belloq
New Member
www.amazon.com/rosetta_stone/%hovitos "5 Stars"
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by belloq on Dec 3, 2009 13:39:55 GMT -5
I doubt it since the subject was completely avoided in Episode III. That was a big let down for me. I thought the whole thing was gonna be this big mystery that would be unraveled in the last one. I had originally thought that maybe Mace Windu would wind up being Sifo Dias and be Palpatine's inside man. This would be why Yoda's telepathy or whatever would be clouded all the time, because he'd have this secret Sith next to him all the time messing with his mojo. I swear I thought that was the whole deal with the purple lightsaber. It'd turn out good = blue and green. bad = red and purple. Anyway, that wasn't the case and I hadn't figured out shit. So, who was Sifo Dias? Ahh, nevermind. This is the SR thread, anyway, not the SW thread. Good post c_a_m. |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 3, 2009 13:42:28 GMT -5
Adding the budgets of other failed attempts to SR's grand total isn't fair to Singer. That's $40 Million dollars we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 3, 2009 14:17:08 GMT -5
Kind of hit me this morning- The whole split I'm realizing with SR may be because Supes is an icon, and the idea of Superman having a son with Lois out of wedlock is so repugnant to some fans (one of my closest friends also says this is a killer for him) that it's like having (almost) a religious figure like Christ having sex in "The Temptation of Christ" movie. The quality of the movie might not even register to those fans--- the idea already may have closed them off. (Plus maybe not enough action). In other words, if it was another superhero character instead, and called "Supreme (the Image comics version of Superman) Returns" instead, maybe Superman fans might have actually enjoyed it as long as it wasn't SUPERMAN and thought it a good enough film, since it's not tying it into the icon? Just a thought. That and The Welling fanboys could never accept SR and Brandon as Superman. Fact. I already posted this months ago in the other thread but here it's again (this is only part of the article), Fox got bigger hit, but WB happy with Singer
Anne Thompson
Aug 18, 2006
As summer nears its end, "X-Men: The Last Stand," which nabbed middling reviews, seems to have exceeded expectations with a $441 million worldwide gross, while "Superman Returns" -- though it earned a strong, positive ranking of 76% on RottenTomatoes.com -- has yet to break the $200 million mark domestically. Although "Superman" is still playing overseas with a $347 million worldwide gross to date, it has failed to return on its lofty expectations. The drama behind Bryan Singer's departure from 20th Century Fox's "X-Men" franchise to direct "Superman" for Warner Bros. Pictures left much Sturm und Drang in its wake. But who were the real winners and losers on this deal?
Warners was delighted to poach Singer -- a proven tentpole director with a canny understanding of the action-adventure universe -- from Fox. He was available because Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairman Tom Rothman had been playing a game of chicken with him on his "Last Stand" deal: Singer wanted to cash in on the final installment of the "X-Men" saga. When Warners lured Singer away with the chance to direct "Superman" and a top-dollar deal -- sources say it was $10 million vs. 7% of the gross -- Rothman was livid. He promptly shut down Singer's Bad Hat Harry Prods. office on the Fox lot -- though Singer returned the next day to the Fox set of his TV series "House."
"We were in a heightened emotional state of mind," Fox president Hutch Parker says. "We believed that Bryan was going to do 'X-Men 3,' and when he made a different choice, it was scary and daunting to be losing someone so essential to the expression of the franchise. We had to rethink how to approach this. There was a lot of anxiety for everybody."
Rather than wait for Singer, Fox made the decision to go full steam ahead. "We needed the movie," Parker says, "and it was critical that it get made in that window. We were wary about where the comic movie would be in the larger cycle."
Fox first proceeded with director Matthew Vaughn and then Brett Ratner to meet the tentpole's original May 26 release date. But it cost the studio to make that target. (According to sources close to the movie, "Last Stand" cost about $168 million after tax rebates.) Producer Lauren Shuler Donner shouldered the burden of wrestling the movie into submission; the studio rushed two pricey screenwriters, Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg, to complete their scripts; and the studio paid dearly to get elaborate visual effects from about six FX houses, including Weta Digital, finished in time. In the short term, the studio clearly won the summer 2006 battle with Warners. But where is the "X-Men" franchise going forward?
Singer was the creative force behind the "X-Men" franchise, and now he's gone. Ratner is not in the picture; the sense in Hollywood is that Fox scored with "Last Stand" despite the director, not because of him. With its "X-Men" actors now too expensive to reassemble, Fox is proceeding with development on two "X-Men" spinoffs, starring Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (David Benioff and David Ayer have written drafts) and Ian McKellen as Magneto. The bloom is definitely off the "X-Men" rose. One could argue that in the long term, the studio would have been better off paying Singer to keep him or waiting to get him back. (Rothman and Singer eventually buried the hatchet over lunch.)
Freed from Fox's tough budget controls ("X-Men" cost $80 million and "X-Men 2" $120 million), Singer was ecstatic to be moving to a studio like Warners, which was willing to let him spend. But at the July 2005 Comic-Con International in San Diego, perhaps in a heady state of jet lag from his long flight from the "Superman" set in Australia, Singer launched the film's marketing campaign on a spectacularly wrong foot, happily proclaiming that the movie he was shooting was the studio's most expensive movie ever and might cost $250 million. From that moment on, Warners marketing tried to manage that number.
In fact, Warners failed to get out from behind that disastrous budget. The Internet ran rampant with reports that the movie was in the $300 million range. When the studio admitted to writing off about $60 million in costs from all the previous iterations of "Superman," some reporters added that to the studio's official $209 million budget -- a figure no one ever believed. If Warners had convinced Singer from the start to make a movie closer to two hours, it might have saved some money and come out ahead, instead of leaving entire $10 million sequences on the cutting-room floor.
"'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."
But what really mattered to Warners was the successful relaunch of its franchise, and to that end they wanted to keep their director happy -- even if it meant letting him deliver a two-hour, 40-minute movie. "If Warners goes ahead with the 'Superman Returns' sequel," says producer Don Murphy ("From heck"), "then they've ended up well because they've gone from having a wannabe franchise to a real franchise."
Returning to Comic-Con in July, Singer announced that he and Warners are in discussions about doing the sequel for 2009. But Singer said he "had certain issues" with Warners' marketing campaign. He also acknowledged his film's competition. "We had a little 'Pirates' and a little 'Prada.' It is a chick flick to some degree; it is a love story."
As challenging as it was for Singer to re-establish "Superman" by building on Richard Donner's 1978 classic, he also was working with a decidedly retro hero from a bygone time. There was little that Warners marketing could do to make Superman seem less square, wholesome and, finally, old-fashioned. (The "X-Men" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchises do seem younger, hipper and more dangerous.) Choosing to reprise Lex Luthor might have been a too-familiar choice as well. "Bryan kicked ass," journalist Cheo Hodari Coker says. "But the principal argument does hold: Does the world really need Superman? Clark is a big blue Boy Scout. I wonder if this generation really has any heroes. Everyone is pushing in some way to be unheroic."
But Singer does know where he has to go with the sequel. He told Comic-Can fans that he would add more "scary sci-fi in the next movie." "We can now go to into the action realm."
While some "Superman Returns" viewers objected to the addition of an illegitimate child of Lois Lane and Superman (which never appeared in any of the comic books), Singer intends to proceed with that story arc. "There's a lot of room to go with that character and his upbringing and human background and Krypton heritage," he says. "He's the genetic material of both parents. Superman doesn't have that. It's hard to write for Superman. He's a tough character to create insurmountable obstacles for. This one is unique and insurmountable." For the sequel, Singer will be able to expand and play around with what he's introduced, and "bring in more of the energy" of the contemporary comics, he promised.
Singer likely will do another movie before the sequel to "Superman Returns," according to sources, possibly Warner Independent's "The Mayor of Castro Street" or "Logan's Run" at the big studio. Finally, though, Warners president Alan Horn and production chief Jeff Robinov want this tentpole director to be making movies on their lot -- and not Fox's. And that may, in the long run, be the real payoff to their "Superman Returns" investment.www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246Oh, how things change... and of course the strike, Singer doing another movie instead of focusing on the sequel, WB's indecision and now the law suit DIDN'T help either..  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 3, 2009 14:45:30 GMT -5
A lot of George Reeves fans felt the same in the 70s
and if Smallville only has 3M viewers, not all of them are retarded enough to miss the film cos of Welling, then I don't think that would make much of a dent anyway.
I was the single only one at work looking forward to SR. The ones on the fence didn't bother to see it once the "so so" reviews came out
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 3, 2009 14:47:44 GMT -5
Smallville viewers average around 12 Million worldwide. I think Conor mentioned that before.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 3, 2009 15:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 3, 2009 15:46:46 GMT -5
Proof? ;D Marry me.  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 3, 2009 16:26:37 GMT -5
Proof? ;D Marry me. Sorry I was eating some yummy lunch  , and I'm afraid I can't do that since I'm already married.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 3, 2009 16:42:25 GMT -5
I remember waiting in line HOURS before the first showing- with about 25 other people, and more people filtered in. I was shocked that there wasn't more people lined up to see it, although I'm certainly glad that it made $400 million (still a big accomplishment, wish it were "Dark Knight" numbers, of course - but nowhere near the disaster naysayers try to make it out to be).
I have to admit--- the SR trailers were pretty unremarkable--- and this is coming from a BIG SR fan!
When "Superman" first came out--- there WERE no other big-scale superhero blockbusters- to compete with. Even later on, when Burton's "Batman" came out, the heat seemed to have fizzled for superhero love in general, and I'm sure it fueled the box office heat at that time.
At the time SR came out:
The "Spiderman" and "Xmen" series had come out, along with a handful of other superhero films with a budget in the $100 mil range--- so it wasn't really a giant event. Add to that, "Smallville" giving a general public who weren't that famiiiar with the comic book, an idea that maybe there wasn't anything new coming with a new Superman movie if they weren't that keen on the free tv show that was still on.
And--- I'm sure I've told my story too-many times about the lack of curiosity from the schoolkids on the Superman character that particular summer, to my dismay. ("Pirates of the Carribean" was their new sensation- not Superman).
A new villain (Brainiac) that was visually dynamic and interesting might have helped the 'must-see' factor in the trailer..... instead, it looked in the trailer like it was similiar elements.
If "Man of Steel" were okayed, I'm sure that there would definitely be a curiosity factor from SR lover and SR haters alike, if we got to see the first live-action big budget confrontation between those two.
Here's hoping that a new president in charge of Warners ADORES SR and somehow convinces Singer and company to do MOS--- pretty unlikely, but then again, (in spite of Thau's editing), we got to see the Donner Cut against all hope....
*crossing fingers*
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 3, 2009 16:55:17 GMT -5
Sorry I was eating some yummy lunch , and I'm afraid I can't do that since I'm already married. This is Star's friendy way of saying, "Talk to the hand!" ;D ;D ;D Your husband is a lucky man. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 3, 2009 18:06:54 GMT -5
UPDATE:Ok guys, this is really embarrassing  but here is what happened to the thread: First off, theres nothing shady going on, so, put away the conspiracy caps ;D Yesterday, I was jabbing with Ye5man. He was making more comments insinuating that Stargazer only likes SR because she has a crush on Routh. I replied by doing the same to him with Stallone. The argument got silly & out of hand at that point & it was starting to clutter the thread, so, I locked the thread & started to copy the argument stuff into a new thread I was creating for it in the Diner section where the conversation could be continued without cluttering the SR thread. As I was copying the argument stuff into the new potential thread, I was deleting it from the SR thread. Well, after I had copied one of the posts from the SR thread & pasted it into the potential new thread, I went back to delete it from the SR thread, but I accidentally hit the Remove Topic button instead of the Remove Post button. After I realized what I had done, I tried desperately to hit back & maybe undo the delete, but, alas, there is no such function. I spent the rest of the evening with the support group from proboards trying to figure out if there is any way to recover the thread. As it turns out, if someone accidentally deletes their whole board, it can be recovered, but sadly, as I am finding out, it looks like there is no possible way of recovering a thread. Ive been online all day trying to find a cahed version of the thread on different search engines to no avail. All I can say is that I'm very very sorry about deleting that fine thread & all the posts & updates that everyone put into it. I hope you will forgive me as we start this new thread in its place. Rest assured that I am still working with proboards support to find out if there is any way to restore the old thread. If a solution arises, it will be reposted. So, thats it. My dumb ass simply hit a wrong button, & I accidentally deleted my favorite thread on the board. I'm sorry to everyone who took the time to post in it. Again, I'm sorry for fucking up so very badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 3, 2009 18:12:01 GMT -5
That's a poor design, wouldn't you say? A missed click and you can delete everything, jeez. Might I suggest LensCrafters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 3, 2009 18:14:02 GMT -5
I guess it's kinda fitting. The sequel up and disappeared like a fart in the wind. And the thread followed suit. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Dec 3, 2009 18:21:33 GMT -5
Remember at the beginning of 2006, when people expected Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa to be crap, and Superman Returns and the Donner Cut to be good?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 3, 2009 18:23:41 GMT -5
I accidentally deleted a thread once on the old board. But it was a Chance thread and no one seemed to notice or care. ;D
ATP: Remember when people thought Indy 4 would be great and Die Hard 4 would suck?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 3, 2009 18:29:54 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D Thanks Jim, knowing you accidentally did the same thing once made me feel better. Oh & here it is again for anyone who missed it before we started page 2: UPDATE:Ok guys, this is really embarrassing but here is what happened to the thread: First off, theres nothing shady going on, so, put away the conspiracy caps ;D Yesterday, I was jabbing with Ye5man. He was making more comments insinuating that Stargazer only likes SR because she has a crush on Routh. I replied by doing the same to him with Stallone. The argument got silly & out of hand at that point & it was starting to clutter the thread, so, I locked the thread & started to copy the argument stuff into a new thread I was creating for it in the Diner section where the conversation could be continued without cluttering the SR thread. As I was copying the argument stuff into the new potential thread, I was deleting it from the SR thread. Well, after I had copied one of the posts from the SR thread & pasted it into the potential new thread, I went back to delete it from the SR thread, but I accidentally hit the Remove Topic button instead of the Remove Post button. After I realized what I had done, I tried desperately to hit back & maybe undo the delete, but, alas, there is no such function. I spent the rest of the evening with the support group from proboards trying to figure out if there is any way to recover the thread. As it turns out, if someone accidentally deletes their whole board, it can be recovered, but sadly, as I am finding out, it looks like there is no possible way of recovering a thread. Ive been online all day trying to find a cahed version of the thread on different search engines to no avail. All I can say is that I'm very very sorry about deleting that fine thread & all the posts & updates that everyone put into it. I hope you will forgive me as we start this new thread in its place. Rest assured that I am still working with proboards support to find out if there is any way to restore the old thread. If a solution arises, it will be reposted. So, thats it. My dumb ass simply hit a wrong button, & I accidentally deleted my favorite thread on the board. I'm sorry to everyone who took the time to post in it. Again, I'm sorry for fucking up so very badly. |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 3, 2009 18:38:26 GMT -5
I guess it's kinda fitting. The sequel up and disappeared like a fart in the wind. And the thread followed suit. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ATP, I don't think we all felt that way. I think most of us were hoping for a kickass movie. We wanted Sly to redeem himself, and that he did.  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 3, 2009 19:26:33 GMT -5
Sorry I was eating some yummy lunch , and I'm afraid I can't do that since I'm already married. This is Star's friendy way of saying, "Talk to the hand!" ;D ;D ;D Your husband is a lucky man. ;D And who knows, maybe in another life, legsy. But we can still continue being internet buddies, right?  MAV said,  Well, it was an accident. I know you meant well, so it's ok, don't feel so bad please. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 3, 2009 20:13:14 GMT -5
I doubt it since the subject was completely avoided in Episode III. That was a big let down for me. I thought the whole thing was gonna be this big mystery that would be unraveled in the last one. I had originally thought that maybe Mace Windu would wind up being Sifo Dias and be Palpatine's inside man. This would be why Yoda's telepathy or whatever would be clouded all the time, because he'd have this secret Sith next to him all the time messing with his mojo. I swear I thought that was the whole deal with the purple lightsaber. It'd turn out good = blue and green. bad = red and purple. Anyway, that wasn't the case and I hadn't figured out shit. So, who was Sifo Dias? Ahh, nevermind. This is the SR thread, anyway, not the SW thread. Good post c_a_m. damn belloq, thats brilliant! |
|
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 Dec 3, 2009 21:22:13 GMT -5
I was the single only one at work looking forward to SR. The ones on the fence didn't bother to see it once the "so so" reviews came out \ EXACTLY what my experience was. Of course, I gave it a so-so review as well. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 3, 2009 21:37:35 GMT -5
Every single movie fan that I know in my circles was looking forward to SR & they all loved it. And they still do.
|
|
|
|
Post by reevevsrouth on Dec 4, 2009 1:37:19 GMT -5
so whens SR 2 coming out? |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 4, 2009 3:02:50 GMT -5
Not soon enough |
|
belloq
New Member
www.amazon.com/rosetta_stone/%hovitos "5 Stars"
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by belloq on Dec 4, 2009 3:09:28 GMT -5
That was a big let down for me. I thought the whole thing was gonna be this big mystery that would be unraveled in the last one. I had originally thought that maybe Mace Windu would wind up being Sifo Dias and be Palpatine's inside man. This would be why Yoda's telepathy or whatever would be clouded all the time, because he'd have this secret Sith next to him all the time messing with his mojo. I swear I thought that was the whole deal with the purple lightsaber. It'd turn out good = blue and green. bad = red and purple. Anyway, that wasn't the case and I hadn't figured out shit. So, who was Sifo Dias? Ahh, nevermind. This is the SR thread, anyway, not the SW thread. Good post c_a_m. damn belloq, thats brilliant! well thanks, jor. i mean, you should see how the prequels play out in my head. they're so much better. less cg. young anakin's played by robert duvall. a few naked girls with large 70's afros. its good. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 4, 2009 5:50:22 GMT -5
Of course, I gave it a so-so review as well. haha, so did I, which probably didn't help the cause. No way was I gonna tell them to go see it though. My credibility would have suffered. |
|
, and I'm afraid I can't do that since I'm already married. 
but here is what happened to the thread:
Well, it was an accident. I know you meant well, so it's ok, don't feel so bad please. 
