atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,813
|
Post by atp on Feb 10, 2011 4:11:44 GMT -5
ok, here's my last bit on this one. it's been 5 years since SR and plenty of time to reflect. the fact is, superman returns failed. it just did. i'm sorry. i take NO joy in this. i will incur resentment from friends. but it's the truth. what i "want" is neither here nor there. i " want" for bigfoot and loch ness to be real. they aren't. i " wanted" superman returns to be the end-all be-all epic fanatsy film for generations to come. i wanted the picture to own, to show superman in a transcendant, superlative, witty and exciting way to fulfill fan expectations and win over new people like never before. i wanted LOTR, star wars, and citizen caine rolled into one 2 1/2 hour monster film. oh, it had LOT going for it (reeve clone, donnerverse angle etc) but at the end of the day even those of us that like it, and even those that i know who adore it, in fact folks i know and love who practically worship it- would STILL re-edit it and offer suggestions to improve it. we valiantly defend it agianst the alternative- and we SHOULD- because the alternatives are ghastly, but it simply was NOT what we wanted and needed. it was a stop-gap. something to hold the door lest worse ideas come to fruition. to be fair, in a way we brought this on ourselves. and we were warned. i remember reading at superman cinema words of wisdom we happily ignored. i remember being admonished NOT to ask for a donner cut of SII - because the movie was NEVER finished and we should accept restored deleted/alternate scenes in a nice doc, then maybe fan cut would let us vicariously imagine what might have been, but nooooooo.... we had to have it and it wasn't anywhere near our hopes/expectations. how could it be? the mystique was off the charts. like star wars prequels! we had TOO LONG to wait, TOO LONG to speculate, TOO LONG to age and grow.. there was NO way a film could live up. and the restraint, the admonishment was right. and i remember skeptics saying that there was a "pied piper" mentality to the idea of bryan singer. yeah he made great x-men and other flicks- he was going to go back to donnerverse... it seemed soooo perfect. but superman returns was not what it needed to be. you want to blame greedy WB? go ahead. i have. but while it was unfair to saddle singer with jon peters' debt- the fact is, while WB was diappointed with the $$ returns, they WERE going to let him do another, with ( we have to accept, understandable) conditions. he passed. WB was going to let singer do SR2 and he passed. before i get sheckaced, let me point out that i will continue to champion SR over every other competing superman treatment we were aware o,f save for wolfgang peterson's "worlds finest" ( and even then, in theory, going back to donnerverse would have been very desirable ) but i am an adult and i live in real-world. i love fantasy ( i'm here ain't i? ) but i rudder myself with reality. the reality is that SR bit off more than it chewed. a noble attempt, a lofty goal. but it did not accomplish what it set out to do. yes, it's a fine film. i watch it fortnightly. but i accept that "my" superman ( ie the reeve/donnerverse superman ) is closed. it's a generational thing. i will always have it, and my kids will have nostalgia for it, but the charcater is not mine or yours or any other's in any sense of ownership. i am NOT saying anyone has to "roll" with anything to come down the pike- ( i HAVE been pretty blunt about the snyder flick and smallville, for that matter i never cared for lois and clark!) but superman is in other hands, in other contexts ( "young justice" and " batman brave and bold" are pretty damn cool) and we can't change that. donner-salkind-verse is over. forever. it was beautiful, it was often goofy sometimes awful. with superman returns we had a gleaming, shining moment to hold up the loftiest bits for just a bit of renaissance before closing the door and sweeping the floor even though we know the wrecking ball is going to raze the building. heck even DC comics thought it ok to bend the official continuity towards donnerverse- , which they hadn't bothered to do back in the donnerverse heyday. so that's it. a signifigant episode (which overlapped and was contemporary to several other superman adaptations ) of superman has finished. and we see a new one on the horizon. meanwhile tv shows and cartoons keep coming. it's been real. i love it, and i'm grateful for it, but it's time to move on. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 10, 2011 7:50:24 GMT -5
sometimes in the a.m. i make emotive posts that i later cringe about. too late now... you've seen it. ;D
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 10, 2011 9:25:51 GMT -5
Should have moved on from the Donner-verse well over a decade ago IMO.
I'm embracing a full revamp and a new telling of the character. DonnerVerse is stale now IMO and too much controversy over Superman 2 and SR.
Yes, they may screw it up, but that's not a reason not to do IMO
I do wish they would retain the classic theme though; a different interpretation if needs be.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 10, 2011 10:28:09 GMT -5
If nothing else, a new Superman origin will allow the filmmakers to properly exploit Superman's alien heritage. With Krypton and its destruction you're not just given the possibility/probability of an endless parade of Phantom Zone villains, but you also get Brainiac, The Eradicator, a limitless array of Kryptonian weapons and technology (after all, Jor-El was Krypton's greatest scientist, in a society that prided itself on its scientific achievements), and still more.
With the destruction of Krypton you can tweak that it was because of outside forces (Black Zero, or why not Mongul and Warworld, or even Darkseid for fuck's sake!). You have the neighboring moon of Daxam providing even more super powered beings. Any/all of these can be hinted at in the first 20 minutes of a new Superman movie, with more introduced/explained via flashbacks or information sessions in the Fortress. What if Supergirl's Argo City isn't this little Utopia, but becomes a floating "failed state" as its resources run out, and the Supergirl who comes to Earth isn't some perfect angel, but a desperate refugee who NEEDS to enlist her cousin to help the remaining Kryptonians...who may or may not want help.
Enough of Superman matching wits with Luthor. Enough of the "will they/won't they" horseshit with Clark/Superman/Lois. You wanna make Superman fresh? Exploit the most fantastic elements FIRST and THEN bring in the relationship stuff.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 10, 2011 10:45:30 GMT -5
The Eradicator fucking with his mind would be terrific in a sequel; shades of "Evil Superman" in S3.
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Feb 10, 2011 10:53:48 GMT -5
Can't disagree with any of that, Jor-L.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 10, 2011 11:11:31 GMT -5
Superman Returns didn't fail me. I think it was a very solid reintroduction of the character.
I wanted more of that universe, think the Donner/Singerverse still had so much potential for even bigger things. Besides, Batman Begins got a sequel, which did much better than the first. Why couldn't a SR sequel do the same? I blame WB and Singer for this reboot, it wasn't really necessary, imo.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 11:16:42 GMT -5
Superman Returns IMHO did NOT fail. A lot of fans and critics liked/loved it. FYI I do not speak for all fans/critics, but, a lot of fans/critics did. Singer really understood the Superman character. I'm very proud to have SR in my Superman collection. Superman Returns was also nominated for an academy award for special effects and won an award at the 33rd Saturn awards for best fantasy film. Not a failure in my book, not at all. Singer did decide to do other projects. Other boards I'm a member of about Superman have fans that have doubts about Snyder (Please correct me if I'm mistaken about that, *refering to this board* I think that some of you here also) I've Googled and researched a lot of websites, not just in North America, also in Germany, France and the list goes on... where SR has been given favorable reviews. I do respect those here that think it failed/disliked it. I'm hoping that in time that maybe those disliked it, learn to at least like it and treasure it as part of the Superman mythos. I'm really enjoying being part of this Super forum. Everyone is so nice here and I feel like we're all part of a big Superman family. We've had fantastic, wonderful films with Chris Reeve and that also includes Routh in Superman Returns. In conclusion, I sincerely hope all of you enjoy the new Superman movie.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 11:35:55 GMT -5
Superman Returns didn't fail me. I think it was a very solid reintroduction of the character. I wanted more of that universe, think the Donner/Singerverse still had so much potential for even bigger things. Besides, Batman Begins got a sequel, which did much better than the first. Why couldn't a SR sequel do the same? I blame WB and Singer for this reboot, it wasn't really necessary, imo. I 100% agree. IMHO it wasn't. I'm also on other forums where many fans are saying the same thing (not everyone) but quite a few. IMHO SR should have gotten a sequel, to my recollection Singer was planning on bringing Brainiac as character in the film... *I am also willing to be open minded and see what the next movie will be like, I'm also looking forward to seeing it*
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 11:42:15 GMT -5
I do wish they would retain the classic theme though; a different interpretation if needs be. Me too. I love the classic theme
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Feb 10, 2011 11:50:05 GMT -5
Superman Returns didn't fail me. I think it was a very solid reintroduction of the character. I wanted more of that universe, think the Donner/Singerverse still had so much potential for even bigger things. Besides, Batman Begins got a sequel, which did much better than the first. Why couldn't a SR sequel do the same? I blame WB and Singer for this reboot, it wasn't really necessary, imo. I 100% agree. IMHO it wasn't. I'm also on other forums where many fans are saying the same thing (not everyone) but quite a few. IMHO SR should have gotten a sequel, to my recollection Singer was planning on bringing Brainiac as character in the film... *I am also willing to be open minded and see what the next movie will be like, I'm also looking forward to seeing it* What you two said - although I wouldn't blame Singer outright. I blame Valkyrie. Good film, but not worth the delays and ultimate SR2 cancellation.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 11:54:34 GMT -5
Superman Returns didn't fail me. I think it was a very solid reintroduction of the character. I wanted more of that universe, think the Donner/Singerverse still had so much potential for even bigger things. Besides, Batman Begins got a sequel, which did much better than the first. Why couldn't a SR sequel do the same? I blame WB and Singer for this reboot, it wasn't really necessary, imo. I 100% agree. IMHO it wasn't. I'm also on other forums where many fans are saying the same thing (not everyone) but quite a few. IMHO SR should have gotten a sequel, to my recollection Singer was planning on bringing Brainiac as character in the film... *I am also willing to be open minded and see what the next movie will be like, I'm also looking forward to seeing it* What you two said - although I wouldn't blame Singer outright. I blame Valkyrie. Good film, but not worth the delays and ultimate SR2 cancellation. I 100% agree with what you said. Thanks for mentioning Valkyrie, forgot about that *oops* oh well...we can't turn back time like Superman, can we?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 10, 2011 12:34:38 GMT -5
Eh, Singer was so wishy washy. First he was going to make a movie about Harvey Milk. Then he was going to remake Logan's Run. None of those happened, and someone else beat him to the punch with Milk. Then he decides to make Valkyrie. At no point did he ever seem to address making the Superman sequel. Just that "Wrath of Khan" statement that told us nothing. It's like he just assumed he was locked in, and could get around to it whenever he wanted.
Compare that to how Nolan did things. He has a healthy relationship with Warner Bros, and can get the leeway to make other films like The Prestige and Inception without WB getting antsy to churn out another Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 10, 2011 13:20:35 GMT -5
when i said it was a failure- i didn't mean ( and quite clearly said ) that it was without merit. i said that it was better than alternatives and that i personally champion it.
it did NOT succeed in winning over support from the majority of movie goers. people go to see movies without necessarily being a big fan of a particular character.
more people went to see "sherlock holmes" than who actually read doyle's work. the movie was a success because it pleased a majority of holmes fans AND the general audiences. there have been innumerable holmes movies, many of them failed to succeed outside of the niche, but some of them did succeed in bringing the character to mainstream. likewise SR- it did succeed with some of us- but as i said above, even thoseof us that love it acknowledge flaws the biggest being missed oppurtunities- but it did not succeed in winning over a majority of superman fans, much less the movie going public which evidently has little interest in SR or SR2.
and for god's sake- IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT OTHER MOVIES GOT SEQUELS. it is irrelevant. it means NOTHING to this movie. many fine fantasy films never get sequels, many shabby films do.
for the producers and director of SR, for warner bros, and for the apparent lack of public support (compared other "franchise" films that had more momentum) the feeling is/was that they wanted to do something else. ALL parties (save routh himself) wanted to move on.
if the support for SR was overwhelming then WB would have continued. even if singer was too flakey they'd find someone to continue it. look at all the directors who made bond flicks, or harry potter flicks... those series were continued because it was overwhelmingly clear that audiences wanted more. SR did not inspire that same impression with the powers that be.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 10, 2011 13:25:19 GMT -5
I'd be curious if there are any other factors involved. I admit I could totally be giving Singer too much credit.... Wish I were working in Hollywood at a level high enough to know. Hopefully someone is able to interview Singer and get from the horse's mouth EXACTLY what the deal was..... From what's been out there, it looks like Valkyrie ran over, just when WB gave the go ahead--- and when Valkyrie was over, then WB turned the green light into a 'uh, let's wait awhile until we're sure again' light. Looks like. But, again, unless someone directly asks Singer in an interview, who knows 100% for sure?
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 13:33:45 GMT -5
when i said it was a failure- i didn't mean ( and quite clearly said ) that it was without merit. i said that it was better than alternatives and that i personally champion it.it did NOT succeed in winning over support from the majority of movie goers. people go to see movies without necessarily being a big fan of a particular character. more people went to see "sherlock holmes" than who actually read doyle's work. the movie was a success because it pleased a majority of holmes fans AND the general audiences. there have been innumerable holmes movies, many of them failed to succeed outside of the niche, but some of them did succeed in bringing the character to mainstream. likewise SR- it did succeed with some of us- but as i said above, even thoseof us that love it acknowledge flaws the biggest being missed oppurtunities- but it did not succeed in winning over a majority of superman fans, much less the movie going public which evidently has little interest in SR or SR2. and for god's sake- IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT OTHER MOVIES GOT SEQUELS. it is irrelevant. it means NOTHING to this movie. many fine fantasy films never get sequels, many shabby films do. for the producers and director of SR, for warner bros, and for the apparent lack of public support (compared other "franchise" films that had more momentum) the feeling is/was that they wanted to do something else. ALL parties (save routh himself) wanted to move on. if the support for SR was overwhelming then WB would have continued. even if singer was too flakey they'd find someone to continue it. look at all the directors who made bond flicks, or harry potter flicks... those series were continued because it was overwhelmingly clear that audiences wanted more. SR did not inspire that same impression with the powers that be. Interesting points. I don't agree with all of it. I do respect your opinion and I really like what you said about it being better than alternatives and personally championing it. Great Rao can you imagine 'Superman Lives" instead? ;D In time IMHO SR in time will be treasured amongst Superman fans. I hope that you also really enjoy the new Superman movie.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 13:37:04 GMT -5
sometimes in the a.m. i make emotive posts that i later cringe about. too late now... you've seen it. ;D I had a good chuckle over that. ;D One things for sure, we're sure passionate about our love for Superman.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 10, 2011 14:02:08 GMT -5
when i said it was a failure- i didn't mean ( and quite clearly said ) that it was without merit. i said that it was better than alternatives and that i personally champion it.it did NOT succeed in winning over support from the majority of movie goers. people go to see movies without necessarily being a big fan of a particular character. more people went to see "sherlock holmes" than who actually read doyle's work. the movie was a success because it pleased a majority of holmes fans AND the general audiences. there have been innumerable holmes movies, many of them failed to succeed outside of the niche, but some of them did succeed in bringing the character to mainstream. likewise SR- it did succeed with some of us- but as i said above, even thoseof us that love it acknowledge flaws the biggest being missed oppurtunities- but it did not succeed in winning over a majority of superman fans, much less the movie going public which evidently has little interest in SR or SR2. and for god's sake- IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT OTHER MOVIES GOT SEQUELS. it is irrelevant. it means NOTHING to this movie. many fine fantasy films never get sequels, many shabby films do. for the producers and director of SR, for warner bros, and for the apparent lack of public support (compared other "franchise" films that had more momentum) the feeling is/was that they wanted to do something else. ALL parties (save routh himself) wanted to move on. if the support for SR was overwhelming then WB would have continued. even if singer was too flakey they'd find someone to continue it. look at all the directors who made bond flicks, or harry potter flicks... those series were continued because it was overwhelmingly clear that audiences wanted more. SR did not inspire that same impression with the powers that be. I'm sorry but a lot of what you're saying it's revisionist history to me. Superman Returns got A LOT of good reviews and was in many best 10 lists of 2006. It also made almost $400 mill WW and sold very well on dvd AND HD/blu-ray. I really think that meant A LOT of people in the mainstream liked and embraced it. You say Sherlock was a big success and it was, but it sold half the dvds SR sold. Also, the Star Trek reboot was a success but it didn't surpass SR total gross. It only did a little bit more on dvd sales. SR only looks disappointing when compared to its prod. budget. But as a blockbuster film it succeded well enough to deserve a sequel, imo. A LOT of fans also rated it very well all around the net WHEN IT FIRST COME OUT, and the support continued for some time. It was UNTIL WB started dragging their feet on the sequel that many changed their minds on it and started climbing the reboot bandwagon.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 14:06:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry but a lot of what you're saying it's revisionist history to me. Superman Returns got A LOT of good reviews and was in many best 10 lists of 2006. It also made almost $400 mill WW and sold very well on dvd AND HD/blu-ray. It really think that meant A LOT of people liked and embraced it. You say Sherlock was a big success and it was, but it sold half the dvds SR sold. Also, the Star Trek reboot was a success but it didn't surpass SR total gross. It only did a little bit more on dvd sales. SR only looks disappointing when compared to its prod. budget. But as a blockbuster film it succeded well enough, imo. A LOT of fans also rated it very well all around the net WHEN IT FIRST COME OUT, and the support continued for some time. It was UNTIL WB started dragging their feet on the sequel that many changed their minds on it and started climbing the reboot bandwagon. stargazer well said! I've seen a lot of articles/sites, etc. that have supported what you have said.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 10, 2011 14:15:40 GMT -5
Also, the Star Trek reboot was a success but it didn't surpass SR total gross. It only did a little bit more on dvd sales. SR only looks disappointing when compared to its prod. budget. But as a blockbuster film it succeded well enough to deserve a sequel, imo. It's too bad studios don't give a damn about foreign grosses. The only time a foreign gross is relevant is when a movie flops in the US but is a decent hit overseas, which is rare. All WB sees is that SR cost 270M*, and it made 200M. Trek '09 cost 150M and made 250M. Studio heads have myopia. (*Not really, but that's what they believe)
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 10, 2011 15:10:53 GMT -5
There is NO way that Star Trek only costed $150 mill. It looks more expensive than that. I know that studios lie all the time about the real cost of making movies, I've actually heard from good sources that Trek's prod. budget was closer to $200 mill, and I do believe that.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 10, 2011 16:18:21 GMT -5
first, let me say that i am not trying to be combative, nor am i "picking on" any SR fan. i happen to be a SR fan so that's not my point. also- i don't accept that i am employing "revisionist history". yes, SR got a LOT of positive reviews. AND a lot of negative ones. just because here, at this forum there is a hub of very BIG support does not mean that the over-all impression was overwhelmingly positive.
the day after SR was released the FIRST headline at supermanhomepage was "disappointing opening weekend". you or i may disagree as to what amounts to 'disappointment" - but disappointment was what was felt and that is NOT "revisionist". our own beloved "supermancinema" is not supportive, no matter how much WE are.
and again, it does not matter if other films get sequels. it has nothing to do with anything.
sure, a case could be made that movies had more or less profit-margin, but it's up to producer's and studio's to discern whether it merits another big investment.
if paramount does abrams-trek2, that's THIER business. they have thier reasons, thier investors and thier production team. WB is another company, another set of investors and other production teams. if they were persuaded that SR2 was a sure-thing then they would have replaced bryan the flake singer and moved on with the SR cast.
they do not feel that confidence, no matter how much we want. THIS board is mostly positive for SR but we are one of many.
see, "failure" isn't something i'm saying to be cruel or critical- it's an observation. in a game, one team will win, the other will fail. does that mean the losing team sucks? maybe, maybe not. but if you don't have the most points you don't win. " we tried to get that last touchdown ..but we just couldn't get it done" you could have the top-two teams face-off, and ONE WILL FAIL. it's just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 10, 2011 16:20:20 GMT -5
If nothing else, a new Superman origin will allow the filmmakers to properly exploit Superman's alien heritage. With Krypton and its destruction you're not just given the possibility/probability of an endless parade of Phantom Zone villains, but you also get Brainiac, The Eradicator, a limitless array of Kryptonian weapons and technology (after all, Jor-El was Krypton's greatest scientist, in a society that prided itself on its scientific achievements), and still more. With the destruction of Krypton you can tweak that it was because of outside forces (Black Zero, or why not Mongul and Warworld, or even Darkseid for fuck's sake!). You have the neighboring moon of Daxam providing even more super powered beings. Any/all of these can be hinted at in the first 20 minutes of a new Superman movie, with more introduced/explained via flashbacks or information sessions in the Fortress. What if Supergirl's Argo City isn't this little Utopia, but becomes a floating "failed state" as its resources run out, and the Supergirl who comes to Earth isn't some perfect angel, but a desperate refugee who NEEDS to enlist her cousin to help the remaining Kryptonians...who may or may not want help. Enough of Superman matching wits with Luthor. Enough of the "will they/won't they" horseshit with Clark/Superman/Lois. You wanna make Superman fresh? Exploit the most fantastic elements FIRST and THEN bring in the relationship stuff. excellent. that's all good. especially the eradicator. i hope we don't spend too much time in smallville...
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 10, 2011 16:46:40 GMT -5
Sorry folks, but Jor's right. The results are the results. Is it unfortunate and stupid that they tagged SR with a production budget of 270 mil, even though that clearly wasn't it's cost? Of course! Is it unfortunate that Singer is flighty and unfocused and never had any real vision for SR2? Of course! Without these factors at work, did SR objectively deserve a sequel? Of course!
It's not an ARTISTIC failure, and if the math was honest, it wouldn't be a FINANCIAL failure either. But, it is what it is, and now it's over. And frankly, it's probably better that way. SR, as much as I loved it on the first viewing (still do), even that first night, I said "this feels like an ending, not a beginning". It does. It feels like the third act in a trilogy, and in a way, it kind of is.
It's over. We'll always have it. Maybe some day we'll get the Return To Krypton scenes. But, it's over. And really, the only real loss is Brandon Routh, the only actor since Reeve (or maybe Gerard Christopher) who wholeheartedly EMBRACED the role of Superman and the responsibilities it entailed. That guy deserved another shot, and deserves better than to be a footnote in Superman history.
But as for the rest of it? Don't care. I've got STM and various S2 fan cuts and SR to tell me a complete and coherent story of a particular incarnation of Superman. I'm happy with it. I can move on now. I'd be more inclined to move on if I liked the new director (which I don't), but I'm pretty much over Brando, Donnerverse, Crystals, Real Estate, etc. I'd like to hear the main theme reused ala Bond, but you know what? I'm over that, too. The only thing that's gonna prevent me from enjoying a new Superman movie is if it is inherently SHIT (which I fear).
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 10, 2011 19:57:04 GMT -5
Amen to that, brother.
|
|