Superman Returns

[Metallo]

Jun 29, 2013 3:43:03 GMT -5 @kris said:

Plus avengers is just a lot of cgi battles and no substance which I understand to be a bad thing

I think you've confused it with MOS. Stark stopping the nuke from hitting New York had more substance than all the action sequences near the end of MOS. Stark learned what Cap was trying to teach him AND in mirrored Caps own sacrifice in The First Avenger. It was part of a three movie arc at the time where Tony Stark may have done his first TRULY selfless act ever. It was the exact opposite of "I Am Iron Man" at the end of the first movie.

Jun 29, 2013 11:29:12 GMT -5 atp said:

The part in MOS where he is flying over a herd of horses of giraffes - or whatever the fuck they were - looked incredibly fake. Even the Superman and Lois flying over horses scene in S4 looked more realistic.

Reminded me of Supergirl flying over the herd of horses.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2013 11:04:12 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jun 29, 2013 3:43:03 GMT -5 @kris said:

Plus avengers is just a lot of cgi battles and no substance which I understand to be a bad thing

I think you've confused it with MOS. Stark stopping the nuke from hitting New York had more substance than all the action sequences near the end of MOS. Stark learned what Cap was trying to teach him AND in mirrored Caps own sacrifice in The First Avenger. It was part of a three movie arc at the time where Tony Stark may have done his first TRULY selfless act ever. It was the exact opposite of "I Am Iron Man" at the end of the first movie.

Word.

[crazy_asian_man]

Even when it was fewer they still did. And half the team has no great power to speak of. Captain America stopped the attack at the bank by himself fought aliens and saved people and he doesn't have one one hundredth of Superman's powers. Even before that in The First Avenger when Steve jumped on what he thought was a live grenade. What powers did he have then?

Great points.

In many ways, I think "Captain America" is more of the modern update to Superman in spirit, than MOS was. There are just as many elements that COULD have been corny in Captain America, but the smart script always touches base* (with the exception of the weak Red Skull execution) with how to show Captain America being heroic, being able to kickarse AND give equal concern about innocents on the way non-stop.

For the average person, most likely we'd all save our skins first, but for our heroes that behave and are better than us, ideally that's what great to see. The unselfishness and rising above immediate human impulses.

In MOS- there are spots where I can see that we're supposed to see Supes as a character care about the people involved when rescuing them, (Example as the oil rig), but with the design and editing, I just don't feel it comes across as much. But, I am tempted to see MOS one last time to see if I feel any different on these sequences. For two viewings, though, the sequences often feel like slight-to--moderate missteps with good intentions.

[Deleted]

I enjoy Cap more than MOS, for what it's worth. Cap is my #3 comic book movie of all time.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[Metallo]

Jun 30, 2013 14:15:34 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Even when it was fewer they still did. And half the team has no great power to speak of. Captain America stopped the attack at the bank by himself fought aliens and saved people and he doesn't have one one hundredth of Superman's powers. Even before that in The First Avenger when Steve jumped on what he thought was a live grenade. What powers did he have then?

Great points.

In many ways, I think "Captain America" is more of the modern update to Superman in spirit, than MOS was. There are just as many elements that COULD have been corny in Captain America, but the smart script always touches base* (with the exception of the weak Red Skull execution) with how to show Captain America being heroic, being able to kickarse AND give equal concern about innocents on the way non-stop.

For the average person, most likely we'd all save our skins first, but for our heroes that behave and are better than us, ideally that's what great to see. The unselfishness and rising above immediate human impulses.

In MOS- there are spots where I can see that we're supposed to see Supes as a character care about the people involved when rescuing them, (Example as the oil rig), but with the design and editing, I just don't feel it comes across as much. But, I am tempted to see MOS one last time to see if I feel any different on these sequences. For two viewings, though, the sequences often feel like slight-to--moderate missteps with good intentions.

Captain America didn't just SAY that Steve Rogers was a symbol of hope or an inspiration. They showed it. Not only that but we got to see the reaction of other characters. That's how you do it.

Marvel understood that the last part of the super soldier formula wasn't some chemical or energy it was Steve Rogers spirit and ideals. And he didn't need powers to show it. he showed what kind of man he was when he stood there taking a beating from a dude twice his size and when he jumped on a grenade. And he wasn't aware of it. For him he was just a kid from the city who wanted to do his part. These movies absolutely nailed who Steve Rogers is as a character and didn't have to sell him out one single bit. he's hokey and old fashioned at times. Deal with it folks. That's who he is. Marvel wasn't ashamed of that. And when he knew he wouldn't see Peggy I felt bad for him. They actually did a good job getting you to emotionally invest in the characters and the big set pieces.

[ye5man]

In many ways, I think "Captain America" is more of the modern update to Superman in spirit, than MOS was.

Agreed. Then again its quite easy to write the character that way as it was set in the 40s. In the Avengers, modern day, he was written as an anacrosnism which was a shame. I am certainly looking to Cap America 2 to see how they write the character

[Metallo]

That's the point though. He will adjust to the way a lot of things are done but Steve Rogers has always been a standard of tradition in a not so traditional world. He stands for what was in some ways a more sure and innocent time. And his backstory has also been used to address some of the not so innocent things that happened in his time too. Caps a unique mirror for today's world. That's something that's always made him stand out since from all the other charades since Marvel reintroed him in the 60s.

[crazy_asian_man]

Agreed. Then again its quite easy to write the character that way as it was set in the 40s. In the Avengers, modern day, he was written as an anacrosnism which was a shame. I am certainly looking to Cap America 2 to see how they write the character

The theatrical Avengers bothered me a lot to see Steve Rogers (mostly) treated as an outdated joke.... but the deleted scenes show a very heavy transition to current times for Steve Rogers, coming right off of "Captain America" that would have given his character far more weight in the movie. It's REALLY a pity that they cut out the scenes with him trying to adjust (It was only a few minutes) for faster pacing.

[Metallo]

I think Rogers gets his due by the last third of the film. I didn't mind the jokes because they made sense but they didn't forget to let the character rise to the occasion when he needed to. When its time to have the main event fight Stark rightly defers to Captain America

[crazy_asian_man]

I think Rogers gets his due by the last third of the film. I didn't mind the jokes because they made sense but they didn't forget to let the character rise to the occasion when he needed to. When its time to have the main event fight Stark rightly defers to Captain America

A bit off-topic, but was it just me, or did it seem strange- when one of the Citauri is in the building with the people, throws the bomb at Captain America- and it blows up - throwing him out of the building--- but he doesn't run back in to help the people, but just stands there? I mean, that creature is STILL in the building with them, no?
Anyhow- just a pet peeve about Avengers that's always bugged me....

[Deleted]

It died?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[crazy_asian_man]

I enjoy Cap more than MOS, for what it's worth. Cap is my #3 comic book movie of all time.

I am curious, Kev--- what is your 'top ten' like?

[crazy_asian_man]

It died?

It didn't look like it did....which is why it just seemed bizzare to me that they didn't tie up what looked like a micro-loose end. But, eh, it's nitpicking in an otherwise great fun, dumb superhero movie.

I'll give MOS one thing I hadn't before: It looks like it had great ambition, though of course it's debatable whether it reached it or not with everyone here....

[Deleted]

1. STM
2. Avengers
3. Cap
4. DKR
5. Rocketeer
6. MOS
7. SII
8. Iron Man 3
9. Batman Returns
10. SR

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[crazy_asian_man]

1. STM
2. Avengers
3. Cap
4. DKR
5. Rocketeer
6. MOS
7. SII
8. Iron Man 3
9. Batman Returns
10. SR

Interesting list--- I almost wish everyone did one of these, to get a better handle on where they're coming from.

After reading your SR review, it was neat to see that you appreciated a lot of what I also saw in it, but (and I'm not arguing but) I admit I find myself scratching my head as to how could see those things in SR, but like MOS better (or even DKR) and feel it was better made- but, as I have to remind myself: it's all preference and emotion... Also, I appreciate that you recognize people can disagree on what they see and not make them feel any less for doing so. I guess it's like a performance that two people don't agree on... either it worked for you or it didn't & it's still cool.

[crazy_asian_man]

I know we've probably talked this to death--- but interesting that Forbes put this article out about what 'was a flop/but not really' today:

www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/08/01/the-wolverine-waterworld-and-other-flops-that-werent/?partner=yahootix

The guys at JohnAugust.com have mentioned in their podcasts what's been mentioned here as well--- that marketing costs so much (although who doesn't feel like marketing dropped the ball on SR?)
that SR had to make a tremendous amount beyond just recouping the budget & that the studio doesn't get to keep all the grosses, but splits it with the theatres--- so, I guess in technical sense
the movies listed are flops- but in terms of numbers of people willing to get out of their butts to go even SEE this thing in the first place...

Well--- compared to the Lone Ranger and John Carter, one would think SR is a spectacular hit, no?

[Metallo]

I imagine Disney is going to lose a LOT more on Lone Ranger than WB did on Superman Returns for all kinds of reasons. Not just box office. It's at a spectacular level of flop so far. John Carter was a pretty embarrassing dissappointment domestically but it made a lot of money in foreign markets. That helped it look less like a failure. But like you said all thee films had huge marketing budgets that they probably didn't cover from their box office takes. SR was also burdened with god knows how much wasted money on the string of failed projects from before Singer had anything to do with Superman.

What's interesting is that Lone Rangers made (a little) more money than John Carter domestically but the reverse is true overseas. It just proves that some countries will eat up fx spectacle like John Carter's (and maybe the books are more well remembered) while Westerns do lousy business with non American audiences. Most of them just don't appreciate Westerns like Americans do and I can understand why. That romanticism of the western isn't there for non Americans the way it is for us. Most of them don't see the big deal.

[crazy_asian_man]

What's interesting is that Lone Rangers made (a little) more money than John Carter domestically but the reverse is true overseas. It just proves that some countries will eat up fx spectacle like John Carter's (and maybe the books are more well remembered) while Westerns do lousy business with non American audiences. Most of them just don't appreciate Westerns like Americans do and I can understand why. That romanticism of the western isn't there for non Americans the way it is for us. Most of them don't see the big deal.

I'm sure that Disney was counting primarily on the team that did Pirates of the Carribean to bring in the same (or similar) numbers, just based on the team + (some) name recognition.

The problem is: (which Disney found out) Even in the states, the westerns aren't/weren't a sure-fire sell.

Personally, I'm a little curious how it is as a rental...

[EnriqueH]

Aug 1, 2013 14:15:45 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I imagine Disney is going to lose a LOT more on Lone Ranger than WB did on Superman Returns for all kinds of reasons. Not just box office. It's at a spectacular level of flop so far. John Carter was a pretty embarrassing dissappointment domestically but it made a lot of money in foreign markets. That helped it look less like a failure. But like you said all thee films had huge marketing budgets that they probably didn't cover from their box office takes. SR was also burdened with god knows how much wasted money on the string of failed projects from before Singer had anything to do with Superman.

What's interesting is that Lone Rangers made (a little) more money than John Carter domestically but the reverse is true overseas. It just proves that some countries will eat up fx spectacle like John Carter's (and maybe the books are more well remembered) while Westerns do lousy business with non American audiences. Most of them just don't appreciate Westerns like Americans do and I can understand why. That romanticism of the western isn't there for non Americans the way it is for us. Most of them don't see the big deal.

I think there's a market for Westerns, *BUT* they gotta have that "great movie" stigma attached to it. True Grit had it, Unforgiven had it, Django had it, Maverick had it in a different way.

Lone Ranger didn't have it.

I do think there's a market for a great Lone Ranger movie and I think there's a good movie to be made about Lone Ranger, but it has to be done well. Johnny Depp as Tonto in *ANOTHER* weird role probably didn't help either. In fact, I think *he* is the main reason it bombed. The public is getting tired of his weird schtick.

[crazy_asian_man]

I think there's a market for Westerns, *BUT* they gotta have that "great movie" stigma attached to it. True Grit had it, Unforgiven had it, Django had it, Maverick had it in a different way.

Lone Ranger didn't have it. .

I was curious.....but the word of mouth and bad reviews made me not want to bother. Hearing that it wasn't funny enough for parody and not serious enough as a drama to make me care made me think of one thing: Green Lantern.

I think if they had sold it as 'the greatest ever told that you MUST see'- (like how STM was sold back in the day), I might have been more interested to rush out and see it.

[Deleted]

Most of the great Westerns didn't also cost $250 fucking million, even if you adjust for inflation. For that, Eastwood could make at least three Westerns.

[Metallo]

Aug 1, 2013 19:31:35 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

Aug 1, 2013 14:15:45 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I imagine Disney is going to lose a LOT more on Lone Ranger than WB did on Superman Returns for all kinds of reasons. Not just box office. It's at a spectacular level of flop so far. John Carter was a pretty embarrassing dissappointment domestically but it made a lot of money in foreign markets. That helped it look less like a failure. But like you said all thee films had huge marketing budgets that they probably didn't cover from their box office takes. SR was also burdened with god knows how much wasted money on the string of failed projects from before Singer had anything to do with Superman.

What's interesting is that Lone Rangers made (a little) more money than John Carter domestically but the reverse is true overseas. It just proves that some countries will eat up fx spectacle like John Carter's (and maybe the books are more well remembered) while Westerns do lousy business with non American audiences. Most of them just don't appreciate Westerns like Americans do and I can understand why. That romanticism of the western isn't there for non Americans the way it is for us. Most of them don't see the big deal.

I think there's a market for Westerns, *BUT* they gotta have that "great movie" stigma attached to it. True Grit had it, Unforgiven had it, Django had it, Maverick had it in a different way.

Lone Ranger didn't have it.

I do think there's a market for a great Lone Ranger movie and I think there's a good movie to be made about Lone Ranger, but it has to be done well. Johnny Depp as Tonto in *ANOTHER* weird role probably didn't help either. In fact, I think *he* is the main reason it bombed. The public is getting tired of his weird schtick.

Yeah there's a market for Westerns in the States but how often are Westerns looked at the same way around the rest of the world? Brads right if they're going to be made they should be made on modest budgets. That was always the appeal of the Western in the past with Studios. The could easily make their money back and then some because they were relatively cheap to produce and they had an audience they could depend on. Even the A Westerns didn't cost a crapload of money.

As for that US market...I think its been a long time since Westerns have appealed to a younger audience. Especially in this spectacle obsessed/image obsessed/product driven age. Hollywoods Pavlov'ed the younger generation fairly well. That's why so many are suckered by bad or lesser reboots even though the originals are more easily accessible for viewing than ever.

I do agree that Lone Ranger could have been a bigger hit and better movie than it was if it had been handled better

[crazy_asian_man]

Most of the great Westerns didn't also cost $250 fucking million, even if you adjust for inflation. For that, Eastwood could make at least three Westerns.

Very true!

[atp]

One of the best westerns ever made only cost $2.4 million.

It's from 1959 and starred Henry Fonda and Anthony Quinn.

Anyone seen it?

[Paul (ral)]

Didn't you already do that joke?