|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 21:06:10 GMT -5
Superman Returns is NOT a failure and was praised by critics and fans alike.
Superman Returns was nominated for both the Academy Award for Visual Effects and BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects, but lost the nominations to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. The film was successful at the 33rd Saturn Awards, winning Best Fantasy Film, and categories for Direction (Bryan Singer), Best Actor (Brandon Routh), Writing (Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris) and Music (John Ottman). Kate Bosworth, Tristan Lake Leabu, James Marsden, Parker Posey, and the visual effects department were nominated for categories.
Based on 254 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 76% of the reviewers enjoyed the film, while the 43 critics in its "Top Critics" group gave a 72% approval rating. By comparison, Metacritic received an average score of 72/100, based on 40 reviews. Richard Corliss of Time praised Superman Returns, calling it one of the best superhero films. He was mostly impressed with Singer's direction and the storyline. Joe Morgenstern from The Wall Street Journal also gave a positive review. Morgenstern believed Lex Luthor's characterization was "well written by the writers and well played by Kevin Spacey". He also praised Newton Thomas Sigel's cinematography and Guy Hendrix Dyas's production design.
Peter Travers, writing in Rolling Stone, felt the film "perfectly updates Superman for the modern audience". J. Hoberman of The Village Voice called it "surprisingly well made. It's a summer blockbuster filled with mythology and sensitivity." James Berardinelli reacted positively to the movie, comparing it favorably with Richard Donner's 1978 film. He felt Spacey was better than Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, describing him as "more cruel and less flippant" than Hackman. "There are no miscasts to be found in the supporting cast, either," Berardinelli said. "Superman Returns is near the top, if not at the top of the superhero movie pile. It offers nearly everything: romance, action, humor, and plenty of goose bumps.
Superman Returns debuted on DVD on November 28, 2006, receiving two versions, one with a single disk, and a double-disk edition which featured over three hours of behind-the-scenes features. That same day, a 14-disc DVD box set titled Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition was released, containing special editions of all five Superman films, as well as the documentary Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman.] It debuted at the top spot of the DVD charts, and also generated $13 million in rentals during its first week. The film was also released in both high definition formats, HD DVD - which featured both standard and high definitions on the same disc - and Blu-ray. It was the best-selling title on both formats in 2006, and was among the best-sellers of both formats of 2007.
Superman Returns is an Academy Award-nominated 2006 superhero film based on the fictional DC Comics character Superman. It was directed by Bryan Singer and stars Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey. The screenplay was written by Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris, based on a story by Bryan Singer, Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty.
Filming began in February 2005, and the movie was released in the United States on June 28, 2006 after sixteen months of filming and production. It was the first theatrical Superman film since 1987's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. The film received mostly positive critical reviews and grossed over $391 million worldwide.
This is from an extensive search I did on the internet and this also included sites from England, Germany (I can read German and speak it fluently) and many other countries.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 21:34:59 GMT -5
Productions costs for Superman Returns and gross(theater/DVD sales etc.) Superman Returns The Numbers Rating: 7.68 (109 votes) Rate it - Rating Details Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 76% Theatrical Performance Total US Gross $200,120,000 International Gross $191,000,000 Worldwide Gross $391,120,000 Home Market Performance US DVD Sales: $81,592,342 Weekly Breakdown For full financial breakdown, please contact our research team. Released June 28, 2006 November 28, 2006 (DVD Sale) Production Budget $232,000,000 MPAA Rating PG-13 for some intense action violence Merchandising Revenue: "...more than $60 million" (THR, 11/2/2007, p. P-7) Running Time: 157 minutes Ad Budget (Nielsen): $41,000,000 US Video Game Sales 2006: $400,000 Gross in IMAX theaters: $22,800,000 Cable TV Rights (FX): 12% of domestic gross, capped between $17m and $25m Franchises Superman Keywords D.C. Comics, Visual Effects, Friendly Alien on Earth Distributed by Warner Bros. Produced by Legendary Pictures Music Composed By John Ottman, John Williams Source Based on Comic/Graphic Novel Major Genre Adventure Country United States Production Method Live Action Creative Type Super Hero Director Bryan SingerAfter another extensive search I did on the internet... And ladies and gentlemen the film was a success and NOT a failure and did indeed make money and was liked by critics and fans alike...
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 10, 2011 22:11:25 GMT -5
(sigh) Good work, and a convincing argument, and I agree with you, but that's NOT what Jor and I are saying.
WE know the movie isn't a failure. WE know that the fact that WB basically billed Superman Returns for 3 other Superman movies that never got out of pre-production so therefore can't be considered a financial failure. We all know that.
But results are results, and unfortunately the ONLY people that this kind of stuff matters to (namely, the evil men in suits at Warner Brothers) deemed it a failure for their own bullshit reasons. Therefore, it is a failure, although by admittedly bullshit standards.
Unfortunately for Superman Returns (and those of us who love it), the game was rigged and the dice were loaded. BY THOSE STANDARDS IT DID FAIL. Life isn't fair. It sucks. And now we get the director I hate above all others directing my favorite character in the history of fiction.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 22:17:58 GMT -5
(sigh) Good work, and a convincing argument, and I agree with you, but that's NOT what Jor and I are saying. WE know the movie isn't a failure. WE know that the fact that WB basically billed Superman Returns for 3 other Superman movies that never got out of pre-production so therefore can't be considered a financial failure. We all know that. But results are results, and unfortunately the ONLY people that this kind of stuff matters to (namely, the evil men in suits at Warner Brothers) deemed it a failure for their own bullshit reasons. Therefore, it is a failure, although by admittedly bullshit standards. Unfortunately for Superman Returns (and those of us who love it), the game was rigged and the dice were loaded. BY THOSE STANDARDS IT DID FAIL. Life isn't fair. It sucks. And now we get the director I hate above all others directing my favorite character in the history of fiction. Thanks! I'm pleased to hear that you too don't think it's a failure The men at WB are indeed evil and totally full of it... *arrggggghhhhh!!!* Can't stand Snyder either. He's so full of himself... Maybe he'll get run over and perhaps we can have Singer back at the helm and if not him, another director, who isn't so full of himself...
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 10, 2011 22:23:05 GMT -5
I'm encouraged by the casting of Cavill, so my hatred has cooled slightly.
However, if you haven't seen it, watch Stardust (which features Cavs) to see a beautiful fantasy movie directed by the guy who would have been my first choice to direct Superman.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 10, 2011 22:25:50 GMT -5
I'm encouraged by the casting of Cavill, so my hatred has cooled slightly. However, if you haven't seen it, watch Stardust (which features Cavs) to see a beautiful fantasy movie directed by the guy who would have been my first choice to direct Superman. Me too. I do like the casting of Cavill. Yes, I have seen Stardust. Very good film. I'm trying to be open minded and positive about the upcoming movie. Otherwise, I'd blow a gasket.... ;D Watched Superman the Movie and Superman Returns with friends. WE LOVE SUPERMAN RETURNS!!!
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Feb 10, 2011 22:59:46 GMT -5
Thanks! I'm pleased to hear that you too don't think it's a failure The men at WB are indeed evil and totally full of it... *arrggggghhhhh!!!* Can't stand Snyder either. He's so full of himself... Maybe he'll get run over and perhaps we can have Singer back at the helm and if not him, another director, who isn't so full of himself... We're imaginative, aren't we? ;D I'm neutral on Snyder - I liked Watchmen, a certain line in 300 basically killed any chance of me seeing it - and at this point, all I'm expecting is a fun movie that hopefully won't bombard me with stupid (not gonna name names, just in case Jim's watching...). If I can get that, some of the sequel/Routh-getting-sacked pain is mitigated. Now that said, what kills me about all this? It's been pointed out elsewhere, even in this thread - Singer had no real plan for his sequel. It's like... REALLY, Bryan?!? You get the keys to your favorite franchise starring your favorite fictional character, and THIS is what you do? However, some of the sting is taken off if you take SR for what it is - a piece of fanfiction. Even ATP can admit it's better than most fanfiction out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 0:29:41 GMT -5
If the entire project of Superman Returns WASN'T a failure, there would've been a sequel.
It failed. Critics aren't everyone. Fans aren't everyone. I know a huge amount of people that abhor the movie that don't post on the internet about movies or anything like that. It just wasn't that well liked by the general public. I'm sure the concession was that Routh was great but the movie was not. So take consolation in that at least, Gazer.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 11, 2011 2:36:16 GMT -5
^I'll take consolation in the whole film, which rocks, imo.
Yes, no doubt SR failed to meet WB HUGE expectations.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 11, 2011 4:44:09 GMT -5
If the truth was that WB really did give a greenlight for a short window of time to Singer for the sequel, (before Valkyrie went over the scheduled time) doesn't this invalidate this argument though?*
(*caveat being: unless any of us solidly work in a position to be in the know, we only have the conflicting internet reports before and after Valkyrie about Singer's MOS actually getting the greenlight, so this argument could go on forever, until this happens.) *sigh*
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 11, 2011 6:30:10 GMT -5
Couldn't WB have gotten another director?
SR feels like Star Trek TMP. Overbloated, offensive budget, leans too heavily on a classic film, trying to emulate feel of better work done before in its universe.
But at least Paramount learned their lesson and produced WoK
I still reckon at the end of the day, WB plain lost their balls. Easier to reboot (which I am in favour for as long as we don't have to sit through the back story yet again)
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 11, 2011 12:06:57 GMT -5
That's an interesting point- Since Singer multitasks with producing/supervising scripts on "House" while directing big budget films and said that he was TOTALLY fine producing/overseeing "Xmen 3"--- 20th Century Fox could have hired another director, with Singer overseeing it from afar, but chose not to.
Similiarly, I suppose "Man of Steel" could have been done the same way- but whatever was said in the board room of WB resulted in cold feet.
Not that WB is the only studio to sabotage their own projects. Look at "Spiderman 3" with Venom forced down Raimi's throats and the mess that prevented a better "Spiderman 4" from happening.
Anyhow, the train has already left the station.
In regards to superhero films (and a chance for a long-running series of good movies) Hopefully there's more quality control (and consistency) with X-men, if Singer and 20th Century Fox stay together for X-men for the long haul.
And.....hopefully the audience doesn't weaken, or the expectations of studios don't keep skyrocketing for superhero films (will EVERY superhero film have to gross past $390 million worldwide?), or the genre could either end up as crappy 'straight to dvd' or just go extinct.
Hopefully not....
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,813
|
Post by atp on Feb 11, 2011 12:09:04 GMT -5
Why did anyone expect much from Singer in the first place? I don't understand all this praise.
What has he actually done which is brilliant?
I mean, X-Men was okay-ish, but nothing great.
The Usual Suspects, in all honesty, is crap. I never saw what all the hype was about. So Kevin Spacey was pretending to have a limp. WOW ... big fucking deal... the guy could actually walk normally.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 11, 2011 13:00:56 GMT -5
Usual Suspects is my candidate for most over-rated film of the 90s. The "twist" ending (which only a fucking moron couldn't see coming a mile off) invalidated the entire picture
Xmen 1 was OK but nothing special. I watched it, fuck, nearly a decade ago now but no interest to see it again. I had DVDs X-men 1-3 package a few years back for Christmas but its still in the cellophane, lol
I have Valkrie (however you spell it) but I'm only half curious to see it cos we all know they didn't murder Hitler. Kind of like watching Star Wars prequels when you already know Obi Wan or Yoda are not going to die
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 11, 2011 13:23:30 GMT -5
Why Singer is such a big deal to me: Being an old comic book fan, and seeing how many HORRIBLE HORRIBLE (mostly unfaithful) comic book to movie adaptations have been done either for television or movies (or even unreleased movies that you can buy at conventions)----
X-men was, in context, brilliant. For far too long (though it still happens now, but to a lesser extent), stuff was needlessly changed- and usually for the worse, and only REALLY BAD comic adaptations existed.
Both 'Spiderman' and 'X-men' were incredibly faithful in spirit to the source material and (imo) the changes they did make, seemed to improve it or were at least understandable for the constraints of a two-hour film.
Xmen 2 was a giant improvement over X1, but money was part of the factor. He treated the material seriously and respected the fans.
With SR, he treated the material seriously as his dramas, but fans felt split on whether or not he respected the material properly. (One of my best friends HATES SR for the idea of him having a son & the rest- felt it destroyed the character for him & wasn't needed).
Anyhow, the context is why. How comic book adaptations were mostly treated to that point, and Singer not HAVING to, but WILLING to make choices that mostly bent to the comics' reality.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 11, 2011 13:24:11 GMT -5
I enjoy Usual Suspects for what it is, a fun crime film with terrific dialogue.
X-Men 1 is half a great movie, half a terrible one. It's X-Men 2 which raised my expectations for his Superman. X2 is intelligent and soulful and was the first superhero movie since STM to not "look like a comic book movie". You know what I'm talking about. Bats89/Dick Tracy syndrome. And yes, the Spidey movies are guilty of that as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Feb 11, 2011 16:09:39 GMT -5
SR feels like Star Trek TMP. Overbloated, offensive budget, leans too heavily on a classic film, trying to emulate feel of better work done before in its universe. But at least Paramount learned their lesson and produced WoK I still reckon at the end of the day, WB plain lost their balls. Easier to reboot (which I am in favour for as long as we don't have to sit through the back story yet again) i don't share your negative opinion of SR or ST:TMP, but i do think you bring up an interesting comparison, while we're at it i want to throw in ang lee's HULK. short version: 1- all three (save maybe HULK) emerged after lots of preproduction chaos and false starts 2- all three actually came into existance almost entirely because other studios were having success with similar films in the same genre 3- all three were considered underwhelming but were just successful enough that each studio saw that there was life ( and money to be made ) in continuing with the concept if not a sequel. long version: ST:TMP1) ST:TMP was an echo of the ashes of ST:phase 2, and practically all the key elements of STTMP were there: - 2 captains ( an insurance policy against shatner) - sexy wierd exotic alien chick - a new vulcan to replace spock 2) the fact is, ST:TMP ONLY happened when STAR WARS made more money than organised religion. paramount literally said " don't WE have one of those?" but movie goers went in after seeing star wars thinking that it was going to be a phaser-toting captain kirk in a full out adventure and got 2001-lite. 3) paramount didnt think they should continue on that route and retooled for STII, which changed into a militaresque adventure fantasy. HULK1) HULK came out and almost immediately people were sayingit was "dull", that it "took forever to actually get to the HULK" and that various elements were " wtf?" and the ending was underwhelming. oh- and there was too much "relationship" angst as well. remember being on that bandwagon a while- till li'l Jor got all bonkers over hulk and we'd seen ed norton's hulk a bajillion times so i dusted off lee's hulk and was surprised how much i DID like it. so- the irony slays me- i grew up in a time when no one ever expected superhero flicks to be any good, andas long as it didn't suck royally we would take it- and here the biggest bitch about lee's hulk is that it was too serious and too humanity driven. whoduthunkit? 2) it only actually existed because superhero movies became so much the hollywood vogue that EVERY studio wanted one, not out of any love or adoration for hulk per se, but because the $$ being made by the other superhero flicks. 3) but it was passed over and we got a more candy-coated action-fest with the ed norton hulk movie which i actually think is one the best superhero flicks ever. which brings us to SR- 1) it was panned for being too long, too dry, too melodramatic on "relationship" angst. i have friends who HATE lee's hulk for the same reasons they LOVE SR. some things just call to us, and some things don't. it's personal and arbitrary sometimes. 2) it only existed after years of false starts and production heck, it only actually exists because WB/DC saw how much $$ marvel movies were making. and people went into SR thinking it was going to be an all-out action fest and it wasn't. 3) so now it's going to be superceded by a candy-coated bells and whistles spectacle. will it compare well with TIC and STTWOK? we'll see.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 11, 2011 17:33:13 GMT -5
Excellent analysis there; don't think I was being negative about TMP though, I so appreciate it for what it is. I'm glad they went into a new direction for WOK though.
Ang Lee's Hulk grows on me with each viewing, but I do prefer the Norton version
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 11, 2011 17:41:57 GMT -5
Singer should have known better with his declaration to make the sequel to SR like Wrath of Khan. By saying that, he's acknowledging that Superman Returns was essentially " Star TrekSuperman: The Motion Picture." Did he forget history? Wrath of Khan came to be because the studio was disappointed by the overbudget and snail-paced film, and removed all those responsible for TMP from production, then handing it off to people who could make a broader, cheaper and more profitable movie. Did Paramount give Roddenberry a second chance? Nope. That worked out perfectly for WOK because Nicholas Meyer's focus was to tell a good story. Can the same be said about Zack Snyder?
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 11, 2011 17:46:58 GMT -5
Would have loved to see Nic Meyer on Superman...
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 11, 2011 22:19:30 GMT -5
Couldn't WB have gotten another director? SR feels like Star Trek TMP. Overbloated, offensive budget, leans too heavily on a classic film, trying to emulate feel of better work done before in its universe. But at least Paramount learned their lesson and produced WoK I still reckon at the end of the day, WB plain lost their balls. Easier to reboot (which I am in favour for as long as we don't have to sit through the back story yet again) I respectfully disagree abouth the overbloated offensive budget. I also liked the homage to the classsic films. I do agree with you that WB plain lost their balls. IMHO WB deemed SR a failure and disappointment when it fact it wasn't! They had egg on their faces and are so totally full of BS...
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 11, 2011 22:28:25 GMT -5
If the entire project of Superman Returns WASN'T a failure, there would've been a sequel. It failed. Critics aren't everyone. Fans aren't everyone. I know a huge amount of people that abhor the movie that don't post on the internet about movies or anything like that. It just wasn't that well liked by the general public. I'm sure the concession was that Routh was great but the movie was not. So take consolation in that at least, Gazer. I respectfully disagree with what you have said and I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. There was indeed going to be a sequel. Singer was directing Valkyrie, and no he was not fired from the SR 2 sequel, and the idiotic powers that at be at WB chose to do the reboot... they chose to save face, rather than admit to the pubic they were total and utter idiots...the film in fact was/is a successful film. The film made money and Singer was quoted as saying that production budget that WB quoted for the film was wrong, actually , again to save face, the imbeciles... the idotic, totally brainless evil royally idiotic execs at WB decided themselves *when fans and those weren't fans also liked it, including critics!*deemed it was a failure when the film actually was NOT! It did NOT fail. I know a huge, gigantic in fact, amount of people who love the move and also don't post on the internet, colleagues, co-workers, friends-their friends, and their friends... from France, Germany, England, Turkey, Japan *yes, Japan* and the list goes on..... and they are not Superman fans... Also, I respectfully disagree that it wasn't that well liked by the general public. The movie was/is fantastic and a wonderful edition to the Superman mythos. Chris Reeve would be proud of this Super and superb film. 'nuff said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 22:44:45 GMT -5
Don't assume that. That's silly. You're speaking for a dead man. He could've hated it. Who knows.
Superman Returns failed in that it went nowhere. It inspired no one to want it to. Or not enough, anyhow. There was no public clamoring for a sequel outside of us kinda folk. It didn't have that, "When's the next one coming out?" aura to it. And there was no sequel. Whether it's WB's fault or Singer flakiness's fault or the movie itself's fault, it doesn't matter. The whole thing failed.
You're taking it too personally when I say it failed. I don't mean the movie failed to entertain or enthrall. Not by any means. It worked for those it worked for, and there are many of us, sure, a lot. But there are more who didn't like it, I feel. It just failed to go anywhere beyond what it was. When it comes to a superhero franchise looking to start up again and the first movie to try to do so doesn't do it, that's inexcusably, inexorably a failure. You cannot debate fact.
Fuck, I started talking like the Architect there.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Feb 11, 2011 22:52:45 GMT -5
Don't assume that. That's silly. You're speaking for a dead man. He could've hated it. Who knows. Superman Returns failed in that it went nowhere. It inspired no one to want it to. Or not enough, anyhow. There was no public clamoring for a sequel outside of us kinda folk. It didn't have that, "When's the next one coming out?" aura to it. And there was no sequel. Whether it's WB's fault or Singer flakiness's fault or the movie itself's fault, it doesn't matter. The whole thing failed. You're taking it too personally when I say it failed. I don't mean the movie failed to entertain or enthrall. Not by any means. It worked for those it worked for, and there are many of us, sure, a lot. But there are more who didn't like it, I feel. It just failed to go anywhere beyond what it was. When it comes to a superhero franchise looking to start up again and the first movie to try to do so doesn't do it, that's inexcusably, inexorably a failure. You cannot debate fact. Fuck, I started talking like the Architect there. I highly respect Chris Reeve. I'm simply honouring his memory. I have had the honour to meet him in person. What a wonderful man he was. So, this is why I mentioned that he would be proud of the SR film. I did not say 100% for sure. And no I'm not being silly. No, I'm not taking it too personally. SR did ineed deliver. The fact is it was NOT a failure. I've done numerous, numerous extensive searches on the internet on how it was very well received by critics and fans, not just in North America alone, but, also in England, Germany, France and other countries... Chris Reeve approved the choice of Routh for the Superman role. And Singer also dedicated the film to Chris/Dana Reeve. I had this specially mounted and it proudly sits on my living room wall and signed from the man himself and yes, in person!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 22:58:24 GMT -5
If Superman Returns was a one shot, one off kind of deal, just the one movie, sure, I'd consider it to be somewhat of a success. But that's about it.
|
|