|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 19, 2011 18:14:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 19, 2011 18:28:25 GMT -5
It definitely deserved a sequel. It was designed to get a sequel. Its only real crime was that it cost too much to make. Even without the 1990s stuff tacked on, 200 million was too much for a movie of that size. Plus, way too much of that money got left on the editing floor. It earned 400 million, which was a pretty decent draw in a very competitive summer. OK, so they have to take a hit for it. Poor planning, really. But why not a sequel? A sequel definitely could have been made for much cheaper than 200 million back in 2008 or so. SR was not poorly received by general audiences. By amping up the action and marketing it well, the sequel could have been a big hit. If they went for Winter 2008, the competition would have been Benjamin Button, Gran Torino, The Wrestler....Oscar bait. NOT Pirates of the Caribbean.  It could have done 250M+ in US alone. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Aug 19, 2011 18:30:50 GMT -5
It definitely deserved a sequel. It was designed to get a sequel. I think it would have been better as the second film. i.e. Singer should have made a different film as his first one, and then SR should have been the sequel to that film. |
|
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 19, 2011 21:49:18 GMT -5
It was a REQUEL, and it was well done. It still holds up. It definitely deserved a sequel. Most casual movie goers aren't as picky as the hardcore fans. If anything, it only needed more action. Not for me but for young males it did it seems. Well, why did hardcore fans like the Batman movies? Thor? Captain America? The X-men prequel? Frankly, this is the only place I can talk about Superman Returns. No one, I mean NO ONE, that I know in my circle of friends even bothered to see it. I saw it with my wife, Chance, and Scissorpuppy...all of us gave it a "meh". I think most people were wanting a kick ass return of Superman after a 20 year layoff. Not some mopey, convoluted love story. |
|
|
|
Post by ger-el on Aug 19, 2011 21:57:29 GMT -5
I really liked Routh! I thought he did a great job building on the character that had been established in the Reeve's movies, and adding something. I did NOT like Bosworth. She was the weakest part of the film. A scene I always think about is when she drops her bag on the way up to the roof to have a smoke. It is so unnatural. It seems like she remembered to drop it, and her reaction to the drop is too late. I would have re aster her. I would have kept Routh. He was great!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 19, 2011 23:09:42 GMT -5
You could have had both the emotional story and the action. I'll still argue that had it had great action, the drama might have been fine. As far as 'nobody' wanting to see it: A ton of the 'tweeners' I taught the summer Superman Returns came out didn't want to see it, as I've mentioned before. Why? Because the character wasn't 'cool' to them- or relatable- instead, they were dying to see the Pirates of the Carribean films.They felt that Superman was too 'old fashioned' and from another time. Thus, I blame the marketing more than the film. (*Couldn't resist giving a direct poll in my classes that summer about what movies they were and weren't interested in seeing). So- given that... PLUS a HORRIBLE trailer (if I wasn't a Superman fan, I would have had ZERO interest in going myself), not at ALL suprised that a number of people weren't rushing to go out to see it... BUT... Given that the opening weekend wasn't spectacular, was suprised at how much it DID make at the end. They had to be doing something right for movie audiences. As far as the movies you've mentioned: one, I've spent enough time/money over comics over the years, I DO consider myself a hardcore comics fan. (Can only speak for myself, of course-) Two, those films you mentioned I have a mixed reaction to. Batman films: There were bits and pieces that I enjoyed from them all, but the ones that really had me almost in tears from how good they were, were the Nolan ones, for the character bits. The action is ok (Not even staged all that great in Batman Begins, to be honest), but the personal story/arc is what made it sing, imo. Thor: The Asgard stuff was fantastic, the rest: horrible. Surprised how horrible, from Kenneth Branagh. Captain America: The action was ok, but the rest of the story was so well done that it does move forward & we DO see other aspects to the main character, not just the overriding sadness (which I thought was fresh but consistent take on Supes, given the facts) of the character. X-men prequel: There were a variety of characters, with different issues that helped make the story feel perhaps more energetic. If it were MAINLY Mystique's story, and no other, then it could have felt pretty sad and depressing. Anyhow- was good ENOUGH with the story, to me it's a great drama in a unique situation, but underwhelming as far as action goes. The 'mopey'-ness you mention is appropriate for the story they chose to tell. Ratner chose a bright happy ending for Xmen 3, and it didn't fit at all. (Nor with the theme of the Xmen comics either). I do wonder, though: if the story were leaked early on--- would the more vocal fans be ok with it by the time it came out (expectations tempered appropriately) - like when it was known way in advance that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman.... and then it didn't turn out that bad- versus being caught off-guard as to the type of story that was going to be told? In any case, from looking at the Xmen films, I wondered how Singer was going to balance the bright energetic tone of the Donner Superman movies with his own rather unsentimental (and dark) approach to films. I know a number of people are bringing up J.J. Abrams' Star Trek as a 'shining example' - but Abrams' Trek had the luxury of being more of an ensemble- and Kirk was always supposed to be the energetic impulsive wild presence, so he had that on his side. No matter how you cut it, I agree that Superman Returns is a somber film, though. I love it, but I recognize that a somber Superman film isn't what a lot of people were hoping for, after being gone so long. I know one thing for sure: in order for any superhero film to work, you have to care about the characters as they're put on screen. As much griping as I do, I hope that becomes the case with Snyder's new film, because if it flops/disappoints, as it's been mentioned, Superman will probably go back into the cinematic equivalent of the Phantom Zone for a LONG time....  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 19, 2011 23:16:41 GMT -5
I think there are certain things that could have been adjusted in SR, but overall I think it took some of the best of the old, and mixed in some great things that were brand new.
Reboot would have been easy. On the other hand, I disagree in that there's no proof whatsoever that a reboot would have made a penny more or less than SR. (Or even as much).
If Singer did a reboot from the ground up, to be honest, I think it would be good, but I'd always be comparing it to Donners (as I will be with Snyders) STM origin film, as much as I'd want to try to give it a fair shot.
If you can't make it better, what's the point of a reboot?
Hopefully, Snyder will suprise us all with his reboot, and if it outshines STM and SR by miles, I'll happily take everything back in this post.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Aug 20, 2011 5:52:57 GMT -5
With Singer and Routh on board for a sequel, it could have been great - maintaining the tone of the first film while amping up the action - it's true a Winter 2008 or 2009 release would surely have been more successful in box office terms than the first, simply for the intention of having a much more action-filled sequel.
Kids I teach were not interested in SR. Most have not seen it, unless they happen to catch the re-runs which are now on quite frequently on BBC channels in the UK.
I would go as far as to say that basically (and I supposed I can only speak for British kids), children today do not know who or what Superman is and that's the perfect reason to re-introduce him from the ground up to a new generation...
AS LONG AS THEY KEEP WITH THE ORIGINAL SUPERMAN CHARACTER AND EVERYTHING HE STANDS FOR!
i.e. Batman = Vigilante = Violence = Riots in the UK
Superman = Truth & Justice = Hope in the UK
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 20, 2011 6:03:30 GMT -5
Well, why did hardcore fans like the Batman movies? Thor? Captain America? The X-men prequel? Frankly, this is the only place I can talk about Superman Returns. No one, I mean NO ONE, that I know in my circle of friends even bothered to see it. I saw it with my wife, Chance, and Scissorpuppy...all of us gave it a "meh". I think most people were wanting a kick ass return of Superman after a 20 year layoff. Not some mopey, convoluted love story. This. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 20, 2011 10:35:40 GMT -5
Not true for me.
Every fellow fan I know in the real world likes SR.
In fact, just the other day, I ran into an old friend who is now radio DJ & we always talk comic movies when we meet up & he was talking about how shitty is its that SR didn't get a sequel. Said he & his family just loved SR.
It's only on the net that I encounter the haters.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 20, 2011 11:22:02 GMT -5
Yeah my experience is similar to Mav. For instance, my family in Mexico, including young nephews really liked SR and are upset that there won't be a sequel. My young son doesn't exactly love it yet, but he likes and understand a lot of it. When its on or I"m watching, he usually sits down next to me to watch. Other relatives here in the US also liked it and were curious about his son in a sequel.
Also, some of those movies you guys mentioned didn't break any records or were huge hits, including BB, but it got a sequel and the others also probably will. The real problem was WB and Singer here, imo. SR performed well for the type of film it was (a dramatic epic). It was Not a typical action summer flick, like say Transformers. Thank God.
I"m pretty sure that a more action oriented sequel with a new, more visual supervillain (and of course a decent script!) would have been all it was needed for the BO to improve. Unfortunately, the film was never given that chance, and now we're having a new film with a director and writer who never really wanted to do Superman because they thought he was too old fashioned and unsophisticated. I highly doubt they'll deliver the type of film I really want to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 20, 2011 11:23:06 GMT -5
Again, I can only speak for myself, but growing up with the character that embodied both virtue, hope and invulnerability came at a time where there also weren't ten million other forms of entertainment for kids (and adults) alike. The generation of kids that I teach/taught would rather play a videogame anytime (with a few exceptions) than pick up a book for entertainment, let alone a comic book about a superhero, particularly one that isn't 'dark'. If, however, they grew up on the character and what he stood for early on (7 years old I imagine is ideal), that might be different. Having a videogame character (with no story) be a role model versus a character in a story that grabs your imagination early on, I would imagine makes a big difference. Timing is everything, I suppose.  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820
|
Post by atp on Aug 20, 2011 11:34:38 GMT -5
Not true for me. Every fellow fan I know in the real world likes SR. In fact, just the other day, I ran into an old friend who is now radio DJ & we always talk comic movies when we meet up & he was talking about how shitty is its that SR didn't get a sequel. Said he & his family just loved SR. It's only on the net that I encounter the haters. What about the S2 Donner Cut? Does anyone have friends or family in the real world who have seen it? What was their reaction? Were they pleased with it? |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 20, 2011 11:56:21 GMT -5
Most people I know think that turning back time was bad the first time & even worse a second time.
Everybody loves the Brando bits though.
|
|
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 20, 2011 12:07:27 GMT -5
It's only on the net that I encounter the haters. I do not encounter haters or lovers of SR in the real world...I just don't encounter anyone who saw it. The level of interest just wasn't there, evidently. But in terms of Return of Investment, they performed very well, unlike Superman Returns. So, good ROI + good reviews/fan feedback = sequel. I've mentioned this before, every superhero movie with an ROI under 2.0 (it did not make twice it's money back) did not get a sequel or it got rebooted...with the exception of heckboy. But I didn't realize a superhero movie had to break a record to get a sequel....I just thought it had to make a tidy profit. All the movies I mentioned cost $160M or less, except Dark Knight which cost $185M...and made A BILLION DOLLARS. heck, Wolverine almost made as much as Superman Returns...(and it cost way less...hence the sequel coming). |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 20, 2011 12:11:38 GMT -5
Same here. Nobody I know gives a shit about it.
However I do know people in the real World who like Star Wars prequels, so this "people in the real World bolster my opinions" crap is redundant.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820
|
Post by atp on Aug 20, 2011 15:22:06 GMT -5
However I do know people in the real World who like Star Wars prequels, so this "people in the real World bolster my opinions" crap is redundant. Exactly. People in "the real world" are generally the same people who think it's important to phone and vote for contestants in reality shows or talent contests, so I don't really hold their opinions in much regard. And even more importantly, THE REAL WORLD is an anagram for OH WELL, RETARD. Further proof, if I ever saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Aug 20, 2011 15:57:35 GMT -5
Same here. Nobody I know gives a shit about it. However I do know people in the real World who like Star Wars prequels, so this "people in the real World bolster my opinions" crap is redundant. So then, all of the times you've mentioned that people you know in the real world who hate the movie, is redundant crap as well? Because I don't need anything to bolster my argument. My opinion is simply my opinion. Someone mentioned real world people, so, I responded. Not to bolster, but simply to respond. |
|
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 20, 2011 16:15:19 GMT -5
Actually, it was you that brought up the real world. I only mentioned my CoF. But...
Maybe the internet is the real world. Hmmmmmmmmm.
And I don't consider this an arguement at all. Just an observation of my life (and yours). We've had difference experiences. Mine is that this is the ONLY place (or the internet in general) I can discuss SR as no one else I know saw it.
The only 'argument' was my Box Office discussion with gazer. But, again, I don't consider that an arguement either. I merely presented facts and figures.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 20, 2011 17:16:32 GMT -5
Only if I am trying to use it to bolster my opinion.
You'll have to forgive me, I couldn't help noticing all the "people in the real World" points here today all magically agreed with that poster's opinions. Its quite comical when a few people do it together. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 20, 2011 17:27:52 GMT -5
I'll agree with that- not a reflection on the quality of the movie (as no one I knew who weren't already fanboys didn't have an opinion one way or the other. One thought it might have been a movie version of "Smallville" because of the trailer with the Kent mailbox in front of the house- a recurring shot of Smallville.)--- just, not a giant percentage of people I come across in different situations that are necessarily into comics- let alone Superman.
If "Superman Returns" had Heath Ledger's last ever full role before dying of the overdose, I'm sure it would have had more attention. (Maybe not a billion dollars worth, but it would have brought in curious moviegoers who might have already written off the franchise or had zero interest. "Parnassus" doesn't count, because of the timing of Ledger's death and the time the movie came out by then, the general public had already absorbed his suprise death).
Also, I'll take a step back and agree that if WB wanted to, they could have negotiated for Singer to do a reboot first- THEN tell his story for SR, with a two-picture deal.
After reading about the struggles with Sony and Raimi over creative control.... unless one OWNS the property (ie Lucas and Star Wars), it seems like the rug can always be pulled from under someone - and if good relations aren't happening/continuing between studio and filmmaker, no sequels or creative control for such are guaranteed under the same filmmaker.
|
|
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 20, 2011 17:47:24 GMT -5
I don't agree with the "Ledger spike" theory. It may have garnered some attention but I think more people were interested in Nolan's actual take on the Joker. IIRC, many people were very apprehensive of Ledger playing the Joker. It wasn't until the high praise of coactors and advance screeners did people start talking Ledger. It was about this time that he died. I don't think anyone goes to a movie because of the actors is dead. His role was outstanding and he chewed the scenes he was in. That wasn't because he died, it was because he did an incredible job.
People were apprehensive of the whole Batman reboot (myself included) but when Begins came out and the positive reviews and word of mouth came in + knowledge that the Joker would be in the sequel...this laid the groundwork for the sequel to explode financially, which it did. I think that played much more in it.
To say Dark Knight was successful because Ledger died and that led to people coming out to see it would be the same to say that Dark Knight wouldn't have made as much money as if he was alive...which I cannot grasp. Maybe if Spacey died before SR came out then SR would have been more successful?...BAH!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 20, 2011 18:15:14 GMT -5
I'm thinking- as you mentioned- that it was a combo.... not JUST that Ledger died close to the release. (1) Good word buzz on Batman Begins, after many gave a 'meh' about the idea of rebooting the Batman movies. (2) The good word buzz on Ledger in the role of the Joker (3) His death before completing it (though it turned out in the news that his role WAS actually complete) People who might have been on the fence or 'eh, I'll wait for it on dvd'- with his death, may have felt more of an immediacy to go, just as (at times) famous actors who die, sometimes see a surge in rentals for some of their works around that same time. I agree- do people ONLY go because there's a death of an actor? For the most part, probably not. If Spacey died before seeing SR- or the lead had died right before it came out- I think there would have been more general interest.... (Just as there was more interest in people seeing the original "Crow" movie with Brandon Lee's death) though, of course, how much it would have translated to added box office is no guarantee. But (and it's only my feeling) that it WOULD have gotten people who were on the fence of seeing it, a little 'push' to go at that time. It definitely would make it more of an event- albeit a morbid one.  Also (*Spacey isn't/wasn't the heartthrob of "A Knight's Tale" that Ledger was in his time, too, so that's another different factor, though, to factor in.) I'm not saying THAT- that's too extreme....BUT- I'm saying that it was a probable 'curiosity factor' that may have brought people closer to it, who normally wouldn't be all that curious to see a Batman movie. Add to that, the rest. I know ONE person who went to the theaters because of that factor, (I asked him point blank) so automatically, (assuming that one person was telling the truth), it means that TDK at least made $10 more at the box office because of my theory. Didn't mean it was a success because of the extra $10, but it means that it did make at least one penny more because of Ledger's death. Again, morbid, but there it is. How did we get here again btw? |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Aug 20, 2011 18:18:06 GMT -5
It's very obvious to me that there was some interest in SR, otherwise it wouldn't have made nearly $400 mill ww. It was technically a blockbuster. It also sold well on dvd and blu.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 20, 2011 18:26:44 GMT -5
It was probably repeat business from people who know quality when they see it. (I think I saw it six times on the big screen, if memory serves right)  |
|
