|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 26, 2012 9:36:10 GMT -5
As this thread is slipping into JJ Abrams/Ratner(?)'s Superman- Just curious: was Cavill the actor Ratner was going to go with? Does anyone know if this rumor (from awhile back) was solid? I know he was considered at one point, as was Matt Bomer.
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Dec 26, 2012 19:30:40 GMT -5
Please note that I agree that SR, by most conventional wisdom, would NOT be considered a box office failure. What I'm saying is, WB stacked the deck against it in advance. Had Superman: Flyby been made instead, we'd be waiting on Superman Part Four by next summer instead of a reboot. While that would have brought a whole host of problems on its own, it's the truth. It was a big, dumb, crowd-pleaser...everything SR was not. But it would have cost over 200 million bucks to make...in 2004 money. That's a lot. Too much for something that already had a history of failure attached to it. There was never gonna be an SR2. WB went with Singer's pitch because they knew it could be brought in relatively cheap, and everything else could be written off. Had it made another hundred million, they would have started the wheels turning in earnest. But everything was obfuscation, no treatments were written, NOTHING in SR indicates that there were greater plans in store for this world, and any jawing by Routh or Singer that they had "big plans" for a sequel were nothing more than PR. All in all, I wouldn't have wanted it to happen any other way. Superman Returns, love it or hate it, gave closure to the Donnerverse for many of us. It was what many of us needed to say "enough" and move on and look forward to a fresh take. It was our "rebound" girl, in a way--it helped us move on from what came before, but we knew deep down inside it wasn't going to last. If we had gotten Superman:Flyby, we would have gotten that big dumb action movie that was the total antithesis to Superman Returns. While Returns was too emotional, Flyby probably would not have been enough. And while we'd probably be on part 4 by now, as Val said, it probably would be about the same quality as X3 or Spiderman 3. Now, Man of Steel comes along, and--so far--seems to be firing on all cylinders. It seems like a fresh take on the character, but still, without a doubt, Superman. Looks to balance all of the elements--emotion, action, romance--but in a modern way. I don't know if an audience would have been ready for this without the closure of Superman Returns--and the sendoff it gave to Christopher Reeve's Superman. We would all be pissed they weren't using the Williams music, or using a crystal fortress, or using old footage of Marlon Brando as Jor-El. Some still are, I know--but the majority of us are now ready to move on BECAUSE of Superman Returns and the closure it brought, both good and bad... so for that, Superman Returns, we thank you.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 26, 2012 22:30:10 GMT -5
Interesting.... I guess I could see that.
I'm mainly bummed that I keep feeling like SR was a bridge to start something fresh, rather than a conclusion.... even with the tricky situation of the kid.
If we knew ahead of time that this would be the one and only Singer Superman film, I just wish that they would have closed up some of the loose ends better.... primarily the open-ended love triangle. If Richard died before the end, and Lois revealed to Supes that it was his son, it might have been contrived, but at least it would have suggested things being a bit more wrapped up.
Oh well.... Onto MOS. Hopefully it'll be so great on its own, that it'll make it easier to put the Donnerverse to the side....
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 27, 2012 8:28:27 GMT -5
Amen to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 14:24:01 GMT -5
Interesting that neither of S4 or SR were big enough flops to make you want to let go of the Donnerverse, the Williams music etc etc ;D
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 27, 2012 15:14:38 GMT -5
Looks like you got "ATP'd" Kris. If you're gonna call him out, make sure you quote him...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 16:44:02 GMT -5
Looks like you got "ATP'd" Kris. If you're gonna call him out, make sure you quote him... ;D ;D ;D A well I saw it and that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 2, 2013 14:15:03 GMT -5
FYI-
AMC is going to be replaying "superman returns" WITH MOVIE NOTES this month- you'll want to DVR it for sure, the tv-edit cut is actually not bad at all (a little tighter in pace) and if you dvr you won't have the commercials.
PLUS- the movie notes are very neat. those of us on the board probably won't learn anything new but its well done.
i'd like a version on dvd if i could manage it.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,813
|
Post by atp on Jan 2, 2013 14:27:40 GMT -5
Is there any chance that SR could become a cult classic in another 10-20 years?
Films like Flash Gordon and Big Trouble in Little China and Krull were considered crap and flopped at the time. But now they have a huge cult status.
Could SR be the same?
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 2, 2013 14:43:30 GMT -5
Is there any chance that SR could become a cult classic in another 10-20 years? Films like Flash Gordon and Big Trouble in Little China and Krull were considered crap and flopped at the time. But now they have a huge cult status. Could SR be the same? hating on it is a cult.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jan 4, 2013 13:41:25 GMT -5
Is there any chance that SR could become a cult classic in another 10-20 years? Films like Flash Gordon and Big Trouble in Little China and Krull were considered crap and flopped at the time. But now they have a huge cult status. Could SR be the same? Those movies were at least fun. SR was drab.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jan 6, 2013 4:15:15 GMT -5
SR is not exactly the type of film you want to watch with your buddies over a few beers and have a good time with.
I'd honestly rather stick a SW prequel on so we can LOL at it
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jan 6, 2013 10:27:08 GMT -5
Just for the record....
...an "R" rated movie about a foul-mouthed, pot-smoking teddy bear made $100 MILLION MORE WORLDWIDE than the most recognizable superhero of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jan 6, 2013 13:31:20 GMT -5
than the most recognizable superhero of all time. At this point, hasn't Batman taken that crown?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 6, 2013 23:42:19 GMT -5
True- it takes itself very seriously and the hero is in a depressed funk for a good chunk of the film. Blade Runner was much the same, but the difference there, I think, is that for a number of Superman fans, they didn't want that tone from a Superman film. (My best friend hates SR as 'too emo' for a Superman film, but I love that Singer made the film he wanted to make, with his sensibilities mixed with Donners model.)
If anything, it's more 'art' film than 'cult' film. The drama dominates more than the superheroics do. I love the film overall, but I would definitely not describe it as a 'fun' film, either.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 7, 2013 23:01:37 GMT -5
Just for the record.... ...an "R" rated moUvie about a foul-mouthed, pot-smoking teddy bear made $100 MILLION MORE WORLDWIDE than the most recognizable superhero of all time. Yeah And "gangum style" has a billion YouTube hits
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jan 8, 2013 9:30:12 GMT -5
Just for the record.... ...an "R" rated moUvie about a foul-mouthed, pot-smoking teddy bear made $100 MILLION MORE WORLDWIDE than the most recognizable superhero of all time. Yeah And "gangum style" has a billion YouTube hits Okay, thanks for that. But I was making comparisons to 2 movies in the, you know, movie industry. Not the...um...upload-your-own-videos-to-the-web industry.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jan 8, 2013 12:32:13 GMT -5
oh i'm not picking on you, shog, just that "popular" and "good" are not the same.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jan 8, 2013 13:41:34 GMT -5
oh i'm not picking on you, shog, just that "popular" and "good" are not the same. No worries, I was targetting the 'successful' angle. Just pointing out that the $400M line was achieved with much less going for it at a fraction of the cost.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jan 8, 2013 14:32:30 GMT -5
$400M is $400M. But, WB wanted more.
Lovie Smith got fired by the Bears after a 10-6 record. Now, a 10-6 record by itself is pretty damn good. But they missed the playoffs two years in a row after starting off well, but he couldn't get the team to take the next step.
Superman Returns was a modest success, but it didn't take the next step. Failure to meet super-high expectations will get you every time.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Jan 8, 2013 15:30:57 GMT -5
$400M is $400M. But, WB wanted more. I disagree. Spending $500M and getting $400M back would be a disaster. Spending $200-$260M and getting $400M was below expectations. Spending $50M and getting $500M is a massive success. Man of Steel better do well over $400M or the character could be dead in cinema. It's all about the ROI.
|
|
|
Post by ger-el on Jan 8, 2013 17:53:18 GMT -5
I think the big problem is no one really knows what the actual cost of SR was. We know how much it made, but there is no real figure of what is cost to make. The production cost seems to be inflated by WB to make up for past losses in failed production. I'd like to know what just SR cost and then make a better decision of its success or failure.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Jan 8, 2013 19:43:38 GMT -5
SR still has some major money up on screen, especially during all the Kryptonite Continent scenes.
I would say SR itself cost close to $180 - $200 million
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 9, 2013 2:10:47 GMT -5
Good point...
But- wasn't there also an announcement at one time by the head of WB that SR 2 was going to get a greenlight, but that the budget was going to be less than SR?
If so--- if that was a genuine official announcement- then that would suggest more (after-that-decision) second-guessing, bad timing and fear (if not politics) doomed the sequel more than box office returns.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Jan 9, 2013 15:50:51 GMT -5
It was probably a pre-announcement. Same way we keep hearing Prometheus 2 is happening, yet we haven't heard anything official.
|
|