that first picture came out it was like holy shit thats Gordon straight from the comics. Anyone wanna do any mock ups of Heath Ledger as the Joker?!?
July 22, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST
Never happened. And I don't mean that from some silly fan point of view of trying to forget the story of Superman II. I mean that Superman had given up his powers and was regular ol' Clark when they hopped into the sack. How come no one seems to remember that point? I'm assuming that the red sun's rays had to penetrate Supes straight to his DNA in order to remove the effects a yellow sun has on him. So it is safe to assume that he wouldn't pass on any genetic coding that would allow a son to inherit those powers. My point is I think they had a physical relationship separate from the one seen in Superman II.
July 22, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST
Unless his seed was empowered when he pulled the "old switcheroo" on Zod and his cronies, and it impacted Lois on a molecular level.
July 22, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST
Batman & Robin didn't cost $260 million + to make nor did it have a $100 million + marketing campaign. The film failed and the DVD sales won't save it just as Catwoman's DVD sales did not save it either. Get over it and brace for a reboot in 5 years.
July 22, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST
I was thoroughly impressed and enthralled by Singer's Superman. I'm not too big on the whole kid thing, but I enjoyed the emotional arc of the movie. It was a touching, human story to reconnect us with the characters. It succeeded wonderfully and I look forward to any sequels Singer brings along. What impresses me more is the fact that Singer's X-Men, though I really enjoyed it at the time and enjoy it now, was a flawed film that he was able to build upon and give us the amazing story of X2. That bodes well for Superman sequels. When Singer talks about going "Wrath of Khan" on the next movie, he's not talking about the plot or the story points of the Trek movie. He's talking about the difference in tone and story between the Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek II. I think he'll still keep the emotion and the characters front and center, but he's going to open up the throttle on Superman and give us a film that the general audience was looking for and probably beyond that. My hope is they'll do at least two more. Brainiac in the second. Darkseid in the third.
July 22, 2006, 11 a.m. CST
Mark my words.He's just trying to throw people off by making it sound like it'll be Brainiac. Just like I predicted before in Harry's Superman review,Singer is not original enough to actually introduce some new villians that haven't been in the Donner movies. He's dead set on basically remaking them and paying homage to donner at the same time while ignoring the current comics and cartoon history. And really Brainiac isn't an alien either. He is in the Superman animated universe of course. But not in the comics. And since Donner doesn't want to acknowledge either of those sources for his movies then that leaves the only other aliens other than Superman to make an appearence in the Donner movies. Which was Zod and his cronies.
July 22, 2006, 11:01 a.m. CST
Well, I will give it up to you, sir. That's an angle I hadn't thought of.
July 22, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST
Yes, he was. He was an alien entity that inhabited the body of magician Milton Fine. Over time, the Milton Fine personality was completely destroyed and the alien one was all that was left.
July 22, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST
Thank you, sir. And speaking of alien spawn, my vote for a villain in the next film - which WILL be produced, all you doubters out there - would be an evil reinvention of Bizarro, made from the Kryptonite mass in space. Yeah, I know it was done in part in Superman IV, but Singer could reinvent it. I trust him. The only thing I don't want to see done is a "death of Superman" sequence, since that was done in this current film. I couldn't understand why they showed Superman flatline, and then put him in a hospital room and then, when Lois and Jason come see him, he has a heartbeat. The hospital wouldn't put a patient who had flatlined in a room. And if they did, just because he's Superman and he's an alien, someone should have said as much.
July 22, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST
July 22, 2006, 11:12 a.m. CST
Come on, Singer, give James Karen (the guy playing Ma Kent's boyfriend) a break. He's a Wilkes-Barre boy! Represent!
July 22, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST
I'd forgotten about him being inhabited by an alien entity. I remember some of it now after you posted that. I was just remembering him being a human in a traveling circus as freak or something. Or am I getting confused on that to? Been quite awhile since i've read those.
July 22, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST
Richard White is no mere mortal but is, instead, Hal Jordan - the Green Lantern (this was how he was able to "fly" to Lois and Jason's rescue at the end of the film). He overhears Superman's speech in Jason's bedroom at the end of the current film, and the new film begins with him plotting Superman's demise. Jordan goes insane, becomes Parallax, flies to Gotham City and kills Batman, and throws his bloody head at Superman's feet in an attempt to provoke him into a fight. Superman refuses, and flees...and then what happens? Someone else needs to pick up the reigns from here. I'm done. Next!
July 22, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST
Bryant Singer got it done, the film was in Development hell for years and years. The film wasn't shit, it retained elements that the '78 film had. The film was perhaps a little too long, but this was to reintroduce Superman to a new generation, after all the last Superman film was 19 years ago. I believe Bryan Singer is better prepared for a sequel. Now, kneel before ZOD!
I'm glad Singer didn't just freak out and leave after the movie fell short of expectations. He seems to have learned from people's biggest problems with Returns. More action, different villain, not as long. Great news, I'm already excited for the next one, I was starting to get worried it might not happen. The marketing for this movie did suck ass. And why did they release this a week before POTC when they could have released it 2 weeks after X3 and had the theatres to themselves for a month? Fools!
July 22, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST
I'm thinking Superman Returns 2 and 3 will both feature Zod. I'm betting Singer will make it one long story arc and split it up into two movies. I do kinda like your guys idea about Bizarro being from the blood that superman spilled on the crystals and kryptonite mass.I wouldn't mind seeing that.
July 22, 2006, 11:39 a.m. CST
that Singer's going the action scifi route with his sequel and not the soap opera spectacle of SR. I liked the movie, but dammit I wanna see Supes go toe to toe with a another superbeing!
July 22, 2006, 11:43 a.m. CST
Superman's son does not get powered up from being around the Kryptonite. His superstrength manifested itself during a moment of high stress and concern for his mother. This is classic Superman. For the longest time, the story had it that Clark developed his powers at puberty, but had shown "sparks" here and there. In the first movie, as a toddler, he lifts the car off Pa Kent. There are many stories where, like Harry Potter, his powers would suddenly manifest when he got stressed out, but it wasn't until he hit puberty that they became "fully activated" all the time. I also think it's funny how people blame Singer for the kid. Watch the end of Superman 2, after Clark kisses Lois to make her forget. She seems seems to have "weird cravings" for some wild food...which in the old days "weird cravings" was code for pregnant. My Mom, who isn't the smartest person in the world, walked out of Superman 2 saying how she was surprised they made Lois pregnant, and wondered if the next movie was going to be Superman and Superboy. Of course, that never happened, but it's not like Singer just pulled the kid out of his @$$. I too wish he would have dropped that, but let's see where it goes in the sequel.
July 22, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST
Let's just hope they don't kill the kid in the next one. I don't really want them to kill off Richard, either, because I like him as a character. He needs to fall in love with someone other than Lois.
July 22, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST
Give a bored guy a break,will ya? All I'm looking for is a little polite conversation. I'd love a cup of tea, though. Thanks for the idea, old chap. Hope you have a nice day.
July 22, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST
by Sir Perior
10 mil on a sequence we'll never get to see? fuck that. i'm sure singer will get to do the next, but hopefully they will use a better script. this dude wrote an open letter to brian singer, ha ha, good luck pal: http://tinyurl.com/s5767
July 22, 2006, 11:56 a.m. CST
by John Dalmas
There is no next one, because SR was a really, really bad movie, and it's not going to clear $200 million domestically. No sequels.
July 22, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST
Okay, so that would be Singer getting all "Search for Spock", but I still wouldn't put it past him. Anyway, didn't he already do Wrath of Khan with X2 (even down to Jean doing the final narration)?
July 22, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST
by tango fett
July 22, 2006, 12:20 p.m. CST
by Logo Lou
I read somewhere Singer said it wouldn't be, but that was before the soft box office. I can see Warners, rightfully so for once, saying that he must put it in the next film, to save money. I'm sure they'd find a way for it to fit.
July 22, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
They've done that already. And who can top Terrance Stamp? Singer, use another character, any other character, for the love of God.
July 22, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST
I hate it when fans use the opportunity to talk to their favorite genre artists and ask then why they did something so wrong, or made this bad choice, or how they're planning to improve. You should be thanking Bryan Singer for crafting such an epic and leaving him the fuck alone! He's there for adoring fans. Not scrutinizing Comic Con scumfucks! You people sometimes...just appall me.
July 22, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST
X3 pisses off the geeks, yet it made money. SR pleases the geeks, and doesn't make shit. Theres a lesson to be learned here. Oh yeah, don't release a movie a week before Pirates. And comic book geeks are not a profitable demographic.
July 22, 2006, 12:36 p.m. CST
That would be KHAAAAAAAAANN!!! The H comes first. Also, I thought Superman Returns was fantastic, and I'm very excited with seeing where Singer takes the next one.
July 22, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST
I loved the movie but that complete waste of money almost makes me glad it under-performed at the Box office. And for a director to allow that to be spent and filmed is unforgivable. I mean dont these people use storyboards?
July 22, 2006, 12:46 p.m. CST
Hells yeah, after the awful "Incredible Hulk" news this is just the kind of information I need to get excited about a new superhero movie. Since Marvel has effectively killed off any quality (except for Spider-Man) in their films, the only movies to get excited about are DC's.
July 22, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST
I so don't care about a Superman sequel by Singer, especially if those two hack teenagers write it again. We can only pray that Parker Posey is back to reprise her classic role and provide the much needed comic relief...she needs a 20 minute scene with Superman precocious child to really make the sequel sizzle!
July 22, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST
Why didn't they make a Daredevil sequel? I just watched that movie a couple nights ago, it's not too bad (Affleck annoys me though). I thought it did well in theatres and on DVD also. Didn't it have the best opening for Valentine's day ever or something? Yeah, this has nothing to do with Superman.
July 22, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST
it was called 'superman returns'
July 22, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST
And a liar (see end of Superman 2), and a creepy stalker. The marketing department also spent all the money on a scene that didn't make it to the movie. The marketing department made a movie that was a sequel to some of the old Superman movies, but not all of them, but not really, but a relaunch rather than a direct sequel, but not really, but it can have it both ways and stuff because really its just being true to the spirt of the old films. The marketing department cast a weak Lois Lane that looks too young to have an infant, let alone a walking talking boy. JUST BLAME THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT! It has been a weak year for "blockbusters" and it is the fault of marketing departments everywhere!
July 22, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST
let me guess the third one will have luthor again
July 22, 2006, 1:41 p.m. CST
1. No Super Bowl ad? That is when you are supposed to let people know there is a movie coming out. 2. POTC and SR were both sold as action/adventure movies, when really, only one of them was. If you bring in an audience expecting to see something they don't get, they will be dissatisfied. That is bad advertising, not bad directing. 3. There were X3 commercials on every channel, every break way before it was released. SR commercials didn't start showing up until the week of release, and were rare. 4. SR got very good reviews critically. If the movie doesn't meet expectations after that, I'll blame marketing before the director. 5. Stupid to release it a week before POTC. Should have been released 2 weeks after X3 when it would have been alone in theatres for a month. 6. Most everyone I know did not know there was a Superman movie coming out, even after it was released. They relied on the movie selling itself to save money. It didn't work.
July 22, 2006, 1:47 p.m. CST
by all your base
digitally recreated Richard Pryor and atari superman missile games.
July 22, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST
by Calico Pete
You heard it here first folks. BTW, the $10Mil Supes-in-Space sequence would be "underwhelming" on the small screen? And the rest of the movie wouldn't be?
July 22, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST
Just when I think I'm out, You keep pulling me back in!
July 22, 2006, 1:55 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
How in the hell can so many people consider SR a flop, when you count merchandising, overseas markets and the future DVD release(s) the film well definately garner a profit. Another thing is the belief that no sequels will happen, WTF, do you really believe Warners is going to spend almost twenty years trying to bring back a franchise and just give up on it cause Pirates did better at the box office? If someone's not complaining about a lack of character development, then they complain about not having enough explosions, Jesus H Christ. I admit that SR wasn't anywhere near the film that it should have been, but it was far from a failure, it was worth the price of admission and it will by all accounts have a follow up. I personally want that damn kid to die, and hell kill off Superman, I want the Doomsday storyline finally brought to screen, but you seriously must have your head far up your ass in order to believe that the Superman franchise is dead.
July 22, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST
but after hearing there was a sequence for 10 million that we might not even see on the dvd, I now think someone else should do the sequel. That could have been used to show superman punch something. Why couldnt superman punch something?
July 22, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST
Because he wasn't that bad as Superman. He just needed things to do in the film. Give him another 25 pounds of muscle and he could have been spot on.
July 22, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST
yeah. they're called Mods.
July 22, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST
well said brett..
July 22, 2006, 2:37 p.m. CST
it will be the death-knell of the series. Too many people have already commented on how this movie simply parrots Donner's original. If he uses Zod for the sequel, he's asking for the same problems. The baddie better be Brainiac or Darkseid. For that matter, how about the Parasite?
July 22, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST
1. Regardless of whether the movie's bad or good, a Super Bowl ad would have been seen by a crapload of people that would not have known about the movie otherwise. You must admit that this would have at the very least given them the potential to put more people in seats, given the increased awareness of the movie. If Godzilla didn't have a Super Bowl ad, imagine how much more poorly it would have done. 2. Singer pitched his idea to WB and they took it. They tried to sell it as something it wasn't, and that had an effect on crowd reaction. If it wasn't the movie they wanted to sell, they shouldn't have accepted Singer's idea for the movie in the first place. I'm sorry, that is bad marketing. You can't blame Singer for making the movie they told him he could make. 3. I don't have official data for the commercials either, but I know that the amount of SR commercials I saw paled in comparison to the amount of X3 commercials that were being shown. Plus, X3 had commercials running basically a month prior and up to its release. SR commercials started airing either the week before or the week of release. That's just not enough. 4. My point about the critical praise it got is that after getting such good reviews, a movie is expected to do well. I was saying that because it hasn't met expectations even after getting good reviews, then personally, I'd blame the marketing department before the director of the film getting the good reviews. 5. Whoevers decision it was to release the movie a week before POTC, it was a dumb one. We agree there, I guess it's just not a marketing decision. 6. There really were a lot of people that honestly didn't know there was a Superman movie being made (suprisingly enough). Not everyone visits AICN. The ones that did know and didn't want to see it simply told me they weren't interested. I guess it's possible I was had by a few, but I'm not so sure that all of them were trying to fool me.
July 22, 2006, 2:54 p.m. CST
saw it three times and loved it routh was amazing. I go to the movies every week I can't remember when in one year I saw so many shitty films.superman returns mite not be perfect but its heads above cars,pirates,xmen 3,Poseidon,matador, bla bla fucking yuk fest shit. No wonder ticket sales are down film makers are driving fans out of the theatres. Its pretty bad when any ep of law and order is more intresting than whats at the movies...
July 22, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST
by hank henshaw
Does it mean that we'll get a Richard Pryor impersonator for Returns 3, and a Nuclear guy for Returns 4? This is ridiculous. If Superman Returns is doing relatively poorly at the boxoffice, imagine what will happen with the sequels (sequels no one is asking for). Time for a real reboot of this franchise.
July 22, 2006, 3 p.m. CST
by all your base
would have helped hulk
July 22, 2006, 3:15 p.m. CST
I'm asking for a sequel. With punching in it, please.
July 22, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST
Gives me a little hope, since Kirk's son dies in that movie, which makes me hope that the little bastard kid will die too. I still say Superman Returns is one of, if not the, worst movie I have ever seen.
July 22, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
by all your base
Kirks son doesnt die until the next movie.
July 22, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST
Kirk'a son is introduced in KHAN, and killed in STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. The second TREK film has a lot of references to MOBY DICK, which is a revenge drama; let's hope a SR sequel isn't a revenge drama with either Lex Luthor or General Zod but is, instead, a more action-oriented picture and is more back to the roots of the original Superman premise.
July 22, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST
C'mon. Whats the big ending to wrath of kahn that completely rendered every Star Trek geek comatose for about five minutes before they snapped and demanded for Spock to be brought back. Death of Spock...Death of Superman. Though it would be nice to see Zod redone. He's the polar opposite of Supes. Flies, heat vision, etc, but uses it to beat the shit out of everything. Maybe have a huge midair fight between Zod and some F-18's. Then again, a live action Doomsday wrecking havoc would look cool too.
July 22, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST
The jury is still out on that one.
July 22, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST
Superman in a dog fight for last place at the box office this week, Batman was in the top 5 for an ass load of time which pushed it past the 200 mil mark. Its sad that after Supes opened to bigger numbers then Batman it will not even make it past the 190 mil mark. I for one liked the movie, last place amongst the big three Begins, Spidey 2, Supes returns. However Supes' drastically slow pacing and lack of a consistent balance of good action and romance the movie lacked the same energy as the other two heroe movies and thus couldnt keep up at the box office. Batman did well considering it was less then a decade since wed seen a big screen adaption of the dark knight however supes hasnt been seen in over 20 years so the fact that it couldnt generate some momentum at the box office is worrying and leaves me wondering wether singer is the one to carry the torch of the man of steel.
July 22, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST
Hollywood lives off of numbers. Poor Mr. Singer is just teasing you in the hope that you will go back and see Superman Returns again and prop up the disappointing box office. The number so far are pretty clear. Superman Returns, less than three weeks out, will not even be in the top 6 movies this weekend. Yesterday (Friday) Superman Returns made only $637 per screening - less than 90 people ALL DAY PER SCREEN. That's... well, bad. People are staying away - in droves. Is marketing to blame? PARTLY, but in the end marketing gets people in the theatre that first weekend, work of mouth and repeat viewers is what makes a movie a real hit IMO. Like I said, Hollywood is all about the numbers. In comparison to the quarter-million who saw Superman Friday, close to a MILLION AND A HALF people saw Pirates 2 (stats - Boxofficemojo.com). Yeah, Superman Comes Back has been out for a while BUT the budgets are close to the same amount and Superman may not even get to $200 milion domestic (Pirates 2 will clear $320 million my Sunday night). Even IF Superman, Give it To Me One More Time was a GREAT EPIC film (it isn't) it would have to make close to $300 million to have a guaranteed sequel greenlit. It didn't so far, it won't ever and if any sequel is made Mr. Singer will not ever get to direct it - that's my prediction. And BTW: Star Trek: TWOK was greenlit AFTER the first one was TREMENDOUSLY successful ($82 million domestic, $190 mil adjusted for inflation) and even then the budget was cut to the bone and a low cost writer-director was hired to save money (thankfully they hired Nicholas Meyer). The same thing, os something similar, will happen here. Bye, Bryan.
July 22, 2006, 4:11 p.m. CST
It breaks me heart he never punched anything. He holds on to stuff but never punches. In the sequel can SUPERMAN punch something (I know you reading this Brian)
July 22, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST
DARKSEID is Superman's Second biggest villain right after Luthor... not zod, brainiac, or doomsday... IT IS DARKSEID!! HE IS SWEETNESS OF ALL THE VILLAINS... shut up about brainiac you stupid smallville wankers.
July 22, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST
They need to re-think everything ... it certainly isn't just a marketing issue. After this summer with three major disappointments in Poseidon, Lady In The Water and Superman Returns, Warner Bros needs a major overhaul.
July 22, 2006, 5:28 p.m. CST
can make great action-packed movies with good characters (X2!), but Superman Returns just wasn't that movie. It was a superhero soap opera. Which I was fine with; I had a ton of fun watching it. So if Singer's saying the next one will have more action, a superpowered villain, etc, I'm gonna trust that he can make a good movie out of it. Whether Warners will . . . well I guess we'll see . . .
July 22, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST
Warner Bros. let it go for two more seasons, then test the waters of a bigscreen. It it isn't a success. Give it back to Routh. They've got options, why not use them?
July 22, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST
*then test the waters of a bigscreen spinoff. IF it isn't a success, give it back to Routh...* Teh alcamahol is a settin' in folks!
July 22, 2006, 5:44 p.m. CST
But I tend to watch movies hoping to enjoy them rather than to tear them apart from the inside out looking for anything that could be considered a flaw, then declaring the movie shite because of it. Usual Suspects blew my mind and is proving to be an enduring classic. X2 was flawed but entertaining as hell, not to mention having one of the best opening sequences in awhlie in Nightcrawler's White House attack. And put me in the pro-SR camp, too. So yeah, I'd trust Singer to deliver the goods in a sequel. However I appreciate what seems to be a comment that Republicans are not faith-worthy :)
July 22, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST
Superman Returns only proved how BAD Harris and Dougherty are, and how much of the success of X2 can be attributed to Penn, Hayter, and (of course) Singer. All in all, X3 was lame, but Superman Returns was steaming pile of sloppy mediocrity. If WB put Singer on the sequal, he should consider himself lucky...
July 22, 2006, 5:53 p.m. CST
You hate EVERYTHING!
July 22, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST
I know WB was expecting more as far as ticket sales, but the movie didn't bomb. It would be overreacting to say that. I doubt WB is happy about it, but it's safe to say they're going to take in a LOAD of cash from DVD sales and merchandising. That's likely enough reason for WB to go ahead and make a sequel. It seemed to me like Bryan Singer had all the control over SR. With the movie not meeting expectations at the Box Office, keeping Singer as director for the sequel might be exactly what they want. They would be able to have more control over the sequel than they did on Returns and everything would be in place as far as cast/crew. The movie won't cost as much because they'll cut the budget some, Singer already said it would be shorter, they could probably find a way to use that $10 million space scene (WTF Singer!?!? What a waste!), and they won't have that extra $50 million tacked on from previous screw-ups. I mean they probably HAVE to make 3 just to make it a profitable franchise. I don't know. I don't run any film companies.
July 22, 2006, 6 p.m. CST
by Ye Not Guilty
About a month before the film opened, I was talking to this guy I know who is a huge Superman fan. I mean, in this guy's office he has Superman action figures, busts, framed posters, etc. all over the place. So I ask him if he's going to see Superman Returns on opening day, and he says "Superman what?" I said, "Y'know, Superman Returns, the new Superman movie?" And he ask me, "There's a new Superman movie being made?" And I'm like, "Dude, the movie is already finished being made, it's being released in about a month. Go to apple.com and watch the trailers for it." So, even a huge Superman fan didn't know there was new Superman movie being released. That's pretty bad marketing.
July 22, 2006, 6:29 p.m. CST
he was like genetically grown by aliens, wasn't he? also, isn't jason supposed to be like five? or younger? cause supes' only been gone for like five years. so... a five year can get a d in gym? and an A in chemistry? a five year old takes chemistry? WHAT KINDA PREP SCHOOL WILLIAMS SONOMA ABSENTEE PARENTING ARE THESE FOPS DOING?? Supes would make a great father. Jason should be Superboy by the third film.
July 22, 2006, 6:33 p.m. CST
The solution is this: Superman blows it into his own hand. See? As a shield, to block. Also, what form of birth control would Lois think could possibly protect her womb from Superman's Supersperm? I bet his shit would crawl off the walls and sneak into her p*ssy who saw clerks 2 already? I have, and it makes me fall in love with Kevin Smith's band all over again And I never thought I would feel this way again...
i also love how in superman 1, the superrace of people know all sorts of other shit but like skipped learning what a red giant is... like, oh, pish, jor-l, i'm not sure i remember that from the science books. jorel is like al gore, 'We're headed quickly toward a serious crisis' and the council is like bushleaguers all like "We will not tolerate this climate of fear" i'm watching sI right fuckin now
July 22, 2006, 6:44 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
If, if , if there is a Superman sequel I very highly doubt Bryan Singer will be a part of the effort. WB will likely only throw him a bone like a producer credit. The direction the studio will go with is probably along the lines of B-grade directors, guys like Joe Johnston (JP3, OCTOBER SKY) or John Turtlelaub (NATIONAL TREASURE, CASPER).
July 22, 2006, 6:44 p.m. CST
by yeah i'm a jerk!
if he is gaining strength from kryptonite, that is very opposite from superman. like bizarro opposite. i think a bizarro might have gotten busy with lois before it devolved into a bizarro. at least, i think it would be cool if the kid turned into a bizarro, and even better if it turned into doomsday. anyway, i hope we get to see a sequel. i think singer has something bigger in mind than what we saw in the first one.
July 22, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST
I'd been hyped for Singer's Superman for many months and loved most every second of it. My GF was really reluctant to go see it though, despite being a HUGE fan of Smallville and superhero movies in general. Her only exposure to it were the trailers. Of course I insisted we went and she came out of the movie having a shed a tear or too and enjoyed it a whole lot - completely contrary to her expectations. Those trailers did not work at all effectively even for a lot of the easily swayed target audience! - - - I hope to hell we get to see a sequel as planned. Imagine if Singer went with Doomsday (alien trouble?) next time around, after bringing Lois, Jason and Supes together as a proper family at the beginning of the movie. It'd make it all the more poignant.
July 22, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST
I don't think. He just wasn't affected by it, meaning either a.)it doesn't affect him until his powers manifest entirely or b.)that weakness was eclipsed by the human part of him.
July 22, 2006, 8:37 p.m. CST
I think all this talk about Superman being a terrible flop and Singer not being brought back is just wishful thinking, because all the word so far seems to indicate otherwise. All the word has indicated that the film may have been overshadowed by Pirates, but it's far from a failure, it was critical success and nobody at all seems to be blaming Singer. Singer is in negotiations and will obviously be brought back whether you nerds like it or not. Firing Singer would be like making the same mistake that was made with firing Donner 2 decades ago, and look what happened to the Superman series after that? Warner does not want to lose this valuable franchise again. Like Orbots Commander said who you rather have them replace him with some hacks like Joe Johnston or John Turtlelaub (actually some of you probably would like that, since you like your action films to be dumbed down)
July 22, 2006, 8:46 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
Johnston made The Rocketeer way back, a great Indy knock off. And Turtlelaub directed National Treasure, an underrated but very entertaining movie. Sure, it isn't Shakespeare and it's a PG family movie, but so what? It's one of the funnest movies that Nick Cage has been a part of, in who know how long, and it out-Davincis The Davinci Code.
July 22, 2006, 9:15 p.m. CST
July 22, 2006, 9:40 p.m. CST
Enough of the Jesus analogy with Superman already, we got it. Singer thinks he's being "clever" with the kid and lois not knowing who the father is. And a sequel in 2009?? Yeah, right. Let it peter out, by 2008 nobody will be real fussed
July 22, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST
money and save the franchise, get Singer O-U-T! Also, Singer probably IS talking about Zod. Remember: fathers and sons!
July 22, 2006, 9:48 p.m. CST
are very entertaining.
July 22, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST
Word of mouth killed Superman Returns, geniuses. It's a terrible Superman film! You guys crack me up.
July 22, 2006, 9:54 p.m. CST
Let's see, "From the director of X-Men and X-Men 2" commercials running during every commercial over the fourth of July weekend (wonder what THAT cost?). An entire wall of Brandon Routh toys in every mass merchandiser months before the film. Fast food tie-ins. Trailers shown before release. Please, this film was marketed.
July 22, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST
Poor guy haas lost it.
July 22, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST
It exactly marketed what was in the movie. You think it should have focused more on the action? Well that wasn`t the movie. Plese change director next time. I have to ask: in the recut Superman II, is the "brainwashing kiss" gone? It was to be replaced by one final moment at the Forteress where Superman say goodbye to Lois, saying they can`t never be together.
July 23, 2006, 12:06 a.m. CST
Isn't it interesting that Warner Brother's has had more than two weeks plus to announce a sequel to Superman Returns, but hasn't? In fact, the only people who are talking sequel are Singer and his reps!!! Further, I saw the Time/Warner exec who started AOL on Charlie Rose last night, and all the guy could say about Superman Returns was the repeatedly refrain of: "It was a bit of a disappointment...It was a disappointment"...This, while speaking under his breath as he lowered his head...visably ashamed of the film!!! Look folks, Singer blew it...and now he's pulling the same crap he pulled after the first X-Men...you'll remember that he declared his intention to make X-2 what Empire Strikes Back was to Star Wars...well so much for that!!! Now this idiot is back to tell us that if...and I underline the word if...he is allowed to do another Superman film it will be what The Wrath Of Khan was to the Star Trek films. Yeah right, just more bluffing and unfocused fails promises. Ironic since Wrath Of Khan was the first Star Trek film to receive a hefty budget cut when Star Trek: The Motion Picture failed at the box office and chased away mainstream audiences from the franchise. Similar talk is brewing over at Warner Brothers concerning Superman Returns as I am writing this text...It seems that the execs at Warner Brothers, if they do another Superman...plan to cut the budget by extremes thanks to Singer's incompetence involving his treatment of Superman going wrong, just about at every turn...wrong turns which he is now trying to blame on the ad department at Warner!!!! What a pass the buck cop out!!! And to add to all this, Singer and one of his Superman collaborators attended a function as recent as last week and claimed that General Zod would be the villian. Now after fan protests against another redo...and protests demanding that Brainiac be used as a villian in the next film...suddenly Singer appears to have forgotten about General Zod, thus proving that Singer will say or do just about anything to save his career!!! And enough with the gay analogies...We get it already!!! ...We know you're gay dude, but do you need to hit us over the head with it with every film you make???!!! Hey, I'm all for gay rights...and gay marriage, etc., but enough is enough, with all the injecting of your own personal life into films about iconic comic book characters that we fans love. And if you know anything about Singer, despite what he now claims, he has stated in the past that he was never into comic books...not the X-Men, not Superman, not anything. Now he's claiming that he grew up loving Superman...I suspect just to get the job!!! The truth is, Singer is a director who knows nothing about comic book characters and just sees this as an opportunity to get rich!!! This is the reason why his Superman sucks!!! He doesn't understand the character because he is not a real fan of Superman!!! No, somebody like this...a person with no integrity to stand on, should not be the director of Super anything, let alone Superman!!!
July 23, 2006, 12:16 a.m. CST
is sittin in their offices right now wondering why anyone would go see a sequel to a movie they didn't wanna see the first time it was out. Yeah Singer is fucked.
July 23, 2006, 1:07 a.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
Not to floor you the first time out. That way, it won't be that difficult to top with the follow up. Hence no punching in SR part 1, but wait until part two...Shoot me now...Instead It should be him punching Brainiac and robot cronies in the head in SR1 then more harder adventures in SR 2. He could've had a LOTR type trilogy of him dueling with Brainiac with Lex as supporting cast. Oh, but I forget action = stupid. Sorry. Carry on Singer, my bad!
July 23, 2006, 2:45 a.m. CST
by Darth Maui
"The only (objective) conclusion I can reach is that the film just wasn't good enough to get people in the theatre." No, people just sat around trying to figure out if they would be perceived as cool if caught watching SR. Everybody I know who has seen it liked it.
July 23, 2006, 4:35 a.m. CST
by One Voice
don't think I need to belabour the point about how much I love Superman:The Movie, and have been waiting anxiously to see Superman Returns, but I may aswell quickly recap. I LOVE THE FIRST MOVIE. IT'S MY FAVOURITE FILM OF ALL TIME. There, now onto the review. In November/December sometime, in Sydney, I saw a scene from Superman Returns filmed at Martin's Place. It felt like a strange fate, to have followed the film so closely, bemoaning or praising every minute decision taken on the production. I felt invested in the "sequel" and was awaiting with giddy anticipation the final film. A film which by all accounts is Superman III V2.0, a kind of similar set-up to Halloween H20. Ignoring all the sequels after film 2 and rebooting the franchise. It was an exciting notion, and I couldn't wait to see the results, despite some concerns I had. However all of my fears regarding Superman Returns have pretty much been confirmed upon having seen it last night. A version which has been editted since it's release in the U.S. which could possibly have to do with it's underwhelming box office. Why is this? Well, in my opinion despite the great special effects, the movie's storyline is derivative and uninspired, the subplot is ridiculous and will hang over future sequels' necks like an albatross, and the casting and mood of the film is morose and downbeat. They've taken the joy out of the Superman legend, and in order to make it feel fresh they've shoe-horned in a "Jump-The-Shark" sub-plot that should have been abandoned before it began. It's the type of plot device used when you're desperate for some new angles in an ailing production. The character is now living out a tepid familial soap storyline, rather than bursting forth from a riproaring fun adventure loaded with humour, heart and playful romance. But before I lay into what I found to be an utterly boring film, I have to mention a few things I liked... I loved the "Now Fly!" sequence with the Kryptonite shiv. It was vicious and cruel and brilliant. I thought Parker Posey and James Marsden were the best of the cast. I liked the cutaway to Martha Kent outside the hospital unable to see her son for fear of exposing his secret identity. I liked the scene with Superman repeating the lines of his father to his sleeping son, despite the fact I don't like the inclusion of a son at all. And I liked Lois slipping off her shoes to stand on Superman's feet. I found that sweetly sexy. And that's about it. What was most suprising to me having seen the film was how quiet the audience were. They noticeably laughed three times throughout the sombre 120min plus run time, and two of those three laughs were lines lifted directly from the first movie. The first one being Superman wholesomely stating after the initial rescue "I hope this little incident hasn't put you off flying, statistically speaking it's still the safest way to travel," with Lois promptly fainting. That's a complete carbon copy of the Helicopter rescue in film one, which was a far more intense and exciting sequence to the aircraft save. The second laugh was Lex stating what his father had said to him as a child, with Kitty/Miss Tessmacher V2.0 spitting "Get out!" Again a line and joke lifted from Donner's film. The only original laugh was Kitty sighing "Wow, that's really something Lex." Lex, replying "Wait for it." Nothing happens for a few moments and Kitty duely repeats her dry delivery. "Wow, that's really something Lex." It was a huge disappointment to me, and the only way I can describe it is the film felt like a black balloon. It looks solid but it's completely hollow and packs no punch, whereas the first film felt like a Cannonball. Superman this wasn't. In terms of story the love-quadrangle of Richard White, Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane should and would have been enough, and should have been mined for all it's comedy and tragedy elements, but somehow was just played straight with no sense of fun. The addition of an unprecedented Son-of-Superman on top of this simply felt desperate, like some sort of Disneyesque cheap twist best suited to TV's Lost. The Boy-of-Steel is going to be a confining inclusion, and one I can't help but feel the writers have painted themselves into a corner with. It's a nice aspect to have the child have all the weaknesses of being a human, and none of the weaknesses of Superman, but why have him there in the first place? The principle casting of Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Superman now appears forgettable and uninteresting. He did admirably but unfortunately he just doesn't have the X-factor about him. He felt very ordinary, even within the off-colour suit. Routh was mostly expressionless as Superman and held none of the intensity that Reeve had, but then he wasn't a disaster either, so it's a tough one to call. At times it felt like an impression, rather than acting, and the character didn't feel like The Ultimate Man dealing with issues... he felt more like little-boy-lost. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was woeful. Her beauty which I find overrated was completely void altogether with a bad wig and pale complexion. As Lois she had the sex-appeal of a coat-hanger. I have no doubt in my mind that Rachel McAdams never tested, because she would have been superior in every way, for one, she's as capable with comedy as drama and she's got that tough-girl southern beauty about her. Bosworth simply embodies none of the iconic aspects of the plucky, quickwitted, charmingly fiesty one-liner spitting broad. Lois Lane is a damsel in distress with a dame's sensibilities. She has to be up there with Scarlet O'Hara as one of the ultimate leading ladies. Her character always peppered with trademark goodnatured sass, and moxie. However Kate's Lois is who she is, be it down to the writing, the performance or the direction. This Lois Lane is a bitter, meanspirited nasty ass moron who brings her asthmatic son on dangerous missions, sleuthing away, more concerned with her career than her child's welfare, and never has anything meaningful to say. Not once was there a quotable line from the lady who uses her words as bullets or bandages, and it's a missed opportunity to bring back such a character and then strip her of all that makes her Lois Lane. She ends up demonstrating all the charm of a porcelain statue, and the chemistry she shares with Routh never recaptures even a spec of the magic of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Frank Lagella as Perry White was a nice take on the character and one which gave the editor some gravitas, and Sam Huntington as Jimmy Olsen was aping his way through the role performing in a whole other movie, something with Leslie Nielson in it I gather. The look of the film is beautiful in places, but despite the budget for some reason (which must come down to tone) Superman Returns just doesn't have the epic scope of the original. The opening felt rushed, the introduction of legendary character's slight and without weight, and the criminal lack of action meant the film was overwrought and without a sense of adventure. It says a lot when some of the things I liked were moments that hailed back to the original, and reminded of a Superman Movie that worked, like the Superman theme, and the main titles but when it all boils down to it I suppose there's no worse criticism for a film which admirably tries so hard than to ultimately have no excitement to see a sequel. Such a shame. Superman Returns, but he aint the same... he's got no game. P.S. The scene we saw filmed turned out to be him rescuing Kitty from the careening out of control car, and half the stuff they shot wasn't even used.
A very good review One Voice which points out why this film fails so badly. the fact it didnt impress an obvious superman fan like yourself says more towards if singer will get the sequel than what he said at comic con. I hope they forget this ever happen and do a real Superman film
July 23, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST
I'am sorry but this new Superman movie is such a rehash. They should have started over again with an orgin. Maybe they could have quickened up the origin then get to the meat of the story. The clone of Reeves was just that, and he is a bad actor to boot. Lois had no bite to her like 70's Lois. All this movie had to go on is special effects which you can get in any beer commerical these days. Is story nothing these days?
July 23, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST
by One Voice
July 23, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST
The opening credits should have been 3-D. That would've been pretty cool, I think.
July 23, 2006, 1 p.m. CST
superman returns was awful. boring. long winded. completely devoid of any logic. or, real characters. it was lame. and, worse, it was a HUGE, GIANT WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY!! singer has ruined the superman franchise, for the time being. what a shame...
July 23, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST
FUCK SINGERS DELUSIONAL ASS! There's no way a sane person would think that a extended cut of this film would be a successfull rerelease.
July 23, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST
Star Trek : TMP did not bomb, it made a lot of money (see my posting) it just did not make the Star WARS type money they had hoped, hence the budget cuts for the sequel (heck, Fox did the same thing on the Planet of the Apes movies, which was possibly a factor in wanting all sequel rights and funding Empire himself). In fact the whole reason Paramount moved the first Trek movie to the fastrack (instead of doing the new series for the planned Paramount Network) WAS what the BO was from Star Wars.
July 23, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST
From Box Office Mojo: Superman Returns averaged approx. $750 per theatre (less than a hundred viewers per screen ALL day NATIONWIDE) and came in 8th. It also lost close to a thousand screens from last weekend count (and THAT is the most telling fact - theatres are dropping Supes in the hopes that extra showings of other movies will make more moey). It's at $178 mill by end of the weekend and if the chains drop screens at this rate it will NEVER reach $200 mill, which other entertainment rumor sites state it "HAS" to reach in order to have a sequel greenlit. The only other movies that have more screens dropped this weekend (from last)? Nacho Libre and The Lake House (the latter being another Warner film). The former underperformed and has been out longer, the later just twitched and died at the box office. There will be layoffs of some big names at Warner Brothers after this summer, I'd wager. And Bryan will never be given a movie of this scale or budget again, especially not a sequel to Superman. Numbers don't lie - not a hater, just laying out the facts.
July 23, 2006, 2 p.m. CST
You state that firing Singer would be the modern-day equivilent of firing Donner in 78. Your thesis has one flaw - it assumes studio heads and producers have learned from history and are more intelligent than their earlier breathern. I think that is incredibly optimistic. Also, the notion of "firing" Singer is not even an option - he has no guaranteed pay-or-play contract for a sequel as far as know (and he would have brought it up if he did, I'd wager) and so Warner has no obligation to do anything he wants to do with the big S. After the years of development hell WB went through with this character AND the disappointing BO I think they will pin their hopes into Whedon's Wonder Woman and Nolan's Batman (and probably cut the budget for both, ie. reducing what the early projected budgets are).
July 23, 2006, 2:10 p.m. CST
by One Voice
Well, since I've made that statement I've been corrected by a few people. But I was led to believe that Ben Hubbard was in a scene with Martha Kent outside the Metropolis Hospital, which was subsequently exised from the picture. Also after Lex had put Kitty's life in danger with the cutbrakes scene, there was to follow a beat in which Kitty takes her frustration out on Lex's cash and goes on a shopping spree blowing huge wads of his money. Both these and a few other moments were lost from the film I saw but had been mentioned in early reviews of the film, like the one on BlueTights.net. I based that statement on this, which is now in hindsight probably inaccurate, but still a fair assumption.
July 23, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST
Pretty good review. Your view of the film is similar to my own. Of course, we could have gotten an even worse film, like the weird Tim Burton version they were going to make many years ago when Superman wore a black outfit and never flew, and so on. Singer's movie superficially seems solid, but is ultimately leaden and counts as a real missed opportunity. I like your idea of Rachael McAdams as Lois Lane. If they do make a sequel, perhaps they should do a "re-boot" of the re-boot, and recast her as Lois, as well as shake up the film-making team. My personal choice for Lois Lane was Neve Campbell, but I like your idea of McAdams as well. Anyway, I am dissappointed that Superman Returns did not turn out to be the joyful adventure movie that it should have been.
July 23, 2006, 4:28 p.m. CST
I saw some complaining about not enough punching. Who was he supposed to punch? Maybe punch the Kryptonite island? But i hear what you're saying - they could've given him SOMETHING to punch. If they get a super powered enemy like Metallo or Brainiac or Darkseid, then you'll see some nice one-on-one fights, I hope. This is another way Singer followed the Donner template: hold back some stuff for the next one. In Donner's first movie they he didn't use his heat vision - they saved that for the sequel, where they also added in a bunch of other wacky powers for no reason. The giant plastic "S"? That was a bad idea. Force beams form hands? Bad idea. Punching super powered vilians while flying over Metropolis - that never gets old. Especially when they get thrown into a giant Coca-Cola billboard.
July 23, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST
Once again, Singer making the comment about going "Wrath of Khan" on the next movie has nothing to do with the plot of Wrath of Khan. It has nothing to do with a revenge story and all of that. What he's referring to is the complete shift in tone and feel of the movie - making a movie more geared towards what the fans wanted and expected. People seem to forget that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not warmly received by fans at all. It was seen, ironically enough, as a bloated sci-fi mess. In my opinion, it's kind a of slow-moving, plodding film, but it is probably the most "sci-fi" of the Star Trek series. That's what Bob Wise was going for. However, with a property like Star Trek, you do have to account for fans and you do have to give them something more along the veins of the property. That's what Singer means and references when talking about a sequel to Returns. One that incorporates all of the things fans were looking for in a Superman film. He gave us his vision of Superman, born of Donner's (one which I thoroughly enjoyed. Now he wants to reintegrate the populist view of Superman as well, which will have him pitted against a comparable foe (most likely Brainiac before Zod) and more action oriented. Not that he's going to lose the threads he created in Returns. (I actually thought the whole Richard-Lois-Superman-Clark angle was touching and intriguing. They just need to up Clark into more of an integral player he's always been throughout the life of the character.) I'm still not sold on the whole kid thing, though I do like the insight about Superman finding a piece of himself now on Earth. That's very much a part of the whole orphan experience. We'll see how it plays out. I think Singer is the right man for the job, especially since he has the vision to work with what he has done and bring in the elements fans complained about. Bringing in someone else is going to result in a Ratner event or Hulk situation.
July 23, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST
Quoting an exec at Time Warner who started their AOL division - a division TW has been so ashamed of since they purchased that they dropped it from their official company name after only a few years - isn't really saying much.
July 23, 2006, 4:58 p.m. CST
i hope we get a nice little cast commentary on the supes returns dvd with him and kevin spacey doing a lex luthor type thing.
July 23, 2006, 6:13 p.m. CST
Is that what he's gonna pitch to the suits at WB? So much for a sequel. Oh well. Maybe some other director will get supermojo 10 years from now and take another shot at Supes. Zod? That's...just...wrong. Zod????
July 23, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST
Supes carry his albatross: fathers and sons. That's Singer's theme, and by george, that's what we're getting. Zod wants to punish Kal-El for the sins of his father. Yawn. Been there, done that. See, Singer thinks he's persuading the fans by promising more punching in SR2, but all he's doing is revealing he STILL doesn't get it. Get rid of him now, WB.
July 23, 2006, 8:12 p.m. CST
FUCKERS!! That's John Williams's Luthor theme! If it was Williams farting it would sound better than John Ottoman's crap score!
July 23, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST
All Singer is saying when he name drops Khan is that he is going to make a good movie next time and you'll all like it. Practically everything said by writers, directors, and producers to please geeks is total bullshit. It means nothing more than that. It doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to get geeks to get excited. So Singer burned his bridge at FOX and failed to live up to expectations at WB. He has some serious ass kissing to do to get back in the studio graces, and getting fans to buzz about a movie that isn't written is a good little start. It would be nice if a decent director wanted the job, but more likely a studio Yes-Man will get the job and Superman Returns Again will really suck and we'll be waiting 20 years or more to see Superman in theaters after its all said and done.
July 23, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST
Does AICN's suck-up contract obligations end?
July 23, 2006, 8:56 p.m. CST
Cast Routh as Bizarro.
July 23, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST
the original opening for Returns, like RIGHT NOW! Please pull a "Jackson" and release a extended cut dvd sometime. And while you're at it, how about a special edition of X2 with the rumored cut Gambit shot?
July 23, 2006, 9:35 p.m. CST
Yeah, it's probably true that most of the questions directed towards Bryan Singer were softball questions. Then again, so are most questions at these types of events. It doesn't mean the people asking them want to "lick Bryan Singer's dick" or whatever homophobic (oops, I mean "anti-gay") slur was used further up the TalkBack. Why are you so focused on the "tough" questions that weren't thrown Singer's way? You could throw tough questions at Donner. Or Peter Jackson. Or anyone, really. Methinks the only reason you've suddenly developed a distaste for "softball" questions is because you hated 'Superman Returns.' Although I guess people should be able to ask those kinds of questions. I just think it's kind of amusing when the Supes fanboys stand up and ask shit like "why is Superman's cape too small?"
July 23, 2006, 9:53 p.m. CST
I am a film/screenwriting student, Let me have a crack at writing a Superman script it. First, you are all "wrooooooooong"! Singer should NOT have remade anything. Remakes suck! I would keep the music and nothing else (maybe). Singer should have done a post crisis Superman story with Luthor being the president and/or head of Luthorcorp and both Clark's parents still alive. A big bodybulder Jim Lee/Alex Ross type, non Christopher Reeve (let CR rest in peace) Superman with a huge 'S', red cape, and hot curvy Lois Lane. Comic book credits, one liners, plenty of action, America Flags (change for the international version if they dont like it) and most importantly fun.....unlike SR, fun. Superman's origins are done in the first fifteen minutes over credits...establishing this is different from SMTM. After leaving Smallville and saying goodbye to his Father and Mother, Clark comes to Metropolis and is sent to interview Lex Luthor on his first assignment for the Daily Planet. Clark notices something suspect about Lex. In between saving peoples lives and shaking hands with Cops and Firemen (which will NOT be on a tv screen, we will see it) and a developing love for Lois, Action ensues when Luthorcorps Death machines are unleashed on the city out of revenge for Metropolis City Hall trying to shut L.C down for tax evasion?? (a little weak I know, tell me if you can think of something better. Still beats Luthor's lame real estate scheme). At first the people dont know what to think of Supes, some are scared of him but they come to embrace him. Vision this: Superman gets pissed (red eyes anyone?) and saves the city from the impedding attack of the robots in an epic battle(I say robots because they are not alive and Supes can smash them to pieces.... In the end Superman cant prove Luthor was involved, and Luthor starts his run for President.... Final scene of the film. Lois leans over at a Luthor 08, press conference. Luthor is annoucing his run for President of the United States. "Lex Luthor is about to hit the campain trail, Smallville. Should be the story of the year." "I know Lois," Clark pushes up glasses,John Williams theme starts to build, "and I'll be there to cover it." Looks like I just outwrote Singer and those two metrosexual clown shoes that wrote this film. My film is in the vain of the Cartoon series. This would have been much better than SR.
July 23, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST
Routh gets fired from TV acting jobs, he only gets cast in multi million dollar farces
July 23, 2006, 11:15 p.m. CST
but it wasn't great either. I expected much more from a film maker as talented as Bryan Singer. Will that dude every get over his gay outsider complex?
July 23, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST
Look, I know you guys like saying my name, but denying the truth about Superman Returns just as a ploy to use my screen name in a post is, quite frankly, getting a bit ridiculous. Now, regarding the AOL exec...the man's a billionaire and knows the company line from the insider's point of view...A point of view as shared by all or most of the Time/Warner execs!!! And as for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and Star Wars...Star Wars cost 10 million dollars plus to make....while Star Trek: The Motion Picture cost about 40 million dollars...managed to turn off mainstream audiences, and didn't nearly bring in as much money as Star Wars, not even close!!! And back in 1979...40 million dollars was alot of money...the type of money...that if a film failed at the box office or did so...so...it could put a movie studio on the brink of bankruptcy!!! Just look at what happened with the movie Heaven's Gate...It cost its director his career. Likewise...Steven Spielberg almost lost his career over the film 1941...which had a similar budget to Star Trek: The Motion Picture!!! Spielberg was so depressed about 1941's failure and rabidly strong blacklisting rumors that he was reportedly thinking about leaving Hollywood, in hopes of perhaps directing a James Bond film in order to salvage his career in Europe...That was until George Lucas approuched him and declared that he had a better character than Bond and wanted Spielberg to direct a movie based on that character...His name...Indiana Jones!!! Now, back to Superman Returns...as a director one must know how to balance art and commerce...however, Singer was on a power trip!!! I mean...how do you manage to spend 10 million dollars on a film's opening sequence...and then just cut it out of the movie, claiming it didn't work? Shouldn't he have known that during the animatic and storyboard stage? Further, how is it that he delivered a film to the studio that was nearly 3 hours long ...creating a situation where they'd only generate half of the film showings per theatre a day...and yet, the main character barely had 2 pages of dialogue in the entire movie? And how is it, that a action film about the world's mightiest super hero only has one main action scene...Superman saving the space shuttle and a plane?...Other than that, we could have been watching an episode of Master Piece Theatre on PBS...absent the intelligence, but rivaling it in the boredom factor!!! Singer has exposed the fact that he is completely out of his league!!!
July 23, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST
by Cotton McKnight
piece of trash I saw a few weekends ago. The very idea that there might be a sequel makes my stomach turn.
July 24, 2006, 12:55 a.m. CST
You may not have liked SR for whatever reason. And yes, the movie DID need more action sequences because that's what people want (look at Pirates), but despite all of that, there will be profit from Superman Returns. DVD sales. Merchandising... yes, but talkbackers don't count that. But DVD will be a savior. Usaully is for these types of blockbusters. Tack on millions for TV rights, etc. SR will turn a profit. Not the profit WB was hoping for, but a profit nonetheless. As far as "AOL execs", well, just because an executive at AOL showed a bummed face and said it was a disappointment does NOT mean that a sequel has been axed. Singer proved himself in the X-Men movies, as well as Usual Suspects on a smaller scale. I'm sure he'll be back. They won't want to go through another few years of development with finding a new director and what not. You have to understand how a studio thinks. They look to the future. They're looking to the future, knowing that DVD will bail them out a bit. They'll figure out what went wrong (unfocused marketing and lack of action) and tell Singer what they need. Singer said it himself... they've gotten past the reintroduction of everyone, now's the time for action. Studios REQUIRE these franchises. Superman is a multigenerational icon. Spanning every demographic from great grandpa to great grandson. No way they are going to let that slip away. Studios don't need to announce sequels this early. Hell, Batman Begins 2 IS in development but there has been no huge press release because casting and what not has not been locked. But there is a sequel for that in development. Same goes for Superman Returns. Once the DVD debuts (after work on that and marketing), look for development to start hard. With Singer, because again, WB isn't going to risk going into development hell again searching for directors. They'll just forfce Singer to abide by more studio directives like a two hour run limit, more action, and perhaps a slimmed down budget to $180 million... only $20 million down from SINGER'S SR budget (the additional $60 million from the decade of development should in no way reflect upon Singer's budget, as far as Singer's participation goes). So sit back and wait, because you will see profit and you will see sequels and chances are, Singer will be there too.
July 24, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST
I was hoping to see a kick ass movie but instead i got this uber shit version of supes. Lex Luthor again messing with the earth to get a land? Nah nothing creative about the story. I RATHER SEE FIFTY MORE TIMES THE PHANTOM MENACE THAN THIS SHIT. Yes I am really mad about this.
July 24, 2006, 1:54 a.m. CST
Theatre's get half of the box office take...and Warner Brothers blew 300 million dollars producing and developing this movie and all its false start versions over the last 10 years. Add to that figure, another 150 million dollars for advertisements, promotions, film duplications and distribution. At the end of that process, Warner Brothers was out 450 million dollars total. If they manage to rake in 300 million dollars in worldwide and domestic box office...the fact that they will be forced to share half of the profits with theatres is a big blow!!! That will still leave them 300 million dollars in the loss column. Add in DVD and Video sales and rentals, broadcast rights to cable, pay-per-view, Satelite, and broadcast television...worldwide, and they'll only make about 10 to 30 million dollars if they are lucky. When you really think about it, that's no real profit at all...that's a major loss!!! Why? They, Time/Warner, would have actually made more money off of interest if they had simply left their money gestating in the bank...or better yet...just invested it in real estate!!!
July 24, 2006, 2 a.m. CST
The themes Singer was touching on in Superman Returns had nothing to do with being gay. They had to do with being an orphan and not truly knowing your origins. Ask anyone who has been an orphan from birth. They might grow up in a loving family and be able to call someplace "home", but there is always this lingering feeling about your roots, what your parents were like, are there any other members of the family out there in the world. Those were the things Singer wanted to touch on, in addition to being gone and trying to pick up your life again after being absent. Yes, Singer was an orphan, so he has a unique insight and was writing from his experiences. None of it had to do with him being gay. Stop trying to ascribe your own issues with homosexuality onto the film. It's not to be found anywhere in it.
July 24, 2006, 2:13 a.m. CST
Note: Point Of Clarification...that 10 to 30 million dollars will be the gross profit once said royalies are made from DVD, Video, Cable Satelite, pay-per-view and broadcast tv worldwide...I'm guessing that will bring in about 310 to 350 million dollars alone. Hence, if you subtract Warner Brother's 300 million dollars loss from their theatrical release of Superman Returns from the 310 to 350 profits they'll gain in after markets...they'll only wind up making a 10 to 30 million dollar profit as I pointed out in my last post. But wait, the IRS will be looking for its cut...about half of the profits...and Warner Brother's execs, investors and the studio's daily operations employees have to get paid also!!! Yes, in the end, this is a total loss!!! Give up the movie business Warner Brothers...really, you'll make more money in real estate!!!
July 24, 2006, 2:30 a.m. CST
Well said, you really summed the situation up.
July 24, 2006, 3:29 a.m. CST
July 24, 2006, 5:50 a.m. CST
Singer is pushing a sequel because Smallville creators Gough/Millar are now under consideration to take over the movie franchise since the TV show ends in two years, and all outstanding obligations to the old Supes handlers, (Jon Peters, etc...), have been met. What WB wants from Singer for SR2 are huge concessions, such as giving up final script and cut approval, which is partly why he left the X franchise in the first place.. Singer also tried to force the sequel into production before SR was even released, which is coming back to haunt him as it's now seen that he knew the movie would be a tough sell...Singer had massive influence over the marketing campaign, but he can indirectly claim otherwise because no one cares enough to look into it, and no one at WB A&M would ever go on record stating otherwise...and if Singer was right, the A&M exec would be shown the door and Bryan would have his contract for SR2...It is ZOD, he has no interest in any other character...Singer's name is being thrown about for the Wolverine movie...believe me or not, I could give a fuck less.
July 24, 2006, 6:01 a.m. CST
That's a solid summation of the money issue. The guy went over budget, was the one who first starting touting the 250+ tag, and now doesn't want to be held responsible for it...the A&M was more than 80 million, though. Closer to 100-125 due to a heavy after-release push that included the "bullet-eye" shot...the final nail will come with toy sales. Arad can justify ponying up for a Hulk sequel because the toys moved well, (Hulk Hands was a top selling toy that year). Hasbro is not going to be able to say the same about SR, which makes it even harder for WB to recoup costs.
July 24, 2006, 8:46 a.m. CST
You don't appreciate the humor in casting Routh as Bizarro? That would be killer! "Me love Lana Lang".
July 24, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST
From my understanding, it was reported that Legendary stepped in when SR went overbudget and they kicked in about $35 million extra. That's why this reported $180 million budget talk is complete bullshit. *Batman Begins* cost $200 - $220 million. So no matter how you slice it, with or without counting all the money Warners has blown in almost two decades trying to get this movie into the theatres, their budget was $200 million for this film alone. A concession to Legendary to make up for their loss here would be to revenue share on the DVD sales of this season's *Smallville* box set. Although I'm still not convinced that Legendary is anything more than an investment front for Hollywood execs trying to get more money of the films in their pockets first before the studio accountants play with the figures.
July 24, 2006, 11:56 a.m. CST
It's not that they didn't market it enough, it's that the marketing totally gave the wrong impression of the film. I don't think the franchise is dead, I just think that they fucked up by spending WAY too much on the film. They should have made this thing for $150M, then the $180 it's at now would be considered a success and sequels will be a sure thing. I think Singer is definitely a possibility for sequels - he wasn't the problem with the movie, the inflated budget was. After seeing the original Supes movie, I think I like the Singer version better than the Donner one.
July 24, 2006, 12:48 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...Wrath of Khan bent, does that mean Singer's going to off Supes'm kid like they did Kirk's kid in III (seeing as they introduced Supes' kid a movie sooner than they did Kirk's)? Eh, on second thought, who cares?
July 24, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST
The film would have tanked harder than it did. If anything, the IMAX presentation encouraged many fans to actually go to the theatres instead of ignoring the film entirely and/or waiting to rent on DVD. Maybe Warners should look into investing in IMAX for the sole reason of propping up future mediocre releases [insert *I AM LEGEND* with Will Smith] of theirs.
July 24, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST
For future reference, don't curve the Superman crest to make it look like an old-fashioned curved television.
July 24, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST
Since all of you claim to such experts, here's the FACTS I've gathered from several box office websites. I am not assuming I know how studios make decisions I'm just comparing figures. For Batman Begins WB spent 100 million dollars on marketing on top of the film's 150 million dollar budget. I remember reading this in the news because it was the most money ever spent on marketing for a film at the time. The film grossed 205 million dollars domestic. They grossed 350 Worldwide. Batman Begins sold more than 150 million on DVD sales. WB and Legendary are bringing back Nolan and the cast. It took 10 WEEKS for Batman Begins to get to 200 million. Superman Return has been out for 4 weeks. Superman cost 250 million to make, it's worldwide take is currently about $255 million. $178 domestic. The marketing on Superman was considerably less than Batman, like about 50 mill. Still no IMAX in several major cities. Still have to factor in DVD sales. Singer is one of the producers on Superman Returns, meaning his money is at stake as well. Also many of the actors have said that they will only return (no pun intended) only if Singer will.
July 24, 2006, 5:30 p.m. CST
Source? And Donner's original superman is at least as much a romantic comedy/chick flick as Singer's version. A different movie might have done a little better, but I think the biggest obstacle was that people just aren't excited about superman that much any more. The last two movies were lousy, there have been a bunch of TV and cartoon versions to water it down, and Superman is just generally seen as old fashioned and cornball.
July 24, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST
Again? Well, I won't repeat myself so I'l just say this. I'm no Singer backer at all. Has nothing to do with this. And no, they don't have to announce sequels early. Announcements have nothing to do with securing financing. You obviously don't understand that. When they DO make the announcement, THAT is when financing has already been set weeks to months prior. There is a whole lot of things that go on well before the public knows what is being made and when. Look at Batman Begins, no official announcement, but scripts are being written, talent is being sought, etc. There will be a sequel to SR, and chances are Singer will be back. I guess we just have to wait and see who's right, but trust me, it'll happen.
July 24, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST
TV sales do make money, but nowhere near DVD. Once again, you fail to realize the power of the DVD market. Studios now depend on that. So we'll talk the opening weekend of the DVD and see how much it sold. It wil be no less than $65 million for just the opening weekend... but probably more along the lines of $85 million plus. Tack on rentals to that and you have profit. Not four or five years down the road... but within a year. I'm not deluding myself. Have no reason to. It's all in the numbers and the business.
July 24, 2006, 7:15 p.m. CST
Was this supposed to be a threat? If Singer doesn't return, we won't come back!!! Sounds like wish fulfilment to me!!! Even the actors involved with this turkey are making up excuses to avoid being involved with a sequel!!! Now, as far as the cost of advertising, promotion, film print duplication, and distribution are concerned...I notice that the Singer apologists are not factoring in the worldwide cost. Let's look at the advertising and promotions alone, for instance!!! Worldwide, the cost of advertising and promotions for Superman has to be well north of 100 million dollars. Anybody saying anything different, is a bold faced liar!!!
July 24, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST
The profit potential of the DVD and video sales and rentals has already been eaten up by the film's cost and development...as well as the false start versions, to the tune off 300 million dollars...despite all of this revisionist history creeping up since the movie bombed, this film won't make a dime!!! Tack on the cost of ads, promotion, print duplication and distribution, and your are really in trouble. That's another 150 million dollars!!! The movie theatres get half of the film royalties right off the top!!! That leaves Warner Brothers 300 million in dept. Ad in the after market sales and rentals of DVDs and videos...cable and satelite tv...pay-per-view and broadcast television worldwide...and they, Warner Brothers, will only make about 310 to 350 million dollars!!! Subtract the money they've lost on production and marketing expenses, and they'll only take in 10 to 50 million dollars in profit. The IRS gets half of that money...the investors want their cut...and Warner Brothers still has to pay its studio staff...Leaving a profit of nothing!!! Stop with all the revisionist history bullshit!!!...Superman Returns is a utter and complete failure!!! And although I hate prequels, bring on Tom Welling and the Smallville movie (Superman Begins)!!! Its gotta be better than Superman Returns!!!!!
July 24, 2006, 9:19 p.m. CST
The difference between this film and *Batman Begins* is that *Begins* had positive word of mouth. Only people like Moviemack were bashing that film, and only online. Compare that to *Superman Returns*. Incredibly bad word of mouth, both online and in the real world. So using the *Batman Begins* figures is a total distortion. *Batman Begins* also did not have the multi-layer marketing partners that *Superman Returns* "benefitted" from. There was no Batman Pepsi marketing tie-in. Nolan & Warner Bros. shunned it in order to revive the franchise. For SR, they overhyped a mediocre product and are now suffering because of it. POTC2 has now slayed 2 Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures productions. So no matter what some of you non-realists say, its curtains on this film and Singer & Co. won't be back for more just as Joel Schumacher got canned after *Batman & Robin*. Get real, get Round Table.
July 24, 2006, 10:17 p.m. CST
You don't get to 180M in four weeks with "incredibly bad WOM". The movie had mixed reviews and mixed reactions from audiences. But obviously somebody liked the movie for it to make as much as it has made and for it to have pretty moderate drops. If audiences truly hated it, it would have made far less (see "Lady in the Water").
July 24, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST
Because, among my gripes with the movie, the Return to Krytpon aspect seemed like it should have been the set up for a new villain like Brainiac or something (preferrably him, Zod has been done). Instead, they wasted it completely. I'd have loved Brainiac in this movie. Gotta do Brainiac before you do Darksied. And have Brainiac build Metallo! That's part of what's missing from the movie, a show down with someone to give us one heck of a satisfying fight. I know the movie had loftier ambitions than just more action, but honestly I felt cheated. I also didn't think ANYTHING was resolved, the movie felt like it was half a story with the resolutions coming a second act that never happened. I hated where it left every character in the end, I didn't want it to leave Kitty and Luthor on the island or Lois still undecided about Richard or Superman, or Clark still being a non-entity, or the real fruits of the Krypton visit still unexplained. Granted a slug fest with Metallo would not have changed things much, but I think it would have satisfied a need to see Superman earning his forgiveness for leaving (and I think that's what he needed to earn since his reasons for leaving were never very well explained even with the orphan subtext that I think was just assumed to be obvious to people who aren't orphans). I do want Singer to make a sequel though. Disappointing as the movie was, it was not the WTF that the Hulk was, it didn't squander the premise for future films. This bitching about how the franchise should be shot down and restarted....I say no way. They couldn't get this thing moving for over a decade. I don't want them to go back to development hell, this movie is not so bad that it's worth doing that. I want them to work with what they've got. This movie revelled in the retro too much (though not enough to get John Williams to do the new score, as it should have), but if Singer's improvements with X-Men 2 are an indicator (and he seems to be promising as much), then I think he can make a great sequel. I don't know how far it can go after that since X-Men was ruined by his departure (yes it was ruined, stop sucking Rattner's cock just to make Singer jealous). But I think it's worth making. The only problem I think they'll have with Superman sequels is resolving Lois and her kid. Bosworth was a terrible Lois, they really need to recast her. And sticking her with a child makes her even less the Lois we all know. Jason is a problem, he's not a part of Superman's established mythos. I think a lot of us want to see more of that familiar world in the Superman movies, not just broad strokes. I think the movies should show Clark becoming more of a real guy and less of an offensive charicature on humanity (as Bill said it was). I think a lot of us want to see the world of Metropolis a little more, with people like Maggie Sawyer and Dan Turpin and Dr. Hamilton and S.T.A.R. Labs with their cloning programs and of course at some point the Justic League and the New Gods. That's a lot to cover in this franchise, and frankly now I don't see how the next movie or any future movies could ever NOT be about Superman's kid or the kid's death. I'd like Singer to show me how he's going to fix this, or that he knows it needs to be fixed and what would be gained by fixing it. Did he recreate Superman just to make it a limited series again, or did he jumpstart it so that it can go on and on like James Bond (not sure if that's a good thing though since Bond will never be Bond again without SPECTER, the Cold War, or Q). I think cancelling this and pulling a Hulk is the coward's way out, and I think it'll be a huge error both creatively and financially. I don't think there are ever going to be easy financial decisions with Superman anymore, the 10+ years of hell have already made it impossible for the franchise to make back all the money spent on it. But I think that they'd be crazy to try and restart things. They'd be smarter to downplay the retro elements in future movies and recast Lois. I'd keep Singer and Routh though, and dear god get John Wiliams back. Failing him, is Shirley Walker still working? Get her on that Batman Begins sequel too, that new Batman music was not nearly iconic enough.
July 24, 2006, 10:25 p.m. CST
The Wrath of Otisburg??? I can dig it!
July 24, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST
All the Superman merchandising will be in the cut-out bin with very little moved at full price. Do kids really want Superman to do battle with a human bald man or a rock? Nobody is buying this merchandise and not only does that hurt this film, it really hurts the ability to make deals and market a potential sequel.
July 24, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST
Anyone who wants/wishes/hopes for Brainac, Metallo, Darkseid in the sequel is due for a kick in the nuts. Singer means Zod when he says "Alien". He is not going to get off of Donners dick! Zod is gonna come down to Earth with New Krypton crystals and attack the "Grandson of Jor EL"..........Just Watch!
July 24, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST
Let me say this, you're my favorite here:) No, there has been no offical announcement for Batman Begins. As far as the whole Joker thing, so in your mind if that film had failed, there would still be a sequel because of that mild cliffhanger? Anyway, regarding talkbackers here at AICN. They represent a very small percentage of the American audience. Sorry to say it, but it is true. The way the industry is today, half of the audience that went to movie theaters in the 90s now waits for DVD because they do not want to watch 15 minutes of adds infront of movies, pay ridiculous amounts for popcorn and soda, and sit next to loud people that can't keep their mouth shut. THAT my dear friend, is why DVD is a monster house. How much are you saying that Superman Returns will make on DVD? Give me a number. Your own estimate. And as far as me discounting merchandising and product tie-ins... where are you getting these numbers? Do you really know anything about that? There's more to the picture than you obviously understand. And in order to be deluding myself, I'd have to really give a damn. I don't. I just see a person who dislikes a movie so much that they will say anything to rag on it, even if it goes against the one thing that they cannot battle, and that is fact. Numbers. Statistics. When a movie is greenlit by a studio, the execs aren't just thinking how much it will garner in box office revenue... DVD sales is a HUGE factor. Execs will say, "Well, if we spend this much and the movie goes south, at least we'll be able to get into the black with DVD sales." It's a fact, Kai. Hey, I'm not saying Superman is going to be one of the most profitable movies ever, despite the lack of success thus far. I'm simply saying that you are wrong about the upcoming performance of the DVD and whether it will draw up the total gross. Say the movie is bad. Say Singer fucked up. Say it was a disappointment for the studio. But don't spout out continuous noise regarding things you don't know about, saying that they would have to package SR with a box set of Superman movies to move the DVD. I read that in our previous posts exchanges and just said, "What?!" So yes, there will be a sequel. As far as Singer goes, I think he'll be back. You don't. We'll see. So congrats on the failure of Superman Returns call. I hope it lets you sleep well at night knowing you made a call that had 50/50 odds of going your way or becoming a success. You're an expert my friend. A true expert. And we bow down to you eternally. Until your next rant...
July 25, 2006, 12:08 a.m. CST
REPORTED COST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS: $260 million CURRENT WORLDWIDE TAKE: $288,342,711 So by these numbers we are to assume that it is making a profit in it's 4th week and that any money it makes from this point on theatre or from IMAX or DVD sales will be profit.
July 25, 2006, 12:33 a.m. CST
Try reading the posts for once!!! Or is it that you are a plant who works for Brian Singer???!!! Look, I'm not going to back into the full economic picture here as I've already explained that 3 times alone in previous posts. I'll just stick to your pro-actively false claims of Superman Returns making a profit based on its current box office take worldwide...Well, as I have said before, movie theatres get half of the profit...that's half of the ticket price...which means Superman Returns has made only half of the money which you have claimed that it has!!! That's only 144 million dollars if we are to believe your figures...For a movie that costs 260 million dollars, and another 40 million or so in development costs for other versions of the film that failed to make it to the screen, that not a profit, that is a disaster!!! Then add in another 150 million dollars for advertisements, promotions, film duplications, and distribution...and there goes your expected profits from DVDs, video, and sales to cable, satelite, pay-per-view and broadcast tv!!!
July 25, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST
I'd call it lukewarm or mixed (some people did really like the movie). Certainly not anything close to Pirates 2. I just took issue with the comment that it was "incredibly bad" which is ridiculous. Typical internet hyperbole where if something isn't a home run, it "sucks" - I guess some people can't see in shades of grey. And zooch, it will be a LONG time before SR makes a profit since the studio has to share much of the 288M so far with the theatres. It probably needs to gross 150-200% of what it cost before it breaks even.
July 25, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST
Jeez you hate Singer. Let me say this, the whole studio industry regarding DVD sales projections is based off of what has happened before and studio executives, producers, and accountants have worked off of sales trends for the past decade. The difference between my numbers and yours is this: Yours are based entirely on your own speculation. I'm basing mine off of what the industry goes off of, what the trades list, etc. You, you throw out "$60-80 million" for marketing and blah blah. Where does that come from? Is it based off of published/released trends for marketing costs for a superhero franchise movie? No, you pulled it out of your ass. Mine was taken from industry trends, statistics, etc. And sorry Kai, but you are wrong. You continue to prove that over and over with your loooong posts. You were wrong weeks ago when you stated that King Kong didn't do the good numbers that people thought, yet it made $100 million in it first week on DVD. And that was a disappointing movie that underperformed at the box office as well. You can say I just keep bringing up other titles and what not, but those are called industry trends. And those trends drive the studio system. These people have been doing them for years, so I guess they are wrong huh Kai? Like I said earlier weeks before, just because I don't have the exact number of revenue that Superman Returns will make on DVD, doesn't mean the statistics and industry trends will be wrong. That is like saying, well, no one can say Pirates 2 will break $300 million because it hasn't happened yet. It will. So again, how much do you think SR will make on DVD? How much. Put your money where your mouth is? Pick up the Hollywood Reporter when it lists the month to date DVD sales. Become a member of the VSDA or Billboard and get data charts. You honestly think that if a movie like "Failure to Launch" makes $35 million in its first week on DVD that SR won't double or triple that. Shit, it's common sense. Forget me following industry trends and tracking that studios do. It's common sense. Basic Instinct 2 is now the number one selling DVD nation wide. Basic Instinct 2! Why? Because people waited for it to come on DVD. It's frickin' common sense that SR will make a shitload on DVD. And now currently the total international gross of SR is $288 million. So let's say your "numbers" are right. Let's OVERestimate and say it cost $80 million for marketing, tie-ins, etc. SR will make that up in DVD AT LEAST in its first two weeks. Probably the first week. Then start counting DVD rentals and continued sales. So I'll say it once again, my numbers are based off of the industry trends. I compare it to other DVD titles to somehow add some perspective for you (ala mentioning Basic Instinct 2 and Failure to Launch), but you are too stubborn to relent. So congrats on the Superman Returns prediction once again. I'll have my bookie call you during the upcoming NFL season. But wait, I predicted Batman and Robin would fail in '97... so... Don't mean to be harsh but if you're going to throw shit my way about me "deluding myself" then all is fair in movies and war.
July 25, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST
That's fucking bullshit! It's common knowledge that theaters get next to nothing from ticket sales at all. That's why popcorn and a coke cost 20 fucking dollars these days.
July 25, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST
by One Voice
I'm afraid though I agree with Metal. The film has been a letdown in every capacity, and that responsibility falls on one man's shoulders - Bryan Singer. The movie wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't the right take. It wasn't Superman. It wasn't even good enough to be an episode of Smallville and that show is shite. Also, as for calling it a chick-flick, it didn't have the wit or romance to be a chick-flick. It was simply a bad soap opera, with dull overwrought scenes of incomprehensible blandness. Not an action movie. Not an adventure movie. Not a Superman movie. Not a successful movie.
July 25, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST
by Turd Furgusen
robtrain you are exactly right. I think theaters get only pennies to the dollar that the studios pull in. Call your local theater and find out if you don't believe me. Moto, keep fighting the good fight. I am in your corner. I believe we will have a sequel with Singer at the helm. His intiial negotiations with WB had a sequel clause if I am not mistaken. That 200 mil domestic, could be the magic number. It sounds like WB and Singer have a pretty good working relationship and they may factor the previous 60 mil in "development" as a sunk cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost This would level the playing field as it were and adjust potential profit.
July 25, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST
Just looking in my local paper, SR has been dropped to single screen status, and generally just two showings per day on that single screen. By Friday, it will have left the top 10. Needless to say, without some desperate Browncoat esque action, it ain't gonna cross the threshold.
July 25, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST
Meant single screen at each theatre in town...not that there's only one theatre here.
July 25, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST
No, you are the one not understanding me. Where is your estimate coming from. You pulled it out of thin air didn't you. Is it based off of other films' market costs? Other statistics. Basically, your estimate is just a number you pulled. That's a guess. An estimate usually requires taking into account certain figures of past trends. I'm done because you do not understand the DVD business. And stop hiding behind the argument that I am a Singer apologist. You're obviously trying to put me into a group of sorts, saying that I also said SR was going to do Spiderman numbers. Didn't happen. Stop pulling shit out of thin air like that. And I guess we both can't read because I stated I was using those DVDs to put the DVD market into perspective for you. I'll say it slow... if. they. can. make. that. much. money. then. do. you. really. think. that. SR. won't? An American icon of a character. Cross generational. You don't think tons of people will be renting it and buying it? Just say yes or no. Because if the answer is no, then everyone can just laugh and forget about Kai, because if you knew shit about the industry in question, which you have proven not to by your statements, then this was all a waste of time. It is either way I guess. So according to your account, SR will hardly make any money on DVD. Let's just confirm that. Then we'll wait until the release date and see. That's the whole argument here. We have to wait. There's no convincing you obviously. Just please, do some research. Learn about studio DVD figures and revenue before you start talking like this. Until then, moving onto another subject... THEATER TAKE. Theaters usually take up to 80% of the opening weekend for a studio release (According to CNN Money, if you need proof of my "estimates") and then each week that figure decreases drastically. Second week will go down to maybe 35% and then third week down even more. So no, theaters do not get 50% of the gross. And yes, whoever said it, that is why food is so expensive in theaters. Obviously. Kai, it's been a pleasure. You've fought a great fight and stuck to your guns. We'll just have to wait and see who's right. Go ahead and have the last word.
July 25, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST
Your statement, "And by the way a 'trend', in any situation in life, is what you have when a similar, proportionately comparable situation occurs with suffecient enough regularity to establish a sort of basic reliable pattern for projection and extrapolation." --- That is my favorite talkback of the year. Priceless.
July 25, 2006, 3:47 p.m. CST
This movie just will not die on these talkbacks. When was the last time we were all seriously arguing a bout a movie a month down the road before. Thing is, the ones that hate the movie are the ones that keep coming back and keep giving this site more reasons to post about it, because obvisouly there's still some interest. Funny shit.
July 25, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST
The LA TIMES reported Superman Returns quote "will cost about $300 million to release with marketing costs added in". SLATE also reported the same figure quote "$300 million when marketing and other costs are included". Baltimore Sun reported the same. Box Office Mojo also reported Superman Returns budget "includes $40 million from more than a decade of false starts". These news sites numbers do not match your numbers Kai which you admit to be estimate, but I'm sure they have fact checkers and you do not. As moto pointed it does not matter because let me put this in a simple equation...any further Box Office take + Potential DVD profit > Marketing and Advertising cost
July 25, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST
meaning in the vicinity of $300, somewhere near $300 mil, and if it is estimate, I would wager that their numbers are closer than yours.
July 25, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST
"Nor did I even claim as you stated that it "will hardly make any money on DVD." In our previous SR posts of late, you had said that the only way SR will make any real money on DVD is if they package it with a box set of the Superman movies. That is what I am talking about. And YOU continue to fail to realise my point about bringing up Basic Instinct 2 or Failure to Launch DVD sales. I'll say it one last time. IF films like that can garner big numbers on DVD, then you can just imagine what a franchise studio big budget picture lke SR will do. Like the X-Men movies do on DVD. Or Batman movies. Or Spider-Man movies. Etc. For whatever reason, you don't understand the way the industry is now. People aren't going to theaters like they used to because DVD are so affordable and many people prefer to watch movies at home. That is why DVD is such a powerhouse. God, what I am saying is not self indulgent at all. I'm not putting myself on any pedestal. It's common sense. Apparently you can read, but you can't decipher the meanings of what I am saying. I'm not comparing those films to SR, I'm trying to give you perspective about the scope of SRs DVD potential. But I promised you the last word and I lied. Sorry. Post again... it's all yours. I am done repeating myself. I hope you are too. We won't see eye to eye. Let's just wait it out. Neither of us is right or wrong until those numbers come in. So, indulge if you want, but this is for sure my last unless another subject is brought up.
July 25, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST
That LA Times story is a plant!!! Brian Singer and Warner never included promotional and advertising cost in their budget estimates for Superman Returns...but conveniently, after the movie bombs, they claim that the cost of ads and promotions were, and are, included in the final budget!!! Since when has a studio done that??? Exactly...they haven't!!! And the only way to explain it...is either they are lying about it now, as a cover for their failure at the box office, in order to calm down investors and to silence stock market rumors...fearing stock value fall offs...Or, and this is even more disturbing, Warner Brothers lied about the budget for Superman Returns in the first place...which means the movie really costs half of what they, the studio, has been claiming... about 130 to 150 million dollars!!! If true, this would expose a creative accounting scam being pulled off by Warner Brothers!!! Why would you claim the budget is double that amount before the film's release, clearly not including ad and promo costs, etc., and then mysteriously...miraculously...leakinfo to The LA Times claiming ad and promotional costs were already included in the publicly disclosed budget for the film???!!! Again, this has never happened before in film history, and I challenge any of you, including the LA Times, to point out an instance where it has!!! Again, if the studio now wishes us to believe the latter, in regard to financing, ad costs and promos costs being already factored into the budget at this late date...either the investors were targets of a scam, one that the studio had to retreat from when the movie went belly up...or the audience and media were the victims of a bait and switch, where we were all falsely lured into the theatres with the studios claims that this film cost 260 million dollars or more...and of course...as I said before, this all could just be a financial cover-up being mounted by Warner Brothers in an attempt to write-off at least 150 million dollars in ad, promo, print duplication and distribution costs (after the fact)...which if added onto the 260 to 300 dollar production budget of the film(including 40 million for the development costs of the false start versions of Superman Returns)...would bring the total cost to about 450 million dollars!!! A hard pill for Time/Warner executives and investors to swallow!!! No matter what the motive for the ever changing budget claims, now that the movie has bombed, this still all amounts to revisionist history at its best!!! I can't wait for the book and the movie to come out...based on this mess!!! And of course, the eventual Federal Inditements for fraud...tax evasion...RICO act violations and stock market manipulations will help to spice up the proceediings!!! Call the movie "Time/Warner: The Enron Of Hollywood!"...This one will win a number of Academy Awards, while sinking a studio and corporation at the same time!!! I love it!!!
July 25, 2006, 10:02 p.m. CST
when I say WHAT!?? Little paranoid there buddy?
July 25, 2006, 10:10 p.m. CST
STUDIOS get about 80% opening weekend, and that drops each week. On a movie like Supes that didn't have a huge opening, the studio gets less than some other movies that open big. And typically overseas the studios get a smaller percentage than domestic. So overall, it's probably higher than 50%, but still in the 60-70 range, obviously it varies from movie to movie.
July 25, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST
The person that discovers a conspiracy...if real, isn't paranoid...that person is a truth teller!!! Now...fact is, everyone who is posting regarding this matter, pro or con, knows full well that suddenly reports on the budget are starting to float and fluctuate downward by vast amounts...virtually changing always in the Studio's favor at least once to twice a week!!! That magical anomaly is utterly and completely suspect to criminal levels...Forget about the Balco and Berry Bonds investigation...The FBI needs to be investigating Time/Warner's accounting department...starting with a Grand Jury and a forensic accounting audit of Time/Warner's books...including their secret set of books, which all companies keep!!!
July 25, 2006, 11:12 p.m. CST
Guess I was too frazzled by the other subjects and typed it wrong. Thanks for the heads up.
July 25, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST
Acutally, if what you are saying is correct, EVERY studio that has had a poor performing blockbuster since the 80s (the beginning of the true blockbuster barrage) is suspect to being criminal. Every studio does this if their expensive flick underperforms. The opposite happens when a blockbuster does big business because studios like to gloat about how the most expensive yada yada did so well. Fact is, stock holders get the exact numbers in their quartely and annual reports while the media and public get the PR BS most of the time. Thus, an investigation probably wouldn't be warranted. We just get the big screw.
July 26, 2006, 12:28 a.m. CST
Factually speaking, yes...it's true. It is a known operating proceedure of Hollywood studios to cook the books, by keeping two sets of books...one for the investors, the media, and the public...and one for the studio execs (the real one)!!!
July 26, 2006, 2:29 a.m. CST
personnaly i see the dvd doing pretty much the same as the cinema release did. may be doing well at first then totally disapearing to the bargin bin for 2.99. the best extras you'll get are some crappy actors messing up their lines(like thats hard for them), a weak commentary with singer mubbling through the insane creative(although its a joke to use that word in reference to this film)decisions and trying to explain his chick flick. This is not going to convice people who didnt like it at the cinema to buy it on dvd because theres nothing new to see. They should have put the krypton scene in as at least its something new.
July 26, 2006, 4:44 a.m. CST
It's over. It's now academic. Back to Smallville and dreaming of how cool a state of the art Superman flick would be......those days don't feel that long ago actually
July 26, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST
The only movies I've seen priced like that are obscure titles none of us have heard of, mostly stuff that never made it to theatres. Nice attempt at hyperbole though.
July 26, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST
Got a link for the "iffy" quote?
July 26, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST
Whole lotta speculatin' goin' on about how much "Superman Returns" cost to make, and I don't think we're ever gonna really know the full truth - no more than we did after what happened in the aftermath of the Buchwald-Murphy lawsuit over "Coming to America". We don't really know if past starts and stops were added into the budget listing over at boxofficemojo, and we all know about some of the past pay-or-play deals, etc. Well, anyway, here's something I'm wondering about: Since producers and investors in Hollywood are a money-minded lot, I would assume they have some way of covering their losses when it comes to pay or play deals and past failings at restarting any movie franchise. I would think they would be able to report their losses as part of a tax write-off or an insurance plan, or something. Why else do they publicly report losses or gains at the end of every fiscal year? I seriously doubt they would invest money without some semblance of a financial backup plan, and if that's the case, and the film cost $268 million as reported - then some portion of that loss has already been recovered in some form or fashion, and the worldwide revenue that's coming in outside the domestic take, and then the money from the DVD and TV sales, etc., will just be gravy. Just a thought. Don't shoot the speculator.
July 26, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST
Because that would make it a true statement, and its not. More AICN bs.
July 26, 2006, 11:37 a.m. CST
If you write a post as long as a book, noone will read it. They scan it and get the basic idea. My God, I shutter to think of the person who actually reads these uber long posts. Time to get a girlfriend, buddy.
July 26, 2006, 11:39 a.m. CST
The guys who write them. That takes the taco. Let me ask this.......So does liking movies, comics, and cult icons coincide with being a no life, bottom feeder? Appartently so.
July 26, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST
by One Voice
And it makes perfect sense. If you place things in perspective the film was a collosal failure. The story is running everywhere, so why not google it yourself in future, but here's one of many links: http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/hollywood/20060726-0.html
July 26, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST
by One Voice
Superman Returns In 2009, If Singer Gets His Way It's long been rumoured that Superman Returns director Bryan Singer wants to have a crack at a sequel - because just one extremely long dull film about Superman being like a gay Jesus is never enough, is it? And now Singer has made it explicitly clear that he wants to make another Superman movie set for release in 2009. The only thing that stands in his way is the disappointing box office that Superman Returns has so far yielded, but that hasn't deterred Bryan Singer from talking up his intentions at every chance he gets, even though budget cuts might mean that a Superman Returns sequel might feature Superman riding about on a pedal bike as he attempts to defeat his greatest enemy yet - The Normal Man With A Cardboard Box On His Head. Superman Returns was meant to be the biggest film of the year and the biggest superhero movie ever, but it has been totally eclipsed by Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which has made over $300 million in less time than Superman Returns has made $169 - almost $100 million less than it cost to make. The reasons of Superman Return's failure are unknown; it could be to do with lacklustre marketing or a badly-judged level of interest in seeing a new Superman movie, or it could be because Superman Returns has the worst-ever Lois Lane and a Superman who walks the line between 'messiah' and 'fairy-ass pansy with a digitally-reduced penis'. Either way, the stunning bombing of Superman Returns has meant that the previously guaranteed prospects of making a Superman Returns sequel are now up in the air. And director Bryan Singer is going all out in public to try and convince people to get it made, even if it takes a geek-pleasing Star Trek analogy to do it. At the Comic-Con this weekend, Bryan Singer told a crowd of fans that if he makes another Superman movie: "I plan to get all Wrath Of Kahn on it
July 26, 2006, 7:51 p.m. CST
I agree with Moto, I think the DVD sales are going to be what gives a sequel the go ahead. I doubt WB will kick Singer off, especially with the success X2 had. The studio will have more say in the sequel (maybe getting different screenwriters, Singer didn't seem sure they'd be back) but I'd imagine they'd keep things in place for the most part after it took sooo long to get the franchise started. Sorry to those that hated the movie, I hope you'll like the sequel better. We'll see what happens when the DVD comes out.
July 26, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST
That's where it's being reported. The backlash has started out there in the real world. What baffles me (and an obviously ever increasing amount of other people)is how on earth did the film garner so many positive reviews from the press screening?? Slowly but surely the old word of mouth gave old Ebert more credibility and showed the young pup critics it does help if you don't buy into the hype and judge a film on it's own merits. Sadly SR doesn't have many merits and here we are wondering whether or not a sequel is gonna be greenlighted. Before anybody had actually seen the film a sequel was certain. 2006, The Year Of Superman will be remembered as the year Superman fans would rather forget. Smallville fans on the other hand......
July 26, 2006, 9:29 p.m. CST
"Director Bryan Singer has acknowledged that the less-than-stellar performance of Superman Returns has made prospects for another Man of Steel sequel a bit "iffy." The Associated Press quotes him as saying" From IMDB, the headline from yesterday. Yes in the real world a "less than stellar" performance is a worry. Got to hand it to that Tom Welling, the guy saw it coming.
July 27, 2006, 5:17 a.m. CST
just out of curiosity, do you have a life? your posts are like the fucking Dead Sea Scrolls.
July 27, 2006, 11:28 p.m. CST
IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that Superman Returns, which has grossed more than $290 million worldwide to date, is showing strong legs in IMAX
July 29, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST
Superman Returns Friday the 28th will ot even be in the TOP 10 movies and will make less than 2 million through the ENTIRE WEEKEND. It will NOT make $200 million domestic and Warners has ANOTHER high-prced flop (The Ant Bully opened weakly) - that makes four flops and/or disappointments. Management heads WILL ROLL. Superman WILL NOT COME BACK under Bryan Singer's watch. Period. Sorry zooch et al.
Aug. 8, 2006, 10:17 a.m. CST
Bloody heel, I only joined to post this, I see you uber geeks post shit on this bored about people day after day, but how many of you do ANYTHING creative? I mean yeah it's cool if you don't like the movie, and we are all entitled to our thoughts, but don't destroy the guy because he didn't make the movie YOU wanted to see, I saw it at the imax with my girlfriend to a sold out crowd and people really liked it, i thought it was well crafted and fitting in tone to the original movie, but am looking forward to supes kicking some ass in the next. It's box office has been big, you are all just comparing it's takings on the vast amount of money that has been spent on it over the years, it will run a profit, we all know that, and hey I for one hopes he lives to fight for another day.
Aug. 8, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST
Aug. 8, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST
Yeah, what he said.