|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 28, 2012 20:17:16 GMT -5
I thought there was a good amount of humor (I love the slightly sick joke with the cannibal cute puppy in the beginning), but I wouldn't have been opposed to more necessarily (depends where it would be at).
I know I sound like a broken record, but I just thought that the action should have been ramped up - or made far more inventive to make someone gasp at how cool a particular action scene might have been, given how much time has passed since STM and since we've seen a good number of superhero films with good fx since then, and SR really coulda/shoulda topped them off with their own action/fx sequence... not just lifting things.
There are times to make things more realistic in a fantasy film, but there are times to let the imagination go wild- in a good way, and I thought that's what was missing from SR, and could have helped enhance the film to action fans who wanted more visual thrills and/or action done in particularly fresh way.
(Examples: He could have been lifting the kryptonite mass AND battling a superpowered foe at the same time, imo--- and/or had the kryptonite mass have more of a 'ticking time bomb' element where a major country to refused to cooperate was IMMEDIATELY going to be destroyed if he didn't do something asap.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 28, 2012 20:21:31 GMT -5
I thought it worked--- but barely just worked. Not necessarily (though you may well be right) because of Routh not having the same badassness as a Clint Eastwood, but I don't think that the threat level was all that great to begin with, if they were looking for a HUGE laugh with that one....  |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jan 28, 2012 21:29:12 GMT -5
All the movie needed was to give the impression that the people who wrote it/directed it were aware of any elements of Superman lore that were not expressly part of STM. That's all.
The biggest criticism I heard of SR, and the one I heard most frequently from "average audiences" was they felt it was a remake of STM. And these were CASUAL FANS of STM. Ones who wouldn't spot a "subtle" homage.
I enjoy SR, but it was always doomed. Doomed by unimaginative writers/a director who had no clue about the wider Superman legend, and QUADRUPLY doomed by a studio system that was determined to bring in a Superman film under budget...so they could write off expenses from previous failures.
I can say with near absolute certainty that SR wasn't the movie that any of these people wanted to make, but it was mandated by the accountants that it must be made this way. That is not a $200 million dollar movie on that screen. At all. Superman is on screen for a total of 15 minutes, and there's 2, maybe 3 "big" action sequences which really ain't that big. They even shot it in Australia to save cash. They recycled effects and production work from at least one previous version of the movie. I'd love to know what was actually spent on Superman Returns. I'd be shocked if that number actually added up to 100 mil.
The real story will come out some day.
SR, unfortunately, after all this time...a movie I have defended on this board and elsewhere for years, has entered "Star Wars Prequel" territory for me. I'll watch bits of it, enjoy bits of it, enjoy Routh, enjoy the music, enjoy a moment or two...but I can't watch it all the way through anymore. It's too uneven. The pacing is a total disaster. The plot is thin. A character who gets more screen-time than Superman (Lois) is one of the worst performances this side of a Gungan. It's a movie made by accountants. Not artists. Certainly not fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by ger-el on Jan 28, 2012 22:01:11 GMT -5
I enjoy SR, and I agree with everything ousaid, Valentine. The movie was sabotaged, and in no way was it the 200 million (or so) film that they claimed. Routh was great. Bosworth was terrible. Uneven is a good term. What a pity. I would have loved to have seen Routhagain, and I would have been happy to see. Sequel, because Ido think Singer would have made a good one. But WB definitely were looking to make back a buck, and that is why the 300 million film didn't get a sequel. It was to recoup investments and maintain rights. Well said, Valentine.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 28, 2012 23:16:48 GMT -5
More often than not, I agree with you, Valentine.
This time- I agree with parts of this post. About the idea that fans didn't the film- I don't.
I DO think that Singer told the story he wanted to.
I DO think that there were times that the homage went a tad overboard- (Though some feel it went WAY overboard. I don't agree)
I DO agree that if Bosworth didn't work for someone, that the movie falls apart at the core. (The relationship is one of the big parts of the film.) ....Needless to say, Bosworth worked fine for me, although I'm in the majority who hate the line... "It's deadly....to him.".
I do think that Singer was a giant fan of the Donner Superman movies and is respectful enough of source material (I go by how he treated his Xmen adaptations) . If he wasn't, he wouldn't have gone overboard on the tributes. And he wouldn't have tried to get Donner's blessing first to do a quasi-sequel.
I've seen Singer in person twice, he's not that good of a speaker I think to be a good enough liar. (Plus, I generally trust people that struggle to speak more than smooth talkers who talk a little TOO smooth, but that's another story.)
Anyhow--- how much was spent on SR? I think it could EASILY have been clever accounting anywhere....
There was a '60 minutes' special years ago that talked about sneaky Hollywood accounting--- "Aliens" was supposedly a giant smash hit.... but not by the accounting, which robbed Sigourney Weaver of the percentage that she was supposed to get from the profits (apparently it 'never' made a profit).
At the same time, I attended a talk with one of Dreamworks' producers at DeAnza College (I'm not bragging, it was available to attend by any of the part-time faculty or invitation)- who talked about gigantic waste on "Shark's Tale" just by sheer bad planning..... and how much of the budget went to 'fixing' things because the script was never finished properly.... and that since then, Dreamworks Animation had changed their processes for the subsequent films.
(You'd think that, with the experience of the founders of Dreamworks, that it wouldn't be an issue of knowing the right method to follow so as not to waste money, but...who knows?).
So---
How much is sneaky accounting, how much is genuine stupid wastefulness through bad planning, how much actually questionable drug use?
Who really knows, unless one has actual access to the ones in the know?
I'm curious what you find out..... but I do see a lot of fannishness with the choices in SR, myself. I feel Singer did enough right by both the comics and Donner, but I know that there's a big feeling that (as you mention) it felt like a lazy reboot in some eyes as well.
A killer few action scenes and a killer supervillain coulda made up for it all, imo....
Oh well....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 28, 2012 23:18:02 GMT -5
Would it have been any hokier than "You really shouldn't smoke," or "Don't thank me, warden," or "Statistically speaking," or "Bad vibrations?" SR already HAD a line like that. After the airplane rescue. Remember. The scene with guy using the chaingun/m60 whatever the heck it was was way more action intense than all the lead ups to the quips that you just mentioned. You didn't see REEVE making a quip when Luthor hit him with the machine guns in the subway did you? The fact that he shrugged it off was enough. Sure SR needed more humor but at the RIGHT TIME. Not just any scene has to end with a one liner. I think a joke after that scene would have been misplaced. I just don't see it working. And SR WASN'T an exact copy of the Reeve films as far as tone. The movie was too heavy and emotionally somber. Superman feeling out of place after being gone for 5 years and his woman was with another man. That was the problem some people had with it in the first place. The Reeve films weren't heavy in that way. But the entire tone of the entire film being different is another discussion. I'm not sure it was supposed to be about him being a badass. Superman's invulnerable. The point wasn't that he's a badass but that you could drop a nuke on him and it wouldn't bother him even when he's happy go lucky. How's a SMALL CALIBER bullet (even to the face) supposed to do the job after he unloaded hundreds of heavy duty rounds at him already and they did diddly squat? It was the stupidest most desperate move he could have made. Thats why Superman gave him that look. The audience I watched it with thought it was funny. Not hugely funny but it got some laughs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2012 23:24:26 GMT -5
All the movie needed was to give the impression that the people who wrote it/directed it were aware of any elements of Superman lore that were not expressly part of STM. That's all. The biggest criticism I heard of SR, and the one I heard most frequently from "average audiences" was they felt it was a remake of STM. And these were CASUAL FANS of STM. Ones who wouldn't spot a "subtle" homage. I enjoy SR, but it was always doomed. Doomed by unimaginative writers/a director who had no clue about the wider Superman legend, and QUADRUPLY doomed by a studio system that was determined to bring in a Superman film under budget...so they could write off expenses from previous failures. I can say with near absolute certainty that SR wasn't the movie that any of these people wanted to make, but it was mandated by the accountants that it must be made this way. That is not a $200 million dollar movie on that screen. At all. Superman is on screen for a total of 15 minutes, and there's 2, maybe 3 "big" action sequences which really ain't that big. They even shot it in Australia to save cash. They recycled effects and production work from at least one previous version of the movie. I'd love to know what was actually spent on Superman Returns. I'd be shocked if that number actually added up to 100 mil. The real story will come out some day. SR, unfortunately, after all this time...a movie I have defended on this board and elsewhere for years, has entered "Star Wars Prequel" territory for me. I'll watch bits of it, enjoy bits of it, enjoy Routh, enjoy the music, enjoy a moment or two...but I can't watch it all the way through anymore. It's too uneven. The pacing is a total disaster. The plot is thin. A character who gets more screen-time than Superman (Lois) is one of the worst performances this side of a Gungan. It's a movie made by accountants. Not artists. Certainly not fans. The budget issue is something you've brought up in the past, and yes- I would love to know how much of the published budget actually ended up on screen. Nothing about the movie adds up to $200 million. Kevin Spacey is the only cast member who even comes close to sniffing the A-list, the production was shot almost entirely in Australia, and there aren't any action sequences that would have required large-scale location shooting. I wonder how invested Singer was in the film. People made a big deal over him ditching Fox and X-Men 3 to work for WB- but it couldn't have been that big of a deal, considering he came back to produce X-Men: First Class. He seems like a mercurial guy, attaching himself to a million different projects that never actually go into production, so maybe he just wanted to do something different and SR happened to be there. Who knows? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 28, 2012 23:30:27 GMT -5
I enjoy SR, and I agree with everything ousaid, Valentine. The movie was sabotaged, and in no way was it the 200 million (or so) film that they claimed. Routh was great. Bosworth was terrible. Uneven is a good term. What a pity. I would have loved to have seen Routhagain, and I would have been happy to see. Sequel, because Ido think Singer would have made a good one. But WB definitely were looking to make back a buck, and that is why the 300 million film didn't get a sequel. It was to recoup investments and maintain rights. Well said, Valentine. The budget claims for SR have always been fishy. I'd love to see the books on it. Are they including ALL the development costs from the ten years previous? Nic Cage got TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS for doing nothing. If things like that were included in SR's budget then the movie was doomed to fail. Ghost Rider is getting a second film for God's sake and SR was far better than that. GR just turned a better profit. I thought there was a good amount of humor (I love the slightly sick joke with the cannibal cute puppy in the beginning), but I wouldn't have been opposed to more necessarily (depends where it would be at). I know I sound like a broken record, but I just thought that the action should have been ramped up - or made far more inventive to make someone gasp at how cool a particular action scene might have been, given how much time has passed since STM and since we've seen a good number of superhero films with good fx since then, and SR really coulda/shoulda topped them off with their own action/fx sequence... not just lifting things. There are times to make things more realistic in a fantasy film, but there are times to let the imagination go wild- in a good way, and I thought that's what was missing from SR, and could have helped enhance the film to action fans who wanted more visual thrills and/or action done in particularly fresh way. (Examples: He could have been lifting the kryptonite mass AND battling a superpowered foe at the same time, imo--- and/or had the kryptonite mass have more of a 'ticking time bomb' element where a major country to refused to cooperate was IMMEDIATELY going to be destroyed if he didn't do something asap. The films biggest problem wasn't its lack of humor. It was its lack of action and excitement. The Spider-man movies were MONSTER hits and I'd argue that Rouths Clark Kent had more funny moments than Tobey Maguire's Peter AND Spider-man. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Spidey knows that he shoots out one liners a mile a minute. Yet in the movies he barely had any jokes. But no one seemed to care. The movies were EXCITING though. And fun. That horsesh** in Spidey 3 with Emo Peter wasn't funny at all. Most of the humor in the films came from Jonah Jameson. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 28, 2012 23:42:46 GMT -5
All the movie needed was to give the impression that the people who wrote it/directed it were aware of any elements of Superman lore that were not expressly part of STM. That's all. The biggest criticism I heard of SR, and the one I heard most frequently from "average audiences" was they felt it was a remake of STM. And these were CASUAL FANS of STM. Ones who wouldn't spot a "subtle" homage. I enjoy SR, but it was always doomed. Doomed by unimaginative writers/a director who had no clue about the wider Superman legend, and QUADRUPLY doomed by a studio system that was determined to bring in a Superman film under budget...so they could write off expenses from previous failures. I can say with near absolute certainty that SR wasn't the movie that any of these people wanted to make, but it was mandated by the accountants that it must be made this way. That is not a $200 million dollar movie on that screen. At all. Superman is on screen for a total of 15 minutes, and there's 2, maybe 3 "big" action sequences which really ain't that big. They even shot it in Australia to save cash. They recycled effects and production work from at least one previous version of the movie. I'd love to know what was actually spent on Superman Returns. I'd be shocked if that number actually added up to 100 mil. The real story will come out some day. SR, unfortunately, after all this time...a movie I have defended on this board and elsewhere for years, has entered "Star Wars Prequel" territory for me. I'll watch bits of it, enjoy bits of it, enjoy Routh, enjoy the music, enjoy a moment or two...but I can't watch it all the way through anymore. It's too uneven. The pacing is a total disaster. The plot is thin. A character who gets more screen-time than Superman (Lois) is one of the worst performances this side of a Gungan. It's a movie made by accountants. Not artists. Certainly not fans. The budget issue is something you've brought up in the past, and yes- I would love to know how much of the published budget actually ended up on screen. Nothing about the movie adds up to $200 million. Kevin Spacey is the only cast member who even comes close to sniffing the A-list, the production was shot almost entirely in Australia, and there aren't any action sequences that would have required large-scale location shooting. I wonder how invested Singer was in the film. People made a big deal over him ditching Fox and X-Men 3 to work for WB- but it couldn't have been that big of a deal, considering he came back to produce X-Men: First Class. He seems like a mercurial guy, attaching himself to a million different projects that never actually go into production, so maybe he just wanted to do something different and SR happened to be there. Who knows? Fox likes money. And they knew Singer coming back would be good PR. When it comes to making money a lot of things can be forgiven in Hollywood. Seems like at some point the studio turned a corner on how they handle genre films. They don't seem to micro manage and underfund them as much. Remember Matthew Vaughn ALSO bailed on X-men 3 but he was invited back too after he'd gotten more experience and success under his belt. Singer felt Fox was dragging their feet in some respects on X-men 3 and Superman seemed to be one of those childhood dream projects for him. Thats why he jumped at the chance. Battlestar Galactica is the same way. He was a fan as a kid and he's seen opportunities to turn it into a film so he tried. Logans Run may have been in the same boat. At the time WB didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground and they had been spinning their wheels trying to get some DC films out of the gate. They had three Batman irons in the fire before they went with Nolan's Batman film and at least 2 Superman productions totally fell apart before they hired Singer. They hired Goyer after his success with Marvels Blade and they hired Singer after X-men. Not very original thinking but from a business perspective I can't blame them. These guys were involved in the kinds of hits with Marvel characters that WB wanted with their characters. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 29, 2012 6:34:56 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I'd heard, too. Harry Knowles I think also mentioned that Singer leaving Xmen 3 was solely Fox's fault for not rushing in once X2 was a giant hit to lock him down asap..... makes sense. If you did a great job for a company twice- and they were hesitant about re-hiring you, and you got another offer somewhere else that was solid- wouldn't you take it? To me, it does sound like Fox screwed it up. As far as Logan's Run goes--- There's a website that detailed how many directors came and then left that project. Maybe the money fell through? Maybe studios put it on 'standby'? Who knows.... but I do know that Singer isn't the only one to leave that project- Ridley Scott in the bts of "Kingdom of Heaven" talked about how he always has three projects going at once- some fall apart (Crusades for one), but they keep going on. Look at Gullerman Del Toro- he stuck around forever for "The Hobbit", and then had to move on, through all the delays. I have a hunch constantly jumping on/off projects isn't JUST something that Singer does. It's just that his projects seem to have more fan interest than others, perhaps. Nolan right now seems to be the ONLY big director on the net that seems to be announced for something, completes it, and doesn't get mentioned to other projects at the same time. If Singer is fickle, it sure seems like a number of other big directors are as well. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Feb 1, 2012 17:31:10 GMT -5
BTW, Where is MAV? Miss ya, buddy! Happy new year!   I see. I guess me too. Hope life is treating you well. |
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 13, 2012 4:38:51 GMT -5
i have not watched this for nearly 2 year time for a watch i reckon
i'm always around
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 13, 2012 12:54:37 GMT -5
The movie is a giant 'setup' film for the sequel, as much as I loved it, it's hard to want to rewatch it just for the sake of rewatching it because the knowlege that it was going to lead into a sequel that never happened is a bit painful....
So, yeah, haven't watched it in a while myself...
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Feb 13, 2012 13:41:07 GMT -5
The movie is a giant 'setup' film for the sequel. the sequel was better |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Feb 13, 2012 15:41:07 GMT -5
The movie is a giant 'setup' film for the sequel that was never going to happen is a bit painful.... So, yeah, haven't watched it in a while myself... fixed. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 13, 2012 15:57:53 GMT -5
Considering every non Batman DC film in the last decade has been a glorified set up for a sequel that will never happen the odds aren't looking too good for MOS to buck the trend.
Maybe Snyder will give us rape Kryptonians in his sequel that never happens?
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 13, 2012 17:50:35 GMT -5
I honestly assumed that most big franchise films like this have sequels greenlit before they're released
I was more disappointed both Hulk films never got sequels than SR tbh
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 13, 2012 19:06:24 GMT -5
On one hand, they seem to lock up actors 'just in case' in their contracts.... but on the other--- at times, it sure seems like they drag their feet on greenlighting sequels (the Xmen movies in particular when they didn't lock down Singer right away.... Star Trek - 2009 part two...) -
I thought that in Hulk's case--- it kinda/sorta got a sequel with the second Hulk film, where they just did a quick recap in the beginning.
If Snyder's film did something like that for absorbing SR, like Hulk did for the first Hulk's origin story, then moved onto Brainiac, I think there might be less resistance..... (Or used Routh again)
In any case.... except for Marvel Studios.... no one else seems to be solidly behind making longterm solid plans with their superhero franchises....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 13, 2012 20:06:18 GMT -5
"greenlit" in this case is a pretty broad term. Contracts are in place to potentially bring people back like CAM said and sequels are put in DEVELOPMENT but not usually "greenlit" in the truest sense.
Hulk did worse than SR (probably cost less though) and it was just as dull in many spots when it should have been MORE action packed than SR so I always had more hope for a true SR sequel than a Hulk sequel. Its arguably seen as a bigger misfire than SR but I think both get a lot of undeserved flack.
The Incredible Hulk began its development as a sequel though. It ended up being more of a "re-quel." Thats why its still got some similarities to where the previous film left off.
Hulks got other problems though. I thought Bana brought some good things to the role but at the same time he wasn't right for Banner. Norton wasn't quite right either. Both play Banner at different stages of personal growth though so its hard to say one was more right than the other.
Bixby played up Banners humanity so it was easier to feel for his plight.
|
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Feb 14, 2012 3:32:16 GMT -5
i'm sure there would have been a sequel if singer jumped straight into it and not done valkyrie
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 14, 2012 5:51:12 GMT -5
There were 3 mediocre to OK Hulk TV movies in the late 80s (I recently watched the Thor one) with plans for more if poor Bixby hadn't died, yet for the big screen they manage 2 one offs.
Ang Lee's Hulk, a strange one. I seem to enjoy it despite the heavy handedness. I need to see it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 14, 2012 11:03:33 GMT -5
I think you're right. The news around that time seemed like WB was willing to greenlight it then... until Valkyrie went over...*sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 14, 2012 11:08:15 GMT -5
It is an odd one. I'm very curious as to what attracts you to Ang Lee's 'Hulk'--- to me, it's almost a mirror to 'Superman Returns' about making a movie that's mostly about internal struggles, but in the 'Hulk's case--- I didn't find the Bruce Banner character appealing enough to stick around his misery.
But, anyhow, curious-
Anyhow - back to Ang-
Ang Lee had such a large diversity of films that got great reviews by that point- from English costume drama (Sense and Sensibility I think) to Kung fu drama/action (Oscar winning "Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon")--- that I was really looking forward to him tackling 'the Hulk'.
But- neither the action nor the drama I thought was very good, and he'd said that he never 'got' the appeal of comic books at that point, and to me, that showed. The second Hulk film I thought was far, far better in both departments.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 14, 2012 11:18:58 GMT -5
Banners supposed to be introverted and nerdy but Bana usually came off like too much of a cold fish. Yes Bruce Banner is damaged psychologically but Bana wasn't very relatable at all. I sympathized with him but I couldn't invest as much in the character as I should have been able too.
The film didn't have enough of a balance between the psychological exploration of the material and full on rampaging destruction. The character study was so dense at times anyway. Almost everybody in the movie seems emotionally distant. I think Sam Elliot gives the best performance in it because his focus is so clear.
The tv show had an excuse but the film didn't. The medium offered them way more opportunity. I see what Lee was trying to do and commend him for it. The film is interesting and deep but also deeply flawed. Just didn't quite find that balance.
TIH has the opposite problem. A lot of fun but not deep enough. If we could mix and match elements of Hulk and The Incredible Hulk we might have a better movie.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 14, 2012 11:45:48 GMT -5
I didn't like him much neither, I dunno, hard to put my finger on. He had a right to be miserable though.
Because the Hulk is Banner's curse, he's allowed to be downbeat about his situation. Superman is supposed to be the polar opposite. Why we got a downbeat Superman outing is anyone's guess.
|
|
