ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 2, 2011 13:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 2, 2011 13:59:41 GMT -5
You have to be kidding me- Lookit this: www.aintitcool.com/node/50654$200 million budget/ $154 worldwide versus- $270 million budget/ (arguable) $391 worldwide I've mentioned it before, but I agreed that it might have been just a ruse on WB's part to get more people to have faith in GL, without actually making a sequel. But this talk of a sequel NOW after it's all done makes it seem more probable- SUPERMAN RETURNS was a box-office disappointment and Green Lantern ISN'T and gets a sequel?  ? Look at those numbers! Ridiculous! Always suspected it was office politics of some sort. With SR, it may be polarized with fan opinion, but with GL, it's almost unanimous it was a dog among fans. SR's box-office disappointment as the reason for pulling the plug for the sequel has arguably been a smokescreen. With these kind of boxoffice numbers- This kind of confirms that it was NOT t he money that made them decide to pull the plug on SR. Sheesh. |
|
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 Aug 2, 2011 14:04:07 GMT -5
How about this...
$258 million budget
$890 worldwide
and it gets rebooted (Spider-man after #3).
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 2, 2011 14:25:10 GMT -5
Oh, I couldn't agree more about that ridiculous situation as well. Raimi had to fight to get some control over Spiderman 3 (the 'making of' book suprisingly reveals some of the bad choices made that clued one into how/why the 3rd one was the mess it was).... but the guy made Sony/Columbia almost $2 BILLION with Spiderman 1 & 2.... you'd think he'd have deserved some creative control... Instead, we're getting a reboot instead of Spiderman 4 under Raimi. Hollywood is nuts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 2, 2011 14:47:41 GMT -5
Spider-Man 4 was different. They WERE going to do a fourth one with Raimi and Maguire, but couldn't agree on the script/budget/salary, whatever.
With no director and no star, and most of the rogue gallery already taken out, the logical step for Sony was to reboot.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 2, 2011 15:00:19 GMT -5
Oh, I couldn't agree more about that ridiculous situation as well. Raimi had to fight to get some control over Spiderman 3 (the 'making of' book suprisingly reveals some of the bad choices made that clued one into how/why the 3rd one was the mess it was).... but the guy made Sony/Columbia almost $2 BILLION with Spiderman 1 & 2.... you'd think he'd have deserved some creative control... Instead, we're getting a reboot instead of Spiderman 4 under Raimi. Hollywood is nuts. Crazy world, isn't it?  SR, and especially Brandon deserved a sequel but didn't get it. So sad and tragic. So unfair! |
|
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 Aug 2, 2011 15:20:57 GMT -5
With no director and no star, and most of the rogue gallery already taken out, the logical step for Sony was to reboot. I disagree...you just get another actor and director. Just like they did, actually, but without the origin retold, etc. Spidey has a very deep rogues gallery... Vulture, Shocker, Beetle, Carnage, Electro, Hydroman, Jackal, Mysterio, Morbius, Vermin, Kraven, Scorpion, man...he has the best rogues gallery in the business. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 2, 2011 15:26:11 GMT -5
Yes, but I'm also taking into account stupid studio executives. The same kind who think Lex Luthor should always be Superman's villain and Joker should always be Batman's.
Nolan decided to do something different and use Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul to start out with, and initial reaction was a collective "huh?"
After all, why reboot Batman after TDKR? The property doesn't belong to Nolan. They could continue with that series, just with another director and star....but then Joker and Two-Face, and perhaps Catwoman (the more marketable villains) wouldn't be usable.
|
|
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 Aug 2, 2011 15:59:46 GMT -5
Yes, but I'm also taking into account stupid studio executives. The same kind who think Lex Luthor should always be Superman's villain and Joker should always be Batman's. Nolan decided to do something different and use Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul to start out with, and initial reaction was a collective "huh?" After all, why reboot Batman after TDKR? The property doesn't belong to Nolan. They could continue with that series, just with another director and star....but then Joker and Two-Face, and perhaps Catwoman (the more marketable villains) wouldn't be usable. I don't think they should reboot unless they are looking for a complete new tone...something that I do not think was needed in the Spiderverse. The tone was fine, just the story got convoluted...too many things going on in 3. I'm all for any kind of villian. As long as it is done well, it will be alright with me. I recall Mystique being a complete badass in X-men which I thought surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 2, 2011 18:45:36 GMT -5
Nope, not until people *mindless noise*. Pot, meet Kettle. Which is why I don't belittle people for defending a film or viewing it as a sequel. Awesome. Since I could do without the mindless noise. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 2, 2011 19:05:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 2, 2011 19:10:29 GMT -5
Priceless ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Scissorpuppy on Aug 2, 2011 23:07:16 GMT -5
Don't get too excited about a Green lantern Sequel until it is ah...
wait for it... "Green"lit.
Sequel talk could just be PR and damage control. There was talk about Man of Steel for a few years before they announced a Reboot.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 3, 2011 10:47:12 GMT -5
I read about some of the arguments made by the studio- Given how much Raimi had done for them, they should have given in, imo. He had already compromised for Spiderman 3 for them (Venom he didn't want), and can't blame him for not continuing.
Part of me hopes that the reboot tanks - but the other part realizes that Sony/Columbia wouldn't learn the right things from its failure, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 3, 2011 10:52:51 GMT -5
Good point. I'm still reeling at the fact that Routh didn't even get so much as a damn phone call for NOT being in MOS. What the heck happened, anyhow? Did Singer or Routh say something to piss off a WB executive during SR? Or is that just how Hollywood does business? Donner never got paid a dime for his contribution for WB, and Donner mentioned briefly in an interview that WB does business differently nowadays than it did then. I guess only those who work at WB know what the real deal is..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2011 12:12:25 GMT -5
I read about some of the arguments made by the studio- Given how much Raimi had done for them, they should have given in, imo. He had already compromised for Spiderman 3 for them (Venom he didn't want), and can't blame him for not continuing. Part of me hopes that the reboot tanks - but the other part realizes that Sony/Columbia wouldn't learn the right things from its failure, too. I'll play Devil's Advocate for a second. I know all us fanboys/fangirls tend to bash the big, dumb, evil studios, but it's not like Raimi did the Spider-Man flicks for charity, or for the good of his soul. He was coming off a mediocre horror movie and a Kevin Costner flick that bombed when he took the Spidey gig, and it was a bit of a risk for Sony to entrust him with a tentpole blockbuster when he'd never worked with a huge budget before. Raimi owed the studio as much as the studio owed him. Give Sony some credit for not hiring a hack like Ron Howard in the first place. You don't get the kind of control Raimi wanted over a $200 million production unless you're a Nolan, a Cameron, or a Spielberg. That's just reality. He really doesn't have anything to hang his hat on, in terms of proven big league financial success, other than Spider-Man and some well-performing low budget films. That's not enough justification for swinging your junk around like you're the King of Hollywood, which is the impression I got from some of the stories about the development of Spider-Man 4. Frankly, directors can be just as ignorant and bull-headed as the studios, and they're not the ones risking tens of millions of dollars. Just ask Carolco or United Artists how supporting an idiot director's artistic vision worked out for them. Studios can be dumb, sure, but they don't usually get made into martyrs the way directors are when failed productions are brought up on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 3, 2011 13:02:22 GMT -5
Cool remix!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 3, 2011 14:36:42 GMT -5
That's a fair point. They took a chance on him- But when he delivered in spades on that property, and continued to--- it seemed like a dumb idea for the studios not to think he may know what to do with THAT particular property.
I think it's because so many directors 'miss' the mark, it's a minor miracle when they actually hit the bullseye (or close enough to it) in regards to Superhero films.
Some I know feel like there are a ton of superhero films out there, that it's not a big deal- but I feel that compared to the great stories and characters that have appeared in print at all the comic companies, that the potential of great superhero films (and number of them) still have yet to be reached.
The only problem is: these things are so costly, and with audiences not flocking to them as they would like a Harry Potter movie- it feels like the number of the ones that will get greenlit under the right person will be less and less as time goes on.
Raimi I know didn't do the movie for charity; neither did Donner do STM for charity--- but when it feels like the right filmmaker is in charge of the right property- you don't really want them to leave unless there's absolutely no other way.
Anyhow, moot point. I do wonder, though, if Spiderman reboot doesn't make a billion dollars, what kind of conversations its' going to spark within Sony.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 3, 2011 17:40:54 GMT -5
Yes, but I'm also taking into account stupid studio executives. The same kind who think Lex Luthor should always be Superman's villain and Joker should always be Batman's. Nolan decided to do something different and use Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul to start out with, and initial reaction was a collective "huh?" After all, why reboot Batman after TDKR? The property doesn't belong to Nolan. They could continue with that series, just with another director and star....but then Joker and Two-Face, and perhaps Catwoman (the more marketable villains) wouldn't be usable. well, the ONE mistake ( and it might not be a "mistake") that nolan made that happens almost all the time in comic book movies is: they kill off the villain!  in the comics the villain breaks out of jail, disappears before capture... or! ooorrrrrr... comes back from the dead !!! who's to say when nolan stops giving a crap that maybe rha's IS alive? just sayin'..... |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 3, 2011 19:02:14 GMT -5
It's not really a mistake to kill off villains in movies. In comics, the story never ends, while the story does in a film series. Death equals closure.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 3, 2011 19:08:05 GMT -5
Given how short the lifespan is of sequels for superheroes, I agree. But- I LOVE how Nolan/Goyer handled the Joker and DIDN'T kill him- pitch perfect and faithful to the comics.
Though--- won't help but wonder whether or not the Joker would have been killed off in TDKR, if Ledger hadn't died- since the outline supposedly was supposed to have had the Joker in that one (as opposed to Bane, I presume).
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 3, 2011 22:18:31 GMT -5
I know its just a band playing over top of the theme, but, dammit, Gazer, you cool gal you, that just made my night! The choice of shots & scenes to match up with the mood of the music on screen was absolutely perfect. Very well put together. I think I'll go watch my extended cut of SR right now. Thanks Gazer, that rocked my everlovin balls.  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 3, 2011 23:49:46 GMT -5
Agreed! Glad you liked it, Mav!  It's also very enjoyable to me, it just makes me feel happy like a kid on Christmas morning, lol! It's Superman, ya know! |
|
|
|
Post by erikhh on Aug 4, 2011 14:38:17 GMT -5
Finally!! it looks like we might get a descent fan cut of Superman Returns soon, found this today on Supermanhomepage.com: A fan made teaser trailer for the Warner Bros. production of "Superman Returns". Fan trailer produced and edited by Julian Francis Adderley, a professional Editor with over twelve years of experience, who decided a few years back to put his own version together with a twist. Not just to include the deleted scenes but to create an overall cut that was far more satisfying, including an audio mix that wouldn't draw attention to itself. Julian also made a longer comment regarding the fan cut, I pasted his comment here: "Sorry for the VERY long post. I figured some of you might be interested as this cut was made for fans like you myself included. Okay, so a little background on the project. It originally started as a long planned SUPERMAN: THE DEFINITIVE CUT which was to combine Superman: The Movie and Superman II into one film respectively. I wasn't content with how it was coming along and decided to abandon it in favour of attempting to "fix" what I saw were inherit problems with Superman Returns. I was already aware of the mountain of material that was not included in the theatrical release including the return to Krypton sequence as well as all the other deleted scenes on DVD. However, there are still missing elements that have yet to be released including the original opening of the film which began in a movie theatre with Tristan Lake Lebeau's voice over, similar to the text prologue that exists now, featuring clips from Superman: The Movie. This would have segwayed into the reveal of Krypton, the opening titles and the crystal ship. Also still missing is a scene involving Clark Kent running down the alley ripping open his shirt only to discover that he isn't wearing the red and blue underneath and is forced to return to the Daily Planet closet to change. Yes, this is the often talked about scene of Superman "coming out of the closet". A shot of it does exist on the Superman documentary by Ken Burns but there is hardly enough material to restore that sequence with any sense of dramatic flow. In the end, they decided to digitally superimpose the shield over his chest negating the need for these shots. Now, there have already been a lot of fan edits of Superman Returns. Most of which are easily available on fanedit.org. Most of them aren't very good and by that I simply mean that they're done with very little care into making the changes seamless. A lot of that has to do with audio. Using mixed material is quite a challenge and most fans are content to simply slap in or cut out the material they want with very little care to the overall flow. However, my goal with this version of the film was to make as many, if not all, of the alterations as smooth and unnoticeable as possible. I can't say that the film runs any faster or is more intense than what was released. Unfortunately after putting this version together I came to the conclusion that the filmmakers had, right or wrong, set out to tell a very bloated and laborous story that is almost impossible to get around without excising massive amounts of story material which exist to create the overall structure. What I can say is that this version does allow you to more strongly connect with Superman/Clark Kent and understand him more throughout his emotional journey. If you were never interested in that story then this film was never for you. If you were but felt that the film lacked an even stronger character arc then you will probably find this fan edit a more satisfying experience." Link to the trailer and post here: www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=10118Enjoy! Danish Superman Fan |
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Aug 4, 2011 19:59:54 GMT -5
Unless they remove the poo-filter...I pass!
|
|
It's also very enjoyable to me, it just makes me feel happy like a kid on Christmas morning, lol! It's Superman, ya know! 
