Superman Returns (Singer, 2006)

[madali]

Haha, the Superman hate/love split will forever put this board into conflict!

It is Shia's and Sunnis!

[captainhowdy]

wow, that was such a sad-assed review! was it coz' of your PMS or something? woah.

Like AK said, the truth hurts. Now drink your milk sonny and go play with your dolls.

[animatedude]

believe it or not, this movie is still not out in bahrain.i was in bahrain on Wednesday and i was pissed that they didn't release it.i asked one of the workers at al Dana cinemas and he said there's problems with the company in dubai.

then i went to al seef mall and i asked the ppl in there whether they will release it in bahrain anytime soon and he said it will be out on August 26 but not in al seef but in al Dana cinema! and iam like WHAT?! i waited one month for this movie now and iam not gonna wait for another month.and i told him that August 26 is not a wednesday.he gave that look " " i knew that i had to leave him then.

[hamzat]

The movie absolutely ROCKS on IMAX 3D.

My man!! How could you say that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?  Besides the fact that the IMAX show ripped me off for 20 extra dirhams, I walked out of there stumbling, falling down, unbalanced, seeing things that weren't really there, including this movie, and the rest associated with 3-d viewing.  My first experience with 3-D glasses was back in the day when our local television channel decided to go with 3d martial arts films.  Needless to say, it didn't go over big then and part of the reason was because of the 3d effect.  (Those cheesy martial arts actors contributed in no small part to the demise of 3d martial arts films too.  This was waaaay back in the day before Norris, or Fat, Lee or Seagal, et.co.)  They announced before the film started we would see the green glasses indicating the beginning of the 3d sequence, but hell man, I just kept my glasses on throughout the show and enjoyed the mild "high" I was getting from seeing everything outta focus!?!?!

As for the movie...do we really wanna' go there?!?!?!?!!  What movie!!!!!  I didn't see a movie!!!  Oh, Kevin is a brilliant actor, but one actor can't carry an entire flick, especially when we're going there to see the special effects and what not.  So did they stack up?!?!  Well not really.  The original with Christopher Reeve set the bar and this latest remake just didn't reach it.  I guess I have a thing for Chris and his tragic and premature demise.  He was a good actor.  The acting wasn't bad it just wasn't great.  I can see a sequel in the future.....ugh, with the emergence of Lois and 'da Man's boy, what with flinging a piano across the room while suffering an asthma attack.  Didn't anyone think that was a bit incredulous; I mean why didn't he rescue his mom from the sinking ship if he was all that and a bag of chips?!?!?!  Oh, back to the "film".  The religious symbolism was way to thick for my tastes, almost a bit on the blasphemous side, but I know, I know it was just a movie.  The entire movie was out of place and left too many gaps  for me.  I mean, what's going to happen to Lois' boyfriend, who thinks the kid is his??   I was expecting 'da Man to run up to the kid and bellow, 'who's your daddy?' when he first laid eyes on him (as 'da Man) that is and I guess all this "prequel" preparation was another strike against the film.  Too many unanswered questions and gaps!  The set was real flaky too.  I've seen B-grade movies that had better set design that looked realistic than this "movie".  However, the emerging continent did look like something out of Armageddon; I was expecting Bruce Willis to swoop down and give 'da Man a hand, drilling into the continent's core and blowing the smithereens out of everything and everyone in sight.  Oops, wrong movie.

So if you have some money to blow, ahahahahahahahaha like anyone living in Dubai has spare money after all the exorbitant rents, then go see Superman, 'da Man.  But if you're on a budget, skip it.  Don't even take your kids to see it.  They can see better shows, with better props and half-way decent acting on MBC-3....and it's free!!  And that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  To coin a Rogers and Ebert saying, this flick gets a thumbs down from me.  I know, I know....half the population of the Sandlands has already seen the show.  One day, however for those who are seeing it for the second or third time, and I'll betcha there are some.....I'm gonna set up a one man picket outside the theater with a big sign saying 'I told you so' as they walk with the realization they had been had!! 

[kaytee]

Will "Superman Returns" return?

Warner Bros. Pictures execs are mulling whether to go ahead with a planned sequel and ink another deal with director Bryan Singer.

The film is not such a blockbuster that a follow-up is inevitable -- but not such a disappointment that a sequel would be ludicrous. After all, the first "Austin Powers" pic was a modest hit that begat two huge grossers.

Word on the Warners lot is that the studio is trying to lock down a deal with Singer for a sequel.

Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What's more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries and merchandising -- even subsid DC Comics.

Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures have a shot at breaking even on "Superman" once all the revenue streams are accounted for, but it's going to be a long, tough haul.

Warners and Legendary -- which splits all profits with the studio down the middle -- are counting on strong home entertainment sales to make up for slower-than-expected box office. (WB's 2005 "Batman Begins," whose B.O. was comparable to that of "Superman," earned $167 million in DVD sales, according to estimates by Variety sister pub Video Business.) Then there are the various TV windows.

There's no doubt that with Legendary as a partner, Warners has a far easier time justifying big-budget efforts like "Superman." At the same time, Legendary has investors to answer to.

Officially, Warners says it's premature to talk about any sequel, since "Superman" has yet to open in certain key international territories.

Last month at the fanboy gathering Comic-Con in San Diego, Singer enthusiastically predicted the second film would bow in 2009. He promised fans more action, saying he used the first pic to "lay the foundation" for the relaunch of the franchise.

Singer said he'll "go all 'Wrath of Kahn' " on the next installment -- a reference to the fact that Paramount's long-running "Star Trek" film franchise really kicked in with its second installment, which was tighter, faster and better received than the original "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

Negotiations between Singer and the studio would get delicate if Warners wants to include over-budget penalties. Warners certainly can't wrest control away from a director like Singer, but it can try to make sure the budget stays under a certain level.

Word is that WB and Legendary will want to keep the budget of the next one at $200 million or below, but the studio denies any such cap.

Sequels are generally costlier than the original pics, since they need more action and more special effects to tempt auds. In theory, a "Superman" follow-up could be cheaper, since expensive sets are already built, and some CGI experimentation is out of the way (e.g., how does his cape look when he flies?).

On the other hand, Universal threw in the towel with the Hulk after the first pic in the potential franchise failed to wow.

But is the character too retro? While "Superman Returns" received better notices than nearly all of the other 2006 summer tentpoles, some reviewers questioned whether the superhero is too stolid for modern-day fans, who favor darker, more complicated characters, such as Batman or Spider-Man.

Warners had believed that Superman, because of his good-beats-evil mythology, would appeal to a broader audience than Batman.

WB's "Batman Begins" grossed $203.5 million domestically and $166.5 million overseas. "Superman Returns" could edge past its predecessor. It has grossed $190.5 million in the U.S. and $146.5 million overseas, where it has yet to open in several key territories. Conservative estimates are that the pic will gross at least $170 million overseas, bringing its worldwide total to about $360 million.

But "Superman" was far more expensive than "Batman," whose sequel, "The Dark Knight," was just announced by Warners. Pricetag for "Superman" included a production budget of at least $223 million, offset by $20 million in Australian tax breaks. The P&A budget was well north of $100 million.

There is an added $40 million in previous development costs for earlier aborted attempts to resurrect the superhero. The studio wrote off those costs in previous years.

Top studio execs, along with Legendary, insist they will make money on the pic when all is said and done.

But some have speculated that -- based on box office alone and just counting the production budget -- Warners and Legendary could each be out more than $20 million. Those losses could rise sharply when factoring in marketing costs.

[animatedude]

i think the final  desicion whether to make a sequel or not  is when Superman Returns hits the DVD market.

man i feel sorry for Singer.

[shariqq]

In most probability, the decision will be to go ahead with atleast one sequel - as mentioned in the article - once the movie is turned into a hot property, it can be harvested for gains more than the virgin release gets. Spider-Man, Shrek, POTC, Matrix, LOTR - they all earned a lot more second time 'round and each of them even has a third movie. Also, once this believability is established, even those who hated 1 may like 2 because the director *may* have more freedom with the characters - I hated Spider-Man, but love Spider-Man 2.

[X.]

The director (Singer) had all the freedom he wanted on "Superman Returns" - not only did he receive unprecedented artistic freedom for a major studio film but he got U$230 million as production budget and they spent at least U$ 40 million in marketing.

If Singer didn't have room to develop his characters or whatever else excuse, those were his choices, from what I understand, he was not coerced into anything he didn't believe in.

So he cannot complaint. Either should we.

[shariqq]

Excuses? Complaints? Singer's not complaining, and neither am I . Heck, we liked the movie. Those were just my thoughts on the possibility of a sequel, and on the possibility of more people liking said sequel.

[X.]

Why should more people like "Superman Returns"?

I think (most of) the haters of said film really really wanted to like it - that includes yours truly. But sadly the movie didn't work for us. Although there's defo a chance, as you said, that the same haters may end up loving the sequel. My point was for that to happen it will not be because Singer will have "more freedom" (given the BO performance of this first Superman film, he'll probably have less freedom now). Again, we may like the sequel but not because of his artistic and commercial flexibility but very simply if he is able make a better film, relatively speaking ofcourse.

Anyways, here's a piece from my favourite writer at the moment (he didn't like "Returns" but his comments on the sequel possibility are candid and balanced):

Today’s Variety has an article about just this issue, and they shed some interesting light on the whole situation. One of the things that confuses average moviegoers the most seems to be how films earn money at the box office and what films are truly successful. The experts at Variety seem to think that Superman Returns is on target to lose money for Warner Bros and their co-financer, Legendary Pictures, to the tune of 20 million a piece – before the marketing costs are even added in, and some estimates have the film at 100 million for prints and advertising alone. If the film does very well on DVD, those losses could be lessened, but the film would have to VERY well on DVD to make a huge difference.

The problem there is that no one has figured out why Superman can’t fly. Is it because of Pirates? Is it because the character is hokey? Is it because the film just isn’t that good? If it’s the first one, the DVD could do very well. If it’s the second two, there’s trouble in Metropolis. Everyone keeps comparing Superman Returns to Batman Begins, but besides the fact that their budgets are very, very different, Batman had legs, which indicated good word of mouth. That later materialized as good DVD sales. Superman has legs like Christopher Reeve, and that could mean a poor showing at the video store.

One thing is certain – if Superman does return again, it’s going to have to be cheaper. Variety says that the word around town has Warner Bros demanding a budget south of 200 million dollars, a big chunk of change away from the original’s 240-260 million dollar cost. While Bryan Singer was at Comic Con last month touting a 2009 release date for his Superman sequel, Warner doesn’t even have him nailed down yet, and any deal is almost certainly going to include an enforced budget cap. Could the studio demand more control over the sequel?

A sequel doesn’t make much sense to me on any level. Singer promises a more action packed movie, but how is he going to pull that off with a budget below 200 million? Rumors have Spider-Man 3 clocking in at 300 million plus, and there’s an indication that the Pirates sequels may well cost 700 million combined. Like it or not, the effects film budget threshold is getting higher and higher, and Superman Returns had a hard time competing with a big budget as it was.

But beyond that, no one needs a Superman sequel. These films should be blockbusters or they shouldn’t exist at all. It isn’t like Warner Bros needs a film franchise to move Superman merchandise – the character does pretty well all on his own. Why sink millions more into another boondoggle film when you’re already getting the auxiliary benefits anyway?

 Of course no one knows where this will end up going. This buzz on the studio lot could just be Warner Bros being prepared in case the DVD does explodes like Superman’s home planet, or to minimize the perception of the film as an underperformer. And even if the studio does intend right now to go ahead with a new Superman, that could all vanish in a puff of smoke if the studio has another year as poor as this one is turning out to be. Hell, everybody who works there today could be gone by this time next year. Or the studio could be serious about making this franchise work, and we really will see Bryan Singer returning to the Man of Steel in 2009.

Maybe in Bizarro World.

Ha ha, gotta love that Bizzaro reference!

Picking on some points in that article, I see a weird connection these industry experts are making - big budget for special effects will mean the movie will be more popular, hence more successful? That's horseshit. Such talk gets me convalescing. It's the story, the craft and the technique that makes a movie "successful." Then again what is "successful"? It's a relative terms, it means different things to differnet people, people in gray flannel suits and people in regular tshirts, even people in their undies (us at home). Now they compare "Superman Returns" to "Batman Begins" and try to analyse the factors of its success. That's more horseshit right there. "Begins" didn't have any spectacular special effects, no eye-popping stuff (ironically, one of our very own forum friends called them "bad"). The reason "Begins" succeeded was because it was a great script directed by someone who understands what the audience wants deep down in their hearts. Nolan didn't use obvious special effects because he knows they mean nothing to the film if they mean nothing to the story and its characters. I will not close my eyes from the fact that Nolan did appease the summer blockbuster god by that train sequence at the end of "Begins" but it was all done rather tastefully, in service to the story. That's key.

All this talk about BO is silly anyways. Some of the greatest films ever were flops. 

[madali]

Main problem with Superman was it was fanboy crap. Most new Comic book movies were re-inventions, and thats why they worked.

I ready The Dark Night Returns (I'll comment in the correct forum later), and Superman impressed the hell out of me. Huge and relevant. This guy is invincible, he wasnt wasting his time stopping small robberies, he was PREVENTING WARS. Leave the bank robberies to other super heroes. Plus, he was confident, serious, and almost hypnotical. On the other hand, Singer's was just a superhero with mid-life crisis. Whatever.

[kaytee]

Rumours Rumours

Jude Law as 'Zod' for Superman Returns Sequel?
Vancouver locations rumoured

According to sources, actor Jude "Road To Perdition" Law is in talks to appear in director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns sequel, now rumoured to be filmed in Vancouver.

Law will play 'Krytonian' villain 'General Zod', a character last seen in director Richard Lester's Superman II.

The role was originally played by actor Terence Stamp.

"'General Zod' is the main bad guy in the second film," said Warners.

"Bryan Singer is looking at Jude. The similarities between him and Stamp are clear."

Besides the return of actor Brandon Routh as the 'Man of Steel', actor Kevin Spacey will return as 'Lex Luthor'.

[shariqq]

Jude Law was already approached 6 times by Singer to play ZOD in Returns. Why would he say yes now? Maybe he's looking for work... or maybe he liked Superman Returns!   

[animatedude]

6 times? more on that Shariqq, please?

[shariqq]

I read it in some fan-site. It's even on the IMDb Trivia pages: Jude Law was Bryan Singer's only choice to play General Zod. After Law turned down the role several times, Singer eliminated the character from the script.