Superman Returns sequel in 2009

[van-zee]

At the same the Warner Bros. Pictures Presents panel, Superman Returns director Bryan Singer announced that while he doesn't have a deal set yet with Warner Bros., he does intend to direct a sequel to Superman Returns, to hit theaters in 2009

As for the story, Singer said that while Superman Returns allowed him to introduce the cast, the sequel would allow him to, “Go Wrath of Khan on it."

Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/SDCC06/DC/action_D_G.html), at the end of the article.

Sweet! But three years is such a long wait.

[David Atkins]

Good God... that's three years of living in a tent in the theatre parking lot... three years of sleeping on the cold, hard ground and eating stray bits of popcorn that find their way outside... three years of staving off an ugly dehydration-related death by drinking rain water and begging for half-empty cokes... why can't I have hated 'Superman Returns' like so many other people? :mad:

[PersonaDark]

Wrath of Khan huh?

Returning villian, High death count, Great space battle, Memorable quotes, Sacrifical death of a beloved character that will return in the next?

Sorry couldn't resist :p

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Are we ready for "Superman Returns Again" ? :p

[Ontir]

The timing, I believe, has to do with next summer's planned release of Wonder Woman & theoretically Shazam!, followed the next year by the next Batman film, and posssibly the Flash. A "Trinity" film can be paired with a second tier, but they won't go up against each other, without being in the same film.

[Evan Waters]

This is the first I've heard of a SHAZAM! movie. Do you have any details on that?

[chriskenny]

The timing, I believe, has to do with next summer's planned release of Wonder Woman & theoretically Shazam!, followed the next year by the next Batman film, and posssibly the Flash. A "Trinity" film can be paired with a second tier, but they won't go up against each other, without being in the same film.

Three years is just how long it takes. Writing a script, allowing stars to do other projects, pre-production, etc. If you read what Singer says carefully, it says HE would like to do a sequel in three years, but WB hasn't decided if it was worth it yet. He said he would have liked to have had confirmation from WB but they hadn't given it to him yet. I think this is Singer's ideal timetable, and not an official one. There still might not be a sequel.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Judging by the mixed reaction to Superman Returns, i think it's a given that Singer won't be directing a sequel if one is made.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

But one has to wonder why Hollywood would want to make a sequel when they could start from scratch with a fresh start and new direction, keeping the retelling of the origin to a minimal since we saw it already in the 1978 Superman movie.

[Sizzle]

Judging by the mixed reaction to Superman Returns, i think it's a given that Singer won't be directing a sequel if one is made.

This is Warner, they freakin' green lit Batman and Robin.

[van-zee]

This is Warner, they freakin' green lit Batman and Robin.

There was quite a mixed reaction to Batman Begins when it came out to. Very similar to the situation with Superman. A majority of people enjoyed the movie, but the ones who didn't were very vocal about it. Singer made this announcement at the Warner Bros. panel, and I'm sure if Warner's wasn't on board for a sequel they would not have let him. He's most likely still negotiating salary, screenwriters, etc.

[chriskenny]

Yeah, but they greenlit Batman and Robin after Batman Forever made them a fortune. Superman Returns did not make them a fortune. In a way, the audience deserved Batman and Robin after voting with their wallets that that was the kind of Batman movie that would get them in theater seats.

[chriskenny]

There was quite a mixed reaction to Batman Begins when it came out to. Very similar to the situation with Superman. A majority of people enjoyed the movie, but the ones who didn't were very vocal about it. Singer made this announcement at the Warner Bros. panel, and I'm sure if Warner's wasn't on board for a sequel they would not have let him. He's most likely still negotiating salary, screenwriters, etc.

I think he is permitted to say he is contractually obligated to do a sequel if he chooses and that if they choose to when he would be making it. This was not an announcement. He merely said he would like to-- and is obligated by contract-- to make a sequel if they choose. And made a broad remark about the kind of movie he would do if he did. There was nothing official. Just him talking.

[The Batman]

while Batman Forever was disapointing it was nowhere near as bad as Batman and Robin was. the people who liked Batman Forever, and there's a few of them, liked that it showed a Batman that was more heroic, less ruthless, and more human, they liked that it wasn't as dreary and dark at the Burton films were, and i think that they liked that Val Kilmer played a Bruce Wayne that was classically handsome and more of a fleshed out character. i don't think that they were voting for the neon, the pointless costume changes or the campiness.

but Warner Bros. misread them it seems. Batman Forever got Batman and Robin greenlit, but it was Warner Bros and Schumaker not getting what made Forever popular that made Batman and Robin just plain awful.

as for Superman, i think that when/if a Superman Returns sequel gets made, hopefully under Singer, that we'll see more action. i think that it was more the lack of action than Jason and Richard that drove audiences away. i hope that those plot elements are still dealt with and it seems that a superhero movie can have heart and high flying heroics.

[protege]

Warner Bros. is waiting to see if the movie cracks $200 million at the box office, before they decide on doing a sequel...

[van-zee]

Warner Bros. is waiting to see if the movie cracks $200 million at the box office, before they decide on doing a sequel...

With film rent, foreign, television rights, and domestic video rights the film has already turned a large enough profit to allow for a sequel. It has also been very well received critically, so I seriously doubt they would not go with Singer for the next one.

Superman returns opened bigger than Batman Begins by about 10 million dollars, and while it hasn't reached Batman Begins take, it is dropping off slower. And since Superman only cost $50 million more to make than Batman, and has taken in more money from merch than Batman I have no doubt in my mind that this film will have a sequel and that Singer will helm it.

[chriskenny]

i don't think that they were voting for the neon, the pointless costume changes or the campiness.

but Warner Bros. misread them it seems.

I hated that movie for all the reasons I hated the fourth, the fourth just had more of it. I don't execs at all for misreading (or correctly reading, who's to really know?) a public who ate up the excesses of the third one.

But this is kind of off-topic. ha.

[chriskenny]

With film rent, foreign, television rights, and domestic video rights the film has already turned a large enough profit to allow for a sequel. It has also been very well received critically, so I seriously doubt they would not go with Singer for the next one.

Superman returns opened bigger than Batman Begins by about 10 million dollars, and while it hasn't reached Batman Begins take, it is dropping off slower. And since Superman only cost $50 million more to make than Batman, and has taken in more money from merch than Batman I have no doubt in my mind that this film will have a sequel and that Singer will helm it.

Critics did not universally praise this movie. The general consensus of movie reviewers was that "so-so" hand motion. Some really liked it, some hated it, and some thought it was just okay.

I have a hard time believing that Batman Begins 's budget was in league with the bloated budget of Superman Returns. I really don't know where all that money went.

[Windbreaker]

End the franchise with Superman Returns?! Come on, we all know that's not going to happen. I think the real speculation should be what is Singer going to do with Superboy? Superman has already had 5 films showcasing him. If WB isn't careful, it'll turn into the Star Trek franchise where only Trekies went to the theater. We need something fresh thrown in the mix.

My uneducated guess about the production budget is that they took great care in keeping the flick as CGI-free as possible. Obvious CGI, I mean. SR didn't have any of those X3 Phoenix-shredding-paper-men shots that made you roll your eyes.

[Sizzle]

If you count development costs, Batman Begins was almost 100 million cheaper then Superman Returns was. While I think people were not ready for another Batman movie, the positive word of mouth on this movie was tremendous. People are not saying the same of Superman. It's slowness can't be attributed to one of the worst films of all time preceeding it.

[56857]

i hope the alien villian is doomsday that singer is talking about cos think about it this would be the battle of the ages and it ending with superman announced dead and watching the entire world morn deeply of his demice but before the movie actually ends and everybody has left his grave, have a scene were jorel is talking to him about his destiny while the camera is moving closer and closer to his grave, and when jorel finishes talking to him, his eyes suddenly open and the movie ends making space for the third movie entering the 4 supermen and the tyrant god darkseid for an ultimate conclusion to all three movies

[chriskenny]

End the franchise with Superman Returns?! Come on, we all know that's not going to happen. I think the real speculation should be what is Singer going to do with Superboy? Superman has already had 5 films showcasing him. If WB isn't careful, it'll turn into the Star Trek franchise where only Trekies went to the theater. We need something fresh thrown in the mix.

And this is why the Superman lovechild was a bad idea. Because now all subsequent sequels have to deal with him. And it just isn't part of the the Superman mythology and I'm really not interested in it. And I don't think there is really anything fresh about it.

What we need is an exciting plot that doesn't try to so consciously mirror the 1978 movie. A Superman film that speaks to people today and not those who specifically loved Richard Donner's film.

[van-zee]

Because now all subsequent sequels have to deal with him. And it just isn't part of the the Superman mythology and I'm really not interested in it. And I don't think there is really anything fresh about it.

Those two statements contradict each other. How can it be a new idea to the franchise and not fresh at the same time?

As far as Batman vs. Superman budgets, Singer said that the budget reports for his flick were grossly exaggerated, and that the real cost was right around $185 Mil. Batman Begins was $135 Mil. One deals with a super-powered character, one deals with a normal man in a suit, which explains the difference in budgets.

And before people start talking about the cost of all the false starts: Singer's film is not fiscally responsible in recouping those cost. Warner Bros. takes that hit.

[chriskenny]

Those two statements contradict each other. How can it be a new idea to the franchise and not fresh at the same time?

As far as Batman vs. Superman budgets, Singer said that the budget reports for his flick were grossly exaggerated, and that the real cost was right around $185 Mil. Batman Begins was $135 Mil. One deals with a super-powered character, one deals with a normal man in a suit, which explains the difference in budgets.

And before people start talking about the cost of all the false starts: Singer's film is not fiscally responsible in recouping those cost. Warner Bros. takes that hit.

New, to me, does not mean fresh. It just means new. I will give you a comic book example; Geoff Johns wrote Wally West and his rogue's gallery in a really exciting, fresh way but these new guys writing a new Flash is not fresh at all.

And I am not interested in paying 9 bucks to see him be a dad. I want the movie to be somewhat representational of the mythology in the books. And I think that can be done in a fresh way if they producers of the film shed the over-reliance on the Donner film.

[Windbreaker]

And I am not interested in paying 9 bucks to see him be a dad. I want the movie to be somewhat representational of the mythology in the books. And I think that can be done in a fresh way if they producers of the film shed the over-reliance on the Donner film.

Your distaste for the non-comic book story is clouding your posting! :eek:

My point was that we now have five Superman movies. FIVE. Look what's happened to the Star Trek franchise. The big screen films are glorified cable movies. They don't justify more than a $50M budget anymore, because only fanboys care enough to spend the $9 every few years.

With Superboy, the sky's the limit (pardon the pun). I don't think Doomsday should come kill of Supes. We saw him die and come back in Returns. Don't overdue it. Darkseid could be really fun. I don't know -- lot's of villains could be really fun (just not all at once... Batman & Robin... ack!)

[saintsaucey]

Superman has already had 5 films showcasing him.

techinichally now he has only had three movies made about him. since the movie takes place after the second movie. I do belive that Superboy Prime ret-con punched Superman III and Superman IV The Quest for Peace out of exsistance. "Thankyou Superboy Prime, you may have a cookie now."

[curefreak]

i think its pretty sad when were supposed to forget movies that we watched even if we didnt like them in the first place...
obviously i think retcons are a lazy way to get out of knots that writers find themselves in and the only one i can think of that was neccesary was getting rid of krypto and the rest of them.

[David Atkins]

I do belive that Superboy Prime ret-con punched Superman III and Superman IV The Quest for Peace out of exsistance. "Thankyou Superboy Prime, you may have a cookie now."

OMG... it's true... Superboy-Prime is the ONLY real hero in this world! YAY! :D

[The Shadow]

keeping the retelling of the origin to a minimal since we saw it already in the 1978 Superman movie.
... didn't they do that with Superman Returns???

I mean, they had the same basic cast... but you're going to get that in ANY Superman movie... and Lex is the obvious villain... now that Singer has that out of the way he can go crazy with the next one!

[chriskenny]

Your distaste for the non-comic book story is clouding your posting! :eek:

My point was that we now have five Superman movies. FIVE. Look what's happened to the Star Trek franchise. The big screen films are glorified cable movies. They don't justify more than a $50M budget anymore, because only fanboys care enough to spend the $9 every few years.

With Superboy, the sky's the limit (pardon the pun). I don't think Doomsday should come kill of Supes. We saw him die and come back in Returns. Don't overdue it. Darkseid could be really fun. I don't know -- lot's of villains could be really fun (just not all at once... Batman & Robin... ack!)

Like I said before, people go see Superman movies to see things they expect Superman to do. Superman hanging out with his lovechild is not something I want to see. Anymore than I want to see Superman driving around in a roadster or wearing all black, like Jon Peters wanted.

Chris

[Kilgore Trout]

And I am not interested in paying 9 bucks to see him be a dad. I want the movie to be somewhat representational of the mythology in the books. And I think that can be done in a fresh way if they producers of the film shed the over-reliance on the Donner film.

My sentiment exactly...

Unfortunately because of the way Superman has been portrayed in his comics over the past several years the child IS somewhat representational...

I mean, the whole point of the marriage wasn't just to give Superman a sidekick ala Batman and Robin…

I can say this without fear of hypocrisy; if the child is featured in the next movie I won't be seeing it in the theatre OR my home...

The past 20 years have been DEVOTED to the idea of exploring the ‘human side’ of the alien character…

Isn’t it now past time, and wouldn’t it be more interesting, to explore what makes him different?

I don’t know about you guys but I’m already experiencing the ‘human condition’ in my own life and in the madness that is now our world…

Some relief is in order…

[Whirlysplat]

Time for Braniac and Darkseid.

- Whirly

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Brandon Routh - Yes

Superman's Love Child - No!

I think I'll hang out for Superman II Redux...the one with Marlon Brando saying "The Horror...The Horror" or maybe "Get the butter!!!" to Margot Kidder.

[curefreak]

Brandon Routh - Yes

Superman's Love Child - No!

I think I'll hang out for Superman II Redux...the one with Marlon Brando saying "The Horror...The Horror" or maybe "Get the butter!!!" to Margot Kidder.
i think the next one will probably be more action oriented (if you wanna follow the wrath of khan reasoning)

[caats19]

as long as zod isn't the villain i'll be happy. sequals tend to do better than the first, and i think the sequal is going to do much much much better(won't be too hard)

[saintsaucey]

sequals tend to do better than the first, and i think the sequal is going to do much much much better(won't be too hard)

While the sequals may do better business, they are not always better scripts. Scream was awsome everyone loved it they said it was the most brilliantly inspired horror movie ever. yet most hate the two sequals, same with the ring to.

There are few times when a sequal has had a better script than the original. Bad Boys was fantastic, Bad Boys 2 not so much
The same with Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2
Most loved the first Fast and the Furiest, yet hated the second because it was their opinion that it was Vin's movie, sorry to tell you fokes that it wasn't Paul Walker was the better known actor at the time. The movie made his career and he got a big head and thought he was to go to do the sequal. The only reason he came on for the third in a cameo is because his other movies, A Man Apart, Tripple X and The Chronicles of Riddik bombed at the box office. (sorry i just hate vin)

Face it, while we clamor for a sequal to great movies, they usually tend to let us down.

[Ontir]

This is the first I've heard of a SHAZAM! movie. Do you have any details on that?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448115/

It's been on-again, off-again. For awhile Stephen Sommers of the Mummy fame was attached, but he's also been attached to Flash Gordon, and When Worlds Collide recently, as well. I'm not sure that any of the others are going ahead, but this new group has been listed for several months now.

[saintsaucey]

Shazam should be played by Putty from Seinfeld, he is the perfect guy if they go the Big Red Cheeze route. And yes, I know he already played the tick but still. He would be perfect, and you can get someone like Haley Joel Osmet to play him as a human boy

[drwho]

I can't see the WB inviting Singer back to make another expensive movie that isnt worth the gain you get for it.

[Evil Supergirl]

Well I think they will make a sequal...I mean I dont see why not. This movie made big bucks for WB.

[botch]

There was quite a mixed reaction to Batman Begins when it came out to. Very similar to the situation with Superman. A majority of people enjoyed the movie, but the ones who didn't were very vocal about it. Singer made this announcement at the Warner Bros. panel, and I'm sure if Warner's wasn't on board for a sequel they would not have let him. He's most likely still negotiating salary, screenwriters, etc.

Must be around your area because batman begins was universally yes i mean the entire universe, lauded. People loved the movie, had excellent word of mouth which is the reason why it was in theatres for a while. Superman returns on the other hand, majority of people don't like it. Compare the reaction on boards such as imdb and AICN. Both those sites loved begins and hated returns.

[CaptainAwesome]

Must be around your area because batman begins was universally yes i mean the entire universe, lauded. People loved the movie, had excellent word of mouth which is the reason why it was in theatres for a while. Superman returns on the other hand, majority of people don't like it. Compare the reaction on boards such as imdb and AICN. Both those sites loved begins and hated returns.
Thats not true. Majority of people do like SR, unfortunately its not a big majority. Batman Begins was not universally praised either. Aside from sticking closely to the Batman mythos it really wasnt a great movie. Poor acting and cheesey dialouge really bogged it down for non comic fans. I liked it a lot and I know other people who did too, but I also know a lot of people who hated it.

And I am not interested in paying 9 bucks to see him be a dad. I want the movie to be somewhat representational of the mythology in the books. And I think that can be done in a fresh way if they producers of the film shed the over-reliance on the Donner film.

To be fair it looks like Supes will be getting a son in the comics when Donner and Johns take over. I agree that SR relied a little too much on the original Donner movie, but in reality every thing you needed to know was explained in the movie itself. SR stayed true to the core of what Superman represents, every thing else is just filler.

[J. Robb]

Must be around your area because batman begins was universally yes i mean the entire universe, lauded. People loved the movie, had excellent word of mouth which is the reason why it was in theatres for a while. Superman returns on the other hand, majority of people don't like it. Compare the reaction on boards such as imdb and AICN. Both those sites loved begins and hated returns.
I certainly wouldn't say imdb hated "Superman Returns", it's rated 7.2, which isn't bad. "Batman Begins" is rated 8.4, which lines up pretty close to the critical consensus at rottentomatoes.com: 76% (avg rating: 7.1) for "Returns", 83% (avg rating: 7.7) for "Begins". Box office-wise, they'll probably end up pretty close.

So while everyone is entitled to their opinions, I don't think statements like "Batman Begins is loved, Superman Returns is hated" are at all true.

[botch]

Thats not true. Majority of people do like SR, unfortunately its not a big majority. Batman Begins was not universally praised either. Aside from sticking closely to the Batman mythos it really wasnt a great movie. Poor acting and cheesey dialouge really bogged it down for non comic fans. I liked it a lot and I know other people who did too, but I also know a lot of people who hated it.



To be fair it looks like Supes will be getting a son in the comics when Donner and Johns take over. I agree that SR relied a little too much on the original Donner movie, but in reality every thing you needed to know was explained in the movie itself. SR stayed true to the core of what Superman represents, every thing else is just filler.

Majority of people do like SR but it's not a big majority? What? English? Batman begins was unversally praised. Majority of websites, newspapers, magazines thought it was great. And i'm not talking about people whom i talk to like you seem to be doing and basing your judgement on.

Obviously you know nothing about anything. Poor acting? WTF? Cheesy dialogue? and saying the non comic book fans noticed it? WTF? It really wasn't a great movie? You act like your opinion is the be all and end all. But I know movies and i know acting. In general the opinion is that SR is not a good movie, not just my opinion. There are only two sites that seem to have people who vocally like this movie, and that is this site, and supermanhomepage.com . The people on imdb who like it always seem to be young girls.

[CaptainAwesome]

Majority of people do like SR but it's not a big majority? What? English? Batman begins was unversally praised. Majority of websites, newspapers, magazines thought it was great. And i'm not talking about people whom i talk to like you seem to be doing and basing your judgement on.
Yes the majority of people do like SR, but there are also a lot of people who dont. When something gets a 70-something percentage approval rating, that means the majority of people did like it.


Batman begins was unversally praised. Majority of websites, newspapers, magazines thought it was great.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you do not understand what the word "universally" means. It certainly doesnt mean the same thing as "majority".


Obviously you know nothing about anything. Poor acting? WTF? Cheesy dialogue? and saying the non comic book fans noticed it? WTF? It really wasn't a great movie? You act like your opinion is the be all and end all. But I know movies and i know acting. In general the opinion is that SR is not a good movie, not just my opinion. There are only two sites that seem to have people who vocally like this movie, and that is this site, and supermanhomepage.com . The people on imdb who like it always seem to be young girls.
I act like my opinion is the "be all end all" and yet all I have doen is expressed my opinion and the opinions of people I know. You on the other hand claim to be an expert on acting and all good movies. Most of the big name actors in the movie (Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, ect.) seemed to phone it in, and Bale just sort of grunted through his lines. The writers really tried too hard to be profound in parts ("Its not who you are on the inside...") and just plane lame in others ("Does it come in black"). No the acting was not that great and yes the dialouge was cheesey. How about you come up with a better argument than just telling me that I am wrong.

[PatrickG]

I can't see the WB inviting Singer back to make another expensive movie that isnt worth the gain you get for it.

The buzz is that Routh will be back either way but that Singer, if he does come back, will get a smaller budget and that the studio will have some demands.

Keep in mind that this movie had $60-70 million in its budget spent on attempts before Singer.

And Singer spent money not only on a SFX for an hours worth of deleted footage (he insisted on completing SFX for cut scenes) but he spent $10 million alone on a CGI Marlon Brando head. (I didn't even realize it was CGI and not stock footage.)

Right now, the movie is $5-10 million away from WB's rumored minimum for a sequel.

If somebody watches the budget closely and the DVD does well, I expect a sequel. However, Singer may face some strict studio demands if he comes back.

And I expect Routh back either way.

The same (or better) SFX can be done with a budget in the $100 to $150 million range as long as nobody's spending money on silly things like a CGI Marlon Brando head.

(Call me crazy but couldn't they have just remapped his lips either digitally or with a lip double?)

[Smarty Jones]

Overall, "Batman Begins" received stronger reviews than "Superman Returns." From my moviegoer standpoint and my comic book reader standpoint, "Batman Begins" was more consistent with the Dark Knight's post-Crisis mythos. I saw concepts and themes running through the movie seen in books such as "The Dark Knight Returns," "The Long Halloween" and even "Batman: The Animated Series."

On the other hand, "Superman Returns" seemed to draw all its inspiration from Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" (1977) and 1980's "Superman II." The problem is that Superman's mythos has changed since those movies came, courtesy of "Man of Steel" and "Birthright." The characterizations of Lex Luthor and Clark Kent were based on their pre-Crisis personas, which combined with the constant references to the 25-year-old-plus movies IMO made "Superman Returns" come across as really dated.

The characterization of Batman in "Batman Begins" was more much consistent with the comic book character. In "Superman Returns," you have a Superman who acts like some proverbial Greek god who callously leaves the planet and is shocked the world has moved on without him. Then you have Superman exhbiting behaviors very contrary to his comic book characterization, such as pursuing a woman who is practically spoken for (he knew Lois Lane was engaged and for most of the movie thought Jason was her fiance Richard's son).

The complex Superman/Lois/Richard/Jason relationship in "Superman Returns" is what drags the movie down, IMO. Now, you have Superman and Lane placed in positions where they can come across as amorally manipulative. Like I've said before, no one goes to see a superhero movie and expect a Lifetime TV movie to break out. What's worse, this is the central theme of the movie. The movie is surprisingly devoid of action and suspense, which "Batman Begins" supplies despite being an origin story and having some rather clunky fighting scenes thanks to Christain Bale's bulky suit.

While most of the reviews of "Superman Returns" are not negative, a lot of the reviews I read on Rotten Tomatoes were not exactly overwhelmingly enthusiastic either. The general impression I got from the reviews -- as well as seeing the movie myself -- is that it's a beautifully shot film with some good special effects, but it could have used a better script.

Also keep in mind that there was a generally higher expectation for "Superman Returns." The Batman franchise had a previous film out only nine years prior, and 1996's "Batman and Robin" was heavily panned. The four Batman films also had three different people (Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney) playing The Dark Knight, and I personally felt none of them were apt for the role.

[mrc1214]

I hated the 1st one with a passion. I despise Singer and ive hated everything hes done. I wont pay a dime to watch Superman Returns. I dont care if everyone in the world liked it. It sucked. If they can actually start hiring directors who have actually picked up a comic book the movies would be better.

[CaptainAwesome]

I hated the 1st one with a passion. I despise Singer and ive hated everything hes done. I wont pay a dime to watch Superman Returns. I dont care if everyone in the world liked it. It sucked. If they can actually start hiring directors who have actually picked up a comic book the movies would be better.
Even the Usual Suspects? C'mon, you cant say you hated the Usual Suspects.

[theadslguy]

I hated the 1st one with a passion. I despise Singer and ive hated everything hes done. I wont pay a dime to watch Superman Returns. I dont care if everyone in the world liked it. It sucked. If they can actually start hiring directors who have actually picked up a comic book the movies would be better.

huh?
Singer is a Superman/X-Men fan, Nolan is a Batman fan, Raimi adores/loves Spider-man. The people that have now been put into creative power on these flicks actually are or become big fans of the material they're working with. Heck David Goyer is a comic book writer and he wrote Batman Begins with Nolan, and both went to DC and went through all the Batman comics in the archive.
As for Singer, I think he's a good director, in a world of bland, same old hat trick directing, Singer did some great things with the camera in Superman Returns. I've seen all his movies, he knows how to work with actors and such. Of course I'm a fan of Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Steven Spielberg, Jim Cameron and Martin Scorsese as well, so take my words for whatever you think they're worth. While Singer isn't in the same category with most of these guys, he's good, it could've been worse we could've gotten Kevin Smith (I am a fan of some of Smith's work) or Micheal Bay to direct. (Oh wait they're working on Aquaman 2...)

Batman Begins I think is liked more because Batman is a regular guy in a suit, he's not an alien from another planet, he wasn't bitten by a radio-active spider, he wasn't born a mutant, he wasn't exposed to gamma rays and so forth. He's just an average guy who is out to stop what happened to him when he was child. People identify with that. People have a hard time identifing with Superman, he's invunerable, he's consistantly good, he's smarter than humans, the list goes on. Yet you strip all that away and take him down to being who he really is, Clark Kent, and he's got insecurities, he makes mistakes, he's just a guy that happens to be Superman. That's how I approach it and that's what made me love Superman Returns, Bryan made Superman almost human. I'm far more the Superman fan, I always have been, Batman is my number 2 favorite comic book character, but Superman Returns was amazing, especially in 3D.

As for a sequel I hope they have one, but Supes doesn't have the easiest rogue's gallery, Lex is the best bad guy, which is why he's the main bad guy in 4 of the 5 Superman movies. (SM:TMP, SM2,SM4, SR, though the villainness is shared in 4)
Could go the Brainiac or Metallo route, that would be interesting to see.

[Kilgore Trout]

Batman is a regular guy in a suit, he's not an alien from another planet, he wasn't bitten by a radio-active spider, he wasn't born a mutant, he wasn't exposed to gamma rays and so forth. He's just an average guy who is out to stop what happened to him when he was child. People identify with that. People have a hard time identifing with Superman, he's invunerable, he's consistantly good, he's smarter than humans, the list goes on. Yet you strip all that away and take him down to being who he really is, Clark Kent, and he's got insecurities, he makes mistakes, he's just a guy that happens to be Superman. That's how I approach it and that's what made me love Superman Returns.

This is EXACTLY why I dislike the film...

We've already had 10 Superhero movies exploring the heroes insecurities and mistakes...

I already know what its like to be human, I am one...

This is exactly the same thing that is WRONG with Superman comics, this idea that the character is hard to like or portray because people can't relate to him...

I like Silence of the Lambs but I didn't go out and eat people after watching the movie so I could relate better to the Anthony Hopkins character...

The Superman movie failed to catch on with viewers for the same reason's the comics fail with the readers...

The simple don't understand the character and focus on the wrong concepts...

[drwho]

As I've said in other posts the movie is watchable, but not all that. I typically see superhero movies when they are real good like 3 times. I did that with Batman Begins, but with Superman Returns naah don't think so. I don't think alot of people hate it, but it isn't something that someone wants to see over and over again.

[botch]

Yes the majority of people do like SR, but there are also a lot of people who dont. When something gets a 70-something percentage approval rating, that means the majority of people did like it.


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you do not understand what the word "universally" means. It certainly doesnt mean the same thing as "majority".


I act like my opinion is the "be all end all" and yet all I have doen is expressed my opinion and the opinions of people I know. You on the other hand claim to be an expert on acting and all good movies. Most of the big name actors in the movie (Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, ect.) seemed to phone it in, and Bale just sort of grunted through his lines. The writers really tried too hard to be profound in parts ("Its not who you are on the inside...") and just plane lame in others ("Does it come in black"). No the acting was not that great and yes the dialouge was cheesey. How about you come up with a better argument than just telling me that I am wrong.

I can't. You say they phone in their lines. what you see as bad acting such as michael caine, i saw as natural. i have studied acting at a sanford meisner school but does that make me more qualified in giving an opinion? not really? i'm judging as an average person and there isn't one bit where you think he doesn't seem real.

You might not find any of it profound, but i assume you mainly read superman comics, even then, maybe it doesn't speak to you. Any compassionate misanthropist would have found ra's al ghul's speeches to seem understandable and in turn making you question certain things.

70% approval rating on rotten tomatoes or imdb does not mean majority. alot of imdb users don't even vote for the movies. Take a look at the message board from the past month, that's a better indicator.

Superman Returns has had a very big drop and that is because of bad word of mouth. I fail to see where you get your information or how you think, every other website is bashing this movie. There is a drop due to bad word of mouth. That's a majority. It's also reflected in the box office.

[botch]

huh?
Singer is a Superman/X-Men fan, Nolan is a Batman fan, Raimi adores/loves Spider-man. The people that have now been put into creative power on these flicks actually are or become big fans of the material they're working with. Heck David Goyer is a comic book writer and he wrote Batman Begins with Nolan, and both went to DC and went through all the Batman comics in the archive.
As for Singer, I think he's a good director, in a world of bland, same old hat trick directing, Singer did some great things with the camera in Superman Returns. I've seen all his movies, he knows how to work with actors and such. Of course I'm a fan of Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Steven Spielberg, Jim Cameron and Martin Scorsese as well, so take my words for whatever you think they're worth. While Singer isn't in the same category with most of these guys, he's good, it could've been worse we could've gotten Kevin Smith (I am a fan of some of Smith's work) or Micheal Bay to direct. (Oh wait they're working on Aquaman 2...)

Batman Begins I think is liked more because Batman is a regular guy in a suit, he's not an alien from another planet, he wasn't bitten by a radio-active spider, he wasn't born a mutant, he wasn't exposed to gamma rays and so forth. He's just an average guy who is out to stop what happened to him when he was child. People identify with that. People have a hard time identifing with Superman, he's invunerable, he's consistantly good, he's smarter than humans, the list goes on. Yet you strip all that away and take him down to being who he really is, Clark Kent, and he's got insecurities, he makes mistakes, he's just a guy that happens to be Superman. That's how I approach it and that's what made me love Superman Returns, Bryan made Superman almost human. I'm far more the Superman fan, I always have been, Batman is my number 2 favorite comic book character, but Superman Returns was amazing, especially in 3D.

As for a sequel I hope they have one, but Supes doesn't have the easiest rogue's gallery, Lex is the best bad guy, which is why he's the main bad guy in 4 of the 5 Superman movies. (SM:TMP, SM2,SM4, SR, though the villainness is shared in 4)
Could go the Brainiac or Metallo route, that would be interesting to see.

What? Singer only ever read a few early action comics if any. Which have nothing to do with the silver age superman he was presenting. he based his superman knowledge entirely on the old films, the max fleisher cartoons and a few smallville episodes.

You think people liked batman begins because they liked the character? in a way yes but mainly because they liked the movie. batman and robin had the same character yet that was crap and other people thought the same thing so your argument doesn't work. People didn't like Superman Returns because it just wasn't a good movie, dull, very unwatchable and unmemorable.

[mrc1214]

Even the Usual Suspects? C'mon, you cant say you hated the Usual Suspects.

No i didnt hate it.

[mrc1214]

huh?
Singer is a Superman/X-Men fan, Nolan is a Batman fan, Raimi adores/loves Spider-man. The people that have now been put into creative power on these flicks actually are or become big fans of the material they're working with. Heck David Goyer is a comic book writer and he wrote Batman Begins with Nolan, and both went to DC and went through all the Batman comics in the archive.
As for Singer, I think he's a good director, in a world of bland, same old hat trick directing, Singer did some great things with the camera in Superman Returns. I've seen all his movies, he knows how to work with actors and such. Of course I'm a fan of Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Steven Spielberg, Jim Cameron and Martin Scorsese as well, so take my words for whatever you think they're worth. While Singer isn't in the same category with most of these guys, he's good, it could've been worse we could've gotten Kevin Smith (I am a fan of some of Smith's work) or Micheal Bay to direct. (Oh wait they're working on Aquaman 2...)


I didnt say just a fan Singer didnt read sh!t for either X-Men or Superman. And thats why Batman was good because you could tell they read a book. And he change stuff because he wanted his own stupid spin on it. X-Men 1 &2 both sucked too. It wasnt until 3 that i actually enjoyed it. Good he directed Usual Suspects well he should have made movies like that stay out of the superhero genre. I would have preferred Smith at least he has a knowledge of comics.

[saintsaucey]

X-3 was a travisty, they attempted to please fans by giving then EVERY THING they wanted to see. and in order to afford that they had to tone it down. the head of a sentinal, the phoenix, full on ice bobby, and the fast ball special. all of these classic x-men trade marks were used very poorly and was marvels attempt to throw in as much stuff from the comics as possible.

Plus Joss Whedon should totally sue for part of the proceeds.

[Sam T.]

Can't believe their going to make another Superman movie...not good at all!!

[mrc1214]

X-3 was a travisty, they attempted to please fans by giving then EVERY THING they wanted to see. and in order to afford that they had to tone it down. the head of a sentinal, the phoenix, full on ice bobby, and the fast ball special. all of these classic x-men trade marks were used very poorly and was marvels attempt to throw in as much stuff from the comics as possible.

Plus Joss Whedon should totally sue for part of the proceeds.

What would have them do give us stuff we didnt want to see. Doesnt make sense. Like i didnt want to see Lois Lane married to another guy, or Superman become a love story. I want to see Superman battle some giant robot, Doomsday,Bizarro,etc. Then he can go home to Lois at night at thats all.

[Broken Shakespeare]

With film rent, foreign, television rights, and domestic video rights the film has already turned a large enough profit to allow for a sequel. It has also been very well received critically, so I seriously doubt they would not go with Singer for the next one.

Superman returns opened bigger than Batman Begins by about 10 million dollars, and while it hasn't reached Batman Begins take, it is dropping off slower. And since Superman only cost $50 million more to make than Batman, and has taken in more money from merch than Batman I have no doubt in my mind that this film will have a sequel and that Singer will helm it.


Bzzzt! Wrong!

The Superman Returns films is nowhere near close to making a profit yet, especially after the WB blew through another unbudgeted $10 million in marketing after the movie failed to get the returns they wanted in the first two weeks. I don't know what you're talking about.

This film also will get $0 for broadcast rights. The WB (now CS I guess) network gets exclusive broadcast rights to the movie, just as they did with Batman Begins. They don't pay themselves for their own broadcast rights.

On a global scale, including WB's share of the box office take (they don't get everything that is reported you know), merchandising, and early PPV (hotel agreements), the movie is still in the hole to the tune of $80-$90 million dollars.

Globally, the expect the movie to bring in about another $20-$30 million (WB's cut) before it is totally out of theatres. So best case scenario is that when the video and PPV hit, WB will only be in the red to the tune of $50 million (but it could be as high as $70 mil if things stack up the wrong way). If Superman Returns is the single best video/PPV release in history, then they may be able to break even. Maybe. If it is anything short of that, they will definately remain in the red.

Considering that 90% of the time sequels earn less than the original, there is no way WB will pony up another $200 million for something that might take 1-2 years worth of effort to just break even. If there is a second Superman film, expect a budget of around $125-$140 million. When Singer's contract specifies that he gets $25 million of that budget for the sequel, does it even make sense for the WB to even consider him? Another notable director would only cost $5-$10 million. Routh, Spacey, and Singer's salaries all increase for the sequel (others may too) if the options are exercised, which would make casting and directing eat up half the films budget before they ever shoot one frame of footage.

If there is a sequel, Singer won't be invloved in any way (which means his writers are out too); Spacey definately won't return (a good thing I think); and special effect shots will be kept to a minimum. Superman punching a human-sized villain in a suit (probably while on the ground) will be right up the alley for the effects budget.

[curefreak]

I hated the 1st one with a passion. I despise Singer and ive hated everything hes done. I wont pay a dime to watch Superman Returns. I dont care if everyone in the world liked it. It sucked. If they can actually start hiring directors who have actually picked up a comic book the movies would be better.
unfortunately being knowledgeable about the comic book isnt a sure way to make a great movie just for example look at daredevil.

[curefreak]

all the reviews ive read have been good except for eberts,
on metacritic i think it got a 75 to 80%

[CaptainAwesome]

How can I argue against a retarded person.

Yeah, maybe you should take your foot out of your mouth if you want to argue because its getting pretty hard to understand you.


I can't. You say they phone in their lines. what you see as bad acting such as michael caine, i saw as natural. i have studied acting at a sanford meisner school but does that make me more qualified in giving an opinion? not really? i'm judging as an average person and there isn't one bit where you think he doesn't seem real.

You're right. You know you are absolutley right. The acting was great in this movie. I liked Michael Cain's oscar winning turn as Alfred. Oh, thats right, he didnt win that oscar. Well, surely he won the golden globe? I mean, Batman Begins was praised universally. Oh what's that? He wasnt nominated for a golden globe? Wow, how could hollywood over look such a breath taking performance?

You might not find any of it profound, but i assume you mainly read superman comics, even then, maybe it doesn't speak to you. Any compassionate misanthropist would have found ra's al ghul's speeches to seem understandable and in turn making you question certain things.

So because I read Superman comics I am not swayed by mediocre writing and half-assed acting? Boy oh boy, I better keep reading Superman comics.


70% approval rating on rotten tomatoes or imdb does not mean majority. alot of imdb users don't even vote for the movies. Take a look at the message board from the past month, that's a better indicator.

Did you fail math at some point? 70% is a majority anyway you look at it. Looking at message boards set up by a bunch of comic book purists doesnt tell you much about public opinion, just the opinions of comic book purists. In case you havent noticed, big budget movies arent made for comic book purists.


Superman Returns has had a very big drop and that is because of bad word of mouth. I fail to see where you get your information or how you think, every other website is bashing this movie. There is a drop due to bad word of mouth. That's a majority. It's also reflected in the box office.
Well, apparently I think like a retarded person. You said it yourself. In fact, you have mentioned other websites that are not bashing the movie. The drop came mostly from the Pirates sequel, which is a fact. You can look that one up on your own.

[mrc1214]

unfortunately being knowledgeable about the comic book isnt a sure way to make a great movie just for example look at daredevil.

Who directed that horrible movie?? It wasnt Smith was it.

[CaptainAwesome]

Who directed that horrible movie?? It wasnt Smith was it.
Mark Stephen Johnson. He is also doing Ghost Rider.

[curefreak]

oops never mind

[drwho]

X-3 was a travisty, they attempted to please fans by giving then EVERY THING they wanted to see. and in order to afford that they had to tone it down. the head of a sentinal, the phoenix, full on ice bobby, and the fast ball special. all of these classic x-men trade marks were used very poorly and was marvels attempt to throw in as much stuff from the comics as possible.

Plus Joss Whedon should totally sue for part of the proceeds.

Let me just say I saw X-Men 3 3 times and loved the movie and the reason why was because it was an entertainning film. If you go into it thinking like that its put together better than Superman Returns as a whole in my opinion.

[Ontir]

While "X3" wasn't nearly as bad as I'd anticipated, the whole time I watched it, I was thinking, "Wow, they really gutted this," and "Nobody's made a sound, they don't laugh at the jokes, in fact a couple got groans, I'm not the only one who isn't wild about this film..."

[CaptainAwesome]

Let me just say I saw X-Men 3 3 times and loved the movie and the reason why was because it was an entertainning film. If you go into it thinking like that its put together better than Superman Returns as a whole in my opinion.
My main problem with X3 was that it pretty much ignored everything that came before. Other than the Pheonix story-line, there was nothing really to connect it to the previous two films. Thats unfortunate because just like SR, Singer seemed to have a specific story in mind that Ratner just let drop.

[J. Robb]

I'm sure in the sequel Superman will get to punch people and the masses will be entertained.

[CaptainAwesome]

I'm sure in the sequel Superman will get to punch people and the masses will be entertained.
Either that or he'll spend 2 and a half hours shouting "KAHN!!!!KAHN!!!!"


But I like your idea better.

[bigman45]

Broken Shakespeare
If there is a sequel, Singer won't be invloved in any way (which means his writers are out too); Spacey definately won't return (a good thing I think); and special effect shots will be kept to a minimum. Superman punching a human-sized villain in a suit (probably while on the ground) will be right up the alley for the effects budget.

wtf

are you kidding me .there is going to be

there is going to be a part 2 .. people .. its going to happend .. its superman we shoud see superman part 2 in the summer of 09:eek:

[van-zee]

Bzzzt! Wrong!

The Superman Returns films is nowhere near close to making a profit yet,

Bzzzt! Right!

QUINT: I think that once you have that audience in place you'll hit it big. That why I keep telling people that a SUPERMAN sequel only makes sense for Warner Bros. It's a good time to have franchises right now... SUPERMAN RETURNS will make its money back no matter what...

BRYAN SINGER: It already has!
link (http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24123)


Boo. Yah.

[curefreak]

Yeah, maybe you should take your foot out of your mouth if you want to argue because its getting pretty hard to understand you.


You're right. You know you are absolutley right. The acting was great in this movie. I liked Michael Cain's oscar winning turn as Alfred. Oh, thats right, he didnt win that oscar. Well, surely he won the golden globe? I mean, Batman Begins was praised universally. Oh what's that? He wasnt nominated for a golden globe? Wow, how could hollywood over look such a breath taking performance?


to be fair these kinds of movies never win oscars no matter how good the acting is .

[CaptainAwesome]

to be fair these kinds of movies never win oscars no matter how good the acting is .
Well, according to botch, a self proclaimed expert on acting, the performances were subtle and profound. Apparently he doesnt realize that famous actors (yes, even old brittish ones) can play parts that arent that good. He seemes to be under the impression that the acting in BB was something more than it actually was.

[curefreak]

Well, according to botch, a self proclaimed expert on acting, the performances were subtle and profound. Apparently he doesnt realize that famous actors (yes, even old brittish ones) can play parts that arent that good. He seemes to be under the impression that the acting in BB was something more than it actually was.
the acting was great but thats just my opinion i mean they had some of the best actors around i mean gary oldman and micheal caine and just about everyone else.
i mean katie holmes i kind of felt sorry for cause she had to be in this movie with some of these people and the comparisons sort of suffer.
and winning on oscar doesnt mean jack to me cause they only acknowledge certain films.

[CaptainAwesome]

the acting was great but thats just my opinion i mean they had some of the best actors around i mean gary oldman and micheal caine and just about everyone else.
i mean katie holmes i kind of felt sorry for cause she had to be in this movie with some of these people and the comparisons sort of suffer.
and winning on oscar doesnt mean jack to me cause they only acknowledge certain films.
Superman the movie won an oscar.
Star Wars (A New Hope) was nominated for Best Picture.
LOTR: Return of the King won a bunch of stuff, including Best Picture.

All movies are considered for oscars, the problem is that the recent crop of comic movies serve as only big budget pop-corn flicks. The acting, in general, isnt something that generally gains much attention simply because not many people take these things as seriously as we do. Maybe I am being a little harsh when I say that Michael Cain was just phoning it in, but he knew he wasnt reading oscar-caliber material, so he just did it for the paycheck.

[curefreak]

Superman the movie won an oscar.
Star Wars (A New Hope) was nominated for Best Picture.
LOTR: Return of the King won a bunch of stuff, including Best Picture.

All movies are considered for oscars, the problem is that the recent crop of comic movies serve as only big budget pop-corn flicks. The acting, in general, isnt something that generally gains much attention simply because not many people take these things as seriously as we do. Maybe I am being a little harsh when I say that Michael Cain was just phoning it in, but he knew he wasnt reading oscar-caliber material, so he just did it for the paycheck.
i doubt micheal cain would ever "phone it in" he seems very professional and the brits always seem to be that way
wich makes theyre acting better in my opinion probably because of there roots in shakespear they have a huge tradition to live up to.

[J. Robb]

Superman the movie won an oscar.
Star Wars (A New Hope) was nominated for Best Picture.
LOTR: Return of the King won a bunch of stuff, including Best Picture.Yeah, but Kim Basinger won an Oscar, rendering it meaningless. :p

(And- just my opinion, no one jump on me- I thought the LOTR movies were painfully dull.)

[CaptainAwesome]

i doubt micheal cain would ever "phone it in" he seems very professional and the brits always seem to be that way
wich makes theyre acting better in my opinion probably because of there roots in shakespear they have a huge tradition to live up to.
Most actors will admit to just doing big budget movies for the paycheck. If Michael Cain were so concerned about his craft as to want to do the highest quality work every time he wouldnt be making any money and we probably would never have heard of him. Doing movies for the paycheck doesnt debunk an actor's credibility, it just means the he/she is looking out for their own well being.

I dont mean to say that he was doing a bad job, just that he wasnt doing his best. It was mediocre, and a lot of times thats what Hollywood thrives on.

[CaptainAwesome]

Yeah, but Kim Basinger won an Oscar, rendering it meaningless. :p

(And- just my opinion, no one jump on me- I thought the LOTR movies were painfully dull.)
I'm not sure what you mean by the first part, but I think Basinger did a great job in LA Confidential an she absolutely deserved the oscar.

Also, I totally agree that the LOTR movies were boring, but I was just giving an example of a film in this gener (sci-fi/fantasy) that is well recognized and has won oscars.

[curefreak]

Most actors will admit to just doing big budget movies for the paycheck. If Michael Cain were so concerned about his craft as to want to do the highest quality work every time he wouldnt be making any money and we probably would never have heard of him. Doing movies for the paycheck doesnt debunk an actor's credibility, it just means the he/she is looking out for their own well being.

I dont mean to say that he was doing a bad job, just that he wasnt doing his best. It was mediocre, and a lot of times thats what Hollywood thrives on.
you can do a big budget hollywood movie and not phone it in and why do you think its mediocore have you seen a bunch of his movies to compare it to?

[CaptainAwesome]

you can do a big budget hollywood movie and not phone it in and why do you think its mediocore have you seen a bunch of his movies to compare it to?
If you mean to compare Michael Cain as an actor, go look at Alfie or Cider House Rules. Those were some of his best work.

I agree that you can do a good quality big budget movie, in fact I gave a couple examples of big budget movies that were recognized for thier excellence. More examples are Heat, The GodFather, The Exorcist, Titanic, ect. The whole phenomenon of Hollywood only choosing small time arthouse flicks for oscars is a recent thing, and in fact it cause somewhat of a ruckus with people claiming that Hollywood was disconnected from the general public.

[curefreak]

If you mean to compare Michael Cain as an actor, go look at Alfie or Cider House Rules. Those were some of his best work.

I agree that you can do a good quality big budget movie, in fact I gave a couple examples of big budget movies that were recognized for thier excellence. More examples are Heat, The GodFather, The Exorcist, Titanic, ect. The whole phenomenon of Hollywood only choosing small time arthouse flicks for oscars is a recent thing, and in fact it cause somewhat of a ruckus with people claiming that Hollywood was disconnected from the general public.
well i think they have been lately
and i think its on purpose.
but i see nothing wrong with picking movies that are good that dont sell well but i do have a problem with them nominating any movie that is made just to stick its nose at middle america.
basically what im saying is oscars is not supposed to be political in my opinion but they are becoming that lately.

[Kaos]

i saw returns today, it could have been ill...if it wasnt a romance triangle movie with a superboy

[Broken Shakespeare]

Bzzzt! Right!



Boo. Yah.


Singer wouldn't know the difference between WB's SR books and an auto repair manual. He's trying to make it look like his snit doesn't stink.

Singer was referring to the fact that the global box office numbers exceeded the filming budget. He wasn't including any marketing costs. He was also making the assumption that WB got 100% of the box office take. Basically, he's living in fantasy land.

My info comes straight from their accounting records and the whole project is still very in the red as I laid out.

[curefreak]

Singer wouldn't know the difference between WB's SR books and an auto repair manual. He's trying to make it look like his snit doesn't stink.

Singer was referring to the fact that the global box office numbers exceeded the filming budget. He wasn't including any marketing costs. He was also making the assumption that WB got 100% of the box office take. Basically, he's living in fantasy land.

My info comes straight from their accounting records and the whole project is still very in the red as I laid out.
i know this may sound naive but could it be possible that warner brothers likes what singer did and whats him back wither the movie is in the red or in the black?

[Yoda]

How old are you Botch?

[cactusmaac]

i know this may sound naive but could it be possible that warner brothers likes what singer did and whats him back wither the movie is in the red or in the black?

At the end of the day when it comes to blockbuster movies, all the studio cares about is the money.

This isn't something like a critically acclaimed art movie which will win them awards even if it underperforms.

[curefreak]

At the end of the day when it comes to blockbuster movies, all the studio cares about is the money.

This isn't something like a critically acclaimed art movie which will win them awards even if it underperforms.
well they seem to be fairly supportive of him from the start.
and that hasnt seemed to change i mean hes already talking about a sequel for petes sake.
and when i say this im saying it with very little prejudice cause i havent seen the movie.
but i mean they could have stopped this movie at any time they were already in the hole it sounds stupid i know but so is thinking of putting superman against a giant spider.
my opinion merely based on the evidence ive seen is there confidant in this movie and still are.

[The Shadow]

My info comes straight from their accounting records and the whole project is still very in the red as I laid out.
So you work in Warner Bros accounting offices or have a "secret" contact in them that's giving you updates on Superman Returns' financial situation? :rolleyes:

[Torchbot]

I think Warner expected to lose money on the Superman Returns, if only because it was in pre-production for so long, with story ideas presented and scrapped, actors signed then let go, directors attached then left, etc. Superman Returns was meant to herald the return of the character to the public's consciousness and try and win over a public that may see Supes as a boring character and/or too powerful to have a chance at failure. SR, to me, seemed designed to disspell these preconceived notions, and to show a Superman with emotions, one who would struggle against the odds to save lives and to defeat the bad guy even if he might die in the process. I think the results were mixed because some people still didn't give the Man of Steel a chance, but I do feel Warner will green light at least one more Superman film regardless.

[Kara Zor El]

If another Hulk movie is going to get made then you can bet your very own buttocks that another Superman Movie will be made.

[Black Atom]

well they seem to be fairly supportive of him from the start. and that hasnt seemed to change i mean hes already talking about a sequel for petes sake. and when i say this im saying it with very little prejudice cause i havent seen the movie. but i mean they could have stopped this movie at any time they were already in the hole it sounds stupid i know but so is thinking of putting superman against a giant spider.
my opinion merely based on the evidence ive seen is there confidant in this movie and still are.


WB supported Bryan Singer because he'd directed two successful X-Men films and they backed the idea of presenting a more flawed, emotional Superman because they saw how well that stuff went over in the Spider-Man films. The only real problem is A) Superman is not Spider-Man and B) Both Spider-Man films had better scripts than Superman Returns did. WB only backed Singer because they thought he could deliver on what seemed to be a sure bet, not because they thought he was a real cool guy or anything. While Superman Returns did okay in the box office,it still performed well below everyone's expectations for a Superman movie. It'll be lucky to breach the $200 mil mark without the kind of word-of-mouth support that is putting movies like Devil Wears Prada and You, Me and Dupree ahead of it on the charts. Despite positive reviews, the actual public is mostly apathetic about Superman Returns. WB will most likely go in a completely different direction for a sequel, if there even is one.

Movie producers don't take chances lightly. It's not like they were trying to make some artistic statement with Superman Returns or take the series in a bold, new direction irrespective of audience reaction or money lost. They thought making the movie they did would be the most profitable. Now that they see it wasn't, you can bet they'll be going in a totally new direction for the next one.

[curefreak]

WB supported Bryan Singer because he'd directed two successful X-Men films and they backed the idea of presenting a more flawed, emotional Superman because they saw how well that stuff went over in the Spider-Man films. The only real problem is A) Superman is not Spider-Man and B) Both Spider-Man films had better scripts than Superman Returns did. WB only backed Singer because they thought he could deliver on what seemed to be a sure bet, not because they thought he was a real cool guy or anything. While Superman Returns did okay in the box office,it still performed well below everyone's expectations for a Superman movie. It'll be lucky to breach the $200 mil mark without the kind of word-of-mouth support that is putting movies like Devil Wears Prada and You, Me and Dupree ahead of it on the charts. Despite positive reviews, the actual public is mostly apathetic about Superman Returns. WB will most likely go in a completely different direction for a sequel, if there even is one.
i dont know it seems ludacris either way to me i mean why not let him make a sequel and see if it will do better?
hes established so much in this movie that i cant see another director taking over.
i also cant see warner brothers making another sequel immediately without singer it would be sort of a slap in the face especially to soemone whom they invested so much money in.
and its not batman and robin bad enough to wait things out like they did before so i think theyre sort of stuck in a hard place really the only way i can see things working out for everyone involved is just make another sequel and hope it does better.
i also think a lot of people in the comic book world expected it to do the kind of business the first one superman did.
wich looking back on it i think the reason it did so well is there wasnt a lot of competition out there unless you count star wars.
personally ive never been happy with how they matured him in the movies personally i dont wanna see superman sleeping with a smoking hack reporter and i guess i probably never will i went into the theatre looking for the superman i grew up with (silver age)and it seems like the closest ill get is the superman cartoons from the 90s (rant officially over)

[cactusmaac]

I think they'll keep him on but they'll be exercising much heavier control over the script.

[curefreak]

I think they'll keep him on but they'll be exercising much heavier control over the script.
so what are they gonna try to retcon out the kid? that seemed to be the biggest mistake according to most people and it does seem like its gonna tie there hands a wee bit if they make a follow up.

[cactusmaac]

Ehh, who knows? I don't think the kid was the reason the movie underperformed, it was just poorly structured and didn't have Superman doing enough superheroey things.

[curefreak]

Ehh, who knows? I don't think the kid was the reason the movie underperformed, it was just poorly structured and didn't have Superman doing enough superheroey things.
well considering they tried to keep it hush hush it probably didnt affect the opening weekend but im sure it affected the word of mouth.
cause i just cant see what the point is of bringing a illegitimate child into a super hero movie where it has no real relevance or point. and as far as him not doing superheroy things didnt he catch a plane or space shuttle and land it? i mean in the comics that would be an everyday occurance but it seems like the big action piece in the movie.

and i still dont see how singer is gonna make a sequel without being shackled by what to do with this kid i mean do you pretend it didnt happen? brush it under a rug? name the sequel superman and son and have him be his junior sidekick? i cant imagine anyone really caring about this kid but it seems like its gonna have to play some sort of a role in the sequel if singer is directing but how much do you wanna focus on him and not superman? these are questions i wish someone would ask him(sighs)

[drwho]

so what are they gonna try to retcon out the kid? that seemed to be the biggest mistake according to most people and it does seem like its gonna tie there hands a wee bit if they make a follow up.

They could send the kid to summer camp and all it would take is Lois pretending she is on the phone asking how summer school is. They dont even have to show the kid.

[curefreak]

They could send the kid to summer camp and all it would take is Lois pretending she is on the phone asking how summer school is. They dont even have to show the kid.
that would basically be singer saying " yeah that kid was a f-ed up idea im sorry"

[J. Robb]

I'm sure the kid will be central to the sequel's plot as well.

Hopefully Brainiac will be the villain, and maybe he'll be able to detect Kryptonians and go after Jason as well as Superman. Brainiac could unleash Doomsday to take on Superman, leaving Lois and Richard to defend Jason on their own, forcing Lois to tell Richard the truth about why Jason is being targetted. Which he probably suspected anyways.

Or something like that. :p

[Ontir]

I wouldn't hold your breath on Doomsday. I've asked several times, and so far no one's taken me up: what is the fascination with Doomsday, a character I despise?

[J. Robb]

I wouldn't hold your breath on Doomsday. I've asked several times, and so far no ones taken me up: what is the fascination with Doomsday, a character I despise?
Someone for Superman to punch. Which is what a lot of people seem to want.

[PersonaDark]

I wouldn't hold your breath on Doomsday. I've asked several times, and so far no ones taken me up: what is the fascination with Doomsday, a character I despise?

I'll play devil's advocate here and answer.

In simple terms, he's a force of nature. There's no cackling, no elaborate plots or anything like most of Superman's rogues. You can't reason with him or stop him short of brute force or permanent tatics. He's also a living breathing reminder that Superman CAN die, much like Bane is a symbol that Batman can be broken. Breaking it down even simplier, People that like him like him for the same reasons most like the Terminator as a villian.

He works when NOT overused or used stupidly. Now I know some hate the character, and even I jokingly call him a walking plot device at times, but he can be used and written effectively. And if used in the movieverse, the character can be tweaked to be more interesting if writer's give it half an effort, or even rebuilt from scratch. Hell, Dini did it easily and he hates the character.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

As my nephew said when I took him to see Superman Returns after he watched the first two films.

"Superman went from being a superhero to being a Deadbeat dad"

That movie was just a 2 hour Dr Phil episode.

[curefreak]

As my nephew said when I took him to see Superman Returns after he watched the first two films.

"Superman went from being a superhero to being a Deadbeat dad"

That movie was just a 2 hour Dr Phil episode.
thank you thank you very much.

[West Mantooth]

"Superman went from being a superhero to being a Deadbeat dad"


I'm probably being overly sensitive, but it offends me when people call him a "deadbeat dad". My father knowingly walked out on us, and Supes just realized he has a son. If anything, he was more of a hero for stepping up to his responsibility.

The conflict in a "possible" sequel should be him not being able to truly be a father because he'd interupt Lois and Richard's relationship. And bring in Brianiac so Supes can put Krypton behind him.

[saintsaucey]

I like that hero to dead beat dad.


Quoted by: J. Robb
Someone for Superman to punch. Which is what a lot of people seem to want.

Yes we do. Supes and Lexie had like what five minutes screen time together. He spent more time with parker posey, man i hate her. The scene between him and lex was great don't get me wrong, I just wish there was more of it. As for someone for him to punch. Mongul. I know he is a Gl villian. I think, but still the two of them duking it out across metropolis would be a sight to see. mongule punching superman and him flying through a couple buildings, the last one comes crumpling down on him, after a few minutes the rubble stirs supes stands up and wipes blood from his lips then goes after mongul again. thats what we need to see. superman the fighter.

[curefreak]

I like that hero to dead beat dad.




Yes we do. Supes and Lexie had like what five minutes screen time together. He spent more time with parker posey, man i hate her. The scene between him and lex was great don't get me wrong, I just wish there was more of it. As for someone for him to punch. Mongul. I know he is a Gl villian. I think, but still the two of them duking it out across metropolis would be a sight to see. mongule punching superman and him flying through a couple buildings, the last one comes crumpling down on him, after a few minutes the rubble stirs supes stands up and wipes blood from his lips then goes after mongul again. thats what we need to see. superman the fighter.obviously theres not the budget for it or im sure some genuis would have already done it.

[CaptainAwesome]

"Superman went from being a superhero to being a Deadbeat dad"


I'm probably being overly sensitive, but it offends me when people call him a "deadbeat dad". My father knowingly walked out on us, and Supes just realized he has a son. If anything, he was more of a hero for stepping up to his responsibility.

The conflict in a "possible" sequel should be him not being able to truly be a father because he'd interupt Lois and Richard's relationship. And bring in Brianiac so Supes can put Krypton behind him.
I agree with the statement in bold. I cant say that my dad has ever walk out on me, but it is offensive that some people call Superman that. Its not like Superman just let the kid go, he was forced to do it because of the circumstances. He knew that Jason was in good care, better than he could give. That means Superman was being a good father, not a deadbeat dad.

[West Mantooth]

One of the sadiest points about Superman's lackluster return is that the budget is slashed for a sequel. Meaning if Brainiac appears, he'll probably be in the human form instead of the robotic one to save money for the final fight.

[curefreak]

One of the sadiest points about Superman's lackluster return is that the budget is slashed for a sequel. Meaning if Brainiac appears, he'll probably be in the human form instead of the robotic one to save money for the final fight.
maybe it will be a compromise like in the recent cartoons i mean i cant see anyone taking seriously a robot who looks like a martian with hair plugs.

[West Mantooth]

maybe it will be a compromise like in the recent cartoons i mean i cant see anyone taking seriously a robot who looks like a martian with hair plugs.

I was actually thinking of the Borg as a template. Blue-green skin like the animated series and wires coming out of his body that connect to the ship.

[curefreak]

I was actually thinking of the Borg as a template. Blue-green skin like the animated series and wires coming out of his body that connect to the ship.
sure that would rock i would buy into that.

[Black Atom]

I agree with the statement in bold. I cant say that my dad has ever walk out on me, but it is offensive that some people call Superman that. Its not like Superman just let the kid go, he was forced to do it because of the circumstances. He knew that Jason was in good care, better than he could give. That means Superman was being a good father, not a deadbeat dad.

I think it's the fact that he slept with a woman then skipped town, leaving her with a child that has people calling Superman "deadbeat dad". When a player for the Utah Jazz does it, for example, that's exactly what he is called.

[CaptainAwesome]

I think it's the fact that he slept with a woman then skipped town, leaving her with a child that has people calling Superman "deadbeat dad". When a player for the Utah Jazz does it, for example, that's exactly what he is called.
Thats assuming that he knew she was pregnant. There is no evidence that he knew it, meaning there is no evidence that he is in fact a deadbeat dad.

[J. Robb]

My main complaint about "Superman Returns" is that Superman needed a better reason for leaving for five years beyond simple curiousity. I agree that the "deadbeat dad" tag doesn't really fit because he didn't know Lois was pregnant, but taking off on her was still a pretty rude thing to do.

If he had a good reason to fly off to Krypton, I think it would have smoothed over the entire plot for most people.

[Black Atom]

Thats assuming that he knew she was pregnant. There is no evidence that he knew it, meaning there is no evidence that he is in fact a deadbeat dad.

Guess that's why you don't leave town after having unprotected sex with the woman you love without leaving so much as a cell number. So, you're right: Superman's just an asshole.

[CaptainAwesome]

Guess that's why you don't leave town after having unprotected sex with the woman you love without leaving so much as a cell number. So, you're right: Superman's just an asshole.
As long as we agree.

[CaptainAwesome]

My main complaint about "Superman Returns" is that Superman needed a better reason for leaving for five years beyond simple curiousity. I agree that the "deadbeat dad" tag doesn't really fit because he didn't know Lois was pregnant, but taking off on her was still a pretty rude thing to do.

If he had a good reason to fly off to Krypton, I think it would have smoothed over the entire plot for most people.
What is a better reason than trying to find other survivors of a planet that was thought long gone? His reasons were pure, he was just being a little immature.

[J. Robb]

What is a better reason than trying to find other survivors of a planet that was thought long gone? His reasons were pure, he was just being a little immature.
Yeah, which was my problem. I don't like Superman acting immature, particularly when just a couple lines of dialogue could greatly improved things. Maybe Lois "dumped" him, which would make not saying goodbye still kind of immature, but a little more forgivable.

I usually don't mind movies leaving some plot points ambiguous and up to the viewer, but that was one I think should have been fleshed out a bit more.

[Dustin]

Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/SDCC06/DC/action_D_G.html), at the end of the article.

Sweet! But three years is such a long wait.
Yeah I agree. It's sweet but it is a long wait.:rolleyes:

[Ontir]

Someone for Superman to punch. Which is what a lot of people seem to want.


So that's it, Superman can hit him?!?

[PatrickG]

There were some good thoughts, both filmed and unfilmed, that didn't make the screen and deal with Superman's reasoning and Lois' reasoning.

According to Singer, Lois remembered sleeping with Superman. But according to the prequel comics, as I understand it, Lois had no clue (at least consciously) that Superman was the father. She honestly believed it to be Richard (or convinced herself it was) until Lex suggested otherwise. I think that's a reasonable pitch that we didn't get in this movie.

As for Superman leaving? Lex faked the evidence... That line got cut from the theatrical release.

As for how Superman could go? I think the obvious answer that we should have gotten is this: He believed there were potentially billions of Kryptonians that he could help. Connecting with his heritage had to be an important factor as well... But between a planet with its problems and a planet that's 2/3rds intact and showing signs of life (which Superman believed Krypton was) then I think he'd have to go with the greater need, even if it meant leaving earth behind.

That would take all of a line, connect with his "savior" speech to Lois and establish that leaving seemed to be the most moral choice at the time. He was raised to believe in people's ability to get by without his help. He's not to intervene in the overall course of human history. And here was his homeworld which he believed to be clinging onto life desperately.

I understand the rhetorical device of making us doubt Superman, see him skeptically or even fallen and struggling to adapt to change ( I WANT the subplot of Martha remarrying reinserted!) but I think that this movie could have presented that story in a leaner form and made people believe in Superman at the end, not only as a protector but someone who never hesitates to do what he believes is right. The struggle comes in determining what that is.

[Smarty Jones]

"There were some good thoughts, both filmed and unfilmed, that didn't make the screen and deal with Superman's reasoning and Lois' reasoning.

According to Singer, Lois remembered sleeping with Superman. But according to the prequel comics, as I understand it, Lois had no clue (at least consciously) that Superman was the father. She honestly believed it to be Richard (or convinced herself it was) until Lex suggested otherwise. I think that's a reasonable pitch that we didn't get in this movie."

It still does not reconcile with Superman's and Lois' actions. Superman still never told Lois that he had a secret identity, and on top of that the identity is someone she considers a long-time co-worker and professional friend. You still have to reconcile the timetable of when Superman and Lois jumped in the bed and then Lois jumping in bed with Richard, in a short enough time for Lois to think the child was Richard's. You still can't explain Superman rudely leaving the planet without telling Lois (or for that matter, practically everyone on Earth) good-bye.

"As for Superman leaving? Lex faked the evidence... That line got cut from the theatrical release."

You can't blame Superman's leaving on Lex Luthor, because ultimately it was his decision to leave. It still has nothing to do with Superman choosing not to tell Lois his secret identity and not telling Lois good-bye. It still has nothing to do with Superman not checking or waiting to see if he got Lois pregnant. Also, it's not like the remains of Krypton were around the corner; he knew he would be gone for years. For him not to say good-bye to Lois and the rest of the planet is callous.

[cactusmaac]

What is a better reason than trying to find other survivors of a planet that was thought long gone? His reasons were pure, he was just being a little immature.

It would have helped if there was stronger indication given that he had solid reasons for going - faked messages from Kryptonian survivors for example.

In any case, going on a five-year trip without saying goodbye to the woman he supposedly loved was beyond moronic.

[cactusmaac]

So that's it, Superman can hit him?!?

He's a big, dramatic and very serious physical threat. Can't be reasoned with, can't be submitted to, can't be bought off and can't be tricked. He's a natural disaster on legs and as big a contrast as possible as Superman vs A Big Rock.

The drama comes from seeing Superman being very aware he could be beaten to death and his loved ones - and the rest of the world - hoping and praying he makes it out alive. Otherwise they're toast.

[Titan76]

Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/SDCC06/DC/action_D_G.html), at the end of the article.

Sweet! But three years is such a long wait.
I don't see why he couldn't go "wrath of Khan" in the first flim. Everyone knows who Superman, Clerk, Lois, and Lex is we didn't need another 2 hours to remember. I didn't like this movie and three years isn't a long wait to me because I will wait to watch it when it comes out of DVD.

[Umbrax]

A British paper is claiming that Jude Law is in talks to appear in the Superman Returns sequel.
http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=286
JUDE Law is in talks to appear in the Superman Returns sequel as the Man of Steel’s arch enemy General Zod. The role was made famous by Terence Stamp opposite Christopher Reeve in Superman 2 in 1980.

Law, 33, who resembles the younger Stamp, has so far resisted appearing in big screen action franchises but is a comic book fan.

A Warner Brothers source says: "Zod is going to be the main bad guy in the second film. Some say they should use an unknown but the director Bryan Singer is looking at Jude. The similarities between him and Stamp are clear."

[mrc1214]

What is a better reason than trying to find other survivors of a planet that was thought long gone? His reasons were pure, he was just being a little immature.


But where did he go exactly i didnt get it?/ To other planets??? Your planet isnt there so what were you looking for. they should start all over again like there doing with Hulk. I could write a better script for Superman. It made me sick to watch that movie. I almost walked out which i have never even considered doing before.

[cactusmaac]

A British paper is claiming that Jude Law is in talks to appear in the Superman Returns sequel.
http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=286

If it's a movie casting rumour in the Daily Express, it's most likely a lie used to fill a few inches.

There is no way they're going to start casting until WB decides on future Superman plans.

[CaptainAwesome]

But where did he go exactly i didnt get it?/ To other planets??? Your planet isnt there so what were you looking for. they should start all over again like there doing with Hulk. I could write a better script for Superman. It made me sick to watch that movie. I almost walked out which i have never even considered doing before.
He went to the area and surrounding area where Krypton used to be. That part was explained in the movie. He was hoping that he could find people or at least traces of people who did survive the blast, which is fairly logical because he survived the blast.

Also, the reason he didnt say good bye to Lois is because he was afraid if he did he wouldnt be able to leave. Fear is something new to Superman. He cant hit it, or use the yellow sun to over power it. So he ran from it. Like I said, this Superman was immature. These movies take place relatively early in his carreer, so its really just elaborating on Superman becoming the world's greatest hero. No, its not the Superman you see in the comics, but the Superman in the comics has been around for like 10 years (in comic book time).

[theadslguy]

But where did he go exactly i didnt get it?/ To other planets??? Your planet isnt there so what were you looking for. they should start all over again like there doing with Hulk. I could write a better script for Superman. It made me sick to watch that movie. I almost walked out which i have never even considered doing before.


so uh... go write a better script.

[mrc1214]

so uh... go write a better script.

I will im not even joking. I guarentee half the people on here can write a better one than that joke of a movie.

[Smarty Jones]

"He went to the area and surrounding area where Krypton used to be. That part was explained in the movie. He was hoping that he could find people or at least traces of people who did survive the blast, which is fairly logical because he survived the blast."

The reason why it doesn't make sense is that 1.) Superman left Krypton decades ago and 2.) Krypton was a more advanced civilization, meaning others would have had the devices to save themselves. If there were Krpytonians floating around in space all that time without any protection, they would have been dead years ago. If there were survivors, they likely would have scattered to other parts of the universe.

"Also, the reason he didnt say good bye to Lois is because he was afraid if he did he wouldnt be able to leave. Fear is something new to Superman. He cant hit it, or use the yellow sun to over power it. So he ran from it. Like I said, this Superman was immature. These movies take place relatively early in his carreer, so its really just elaborating on Superman becoming the world's greatest hero."

Save that "Supeman Returns" was a semi-sequel to "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II," where Superman was a mature person. Add five years to that, and the Superman in "Superman Returns" was even more experienced and older. The immaturity comment makes sense only if this was a reboot of the Superman mythos and this was at the beginning of Superman's career.

I'm not saying there aren't thirtysomething people who are immature, but that's not exactly something you want to hang your hat on in trying to explain your actions. I didn't take it that Superman was immature -- just that he didn't give a damn because it wasn't in his self-interest.

[mrc1214]

He went to the area and surrounding area where Krypton used to be. That part was explained in the movie. He was hoping that he could find people or at least traces of people who did survive the blast, which is fairly logical because he survived the blast.
.

I know that but what did he expect if there were survivors someone floating around in space. I mean come on thats crazy.

[CaptainAwesome]

The reason why it doesn't make sense is that 1.) Superman left Krypton decades ago and 2.) Krypton was a more advanced civilization, meaning others would have had the devices to save themselves. If there were Krpytonians floating around in space all that time without any protection, they would have been dead years ago. If there were survivors, they likely would have scattered to other parts of the universe.

It was entirely logical for him to assume that there was some kind of record of the destruction of Krypton. After a plane crash there is that little black box, so with an advanced society such as Krypton it could be assumed that there would be some kind of trace as to where other people went.


Save that "Supeman Returns" was a semi-sequel to "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II," where Superman was a mature person. Add five years to that, and the Superman in "Superman Returns" was even more experienced and older. The immaturity comment makes sense only if this was a reboot of the Superman mythos and this was at the beginning of Superman's career.

I'm not saying there aren't thirtysomething people who are immature, but that's not exactly something you want to hang your hat on in trying to explain your actions. I didn't take it that Superman was immature -- just that he didn't give a damn because it wasn't in his self-interest.
In Superman 1 and to a lesser extent 2 ( because noone seems to be sure about what happened in that one, especially the producers and directors) Superman did many immature things. First he did something that was completely forbidden when he altered Earth's history in part 1, then he tried to give up his Superman-hood to be with Lois. He was selfish in the other movies, we just never really saw any ramifications from that other than the big things like Zod. The character in SR may not have been the same we see in the comics every month, but he was the character we have seen in the first and (maybe) the second movie.

[Smarty Jones]

"It was entirely logical for him to assume that there was some kind of record of the destruction of Krypton. After a plane crash there is that little black box, so with an advanced society such as Krypton it could be assumed that there would be some kind of trace as to where other people went."

I feel it's too uconvincing, given that Superman has known about Krypton's destruction for years. It's not like he couldn't go there any time in the past and it's not an issue of having the means. Superman has no other reason to think there were other survivors.

"In Superman 1 and to a lesser extent 2 ( because noone seems to be sure about what happened in that one, especially the producers and directors) Superman did many immature things. First he did something that was completely forbidden when he altered Earth's history in part 1, then he tried to give up his Superman-hood to be with Lois."

You have to clue me in on how giving up your powers to be with the woman you love is immature. If anything, it's selfless.

Also, "Superman Returns" is years after "Superman: The Movie" so you are talking about a more mature character. I would call the scene in "Superman; The Movie" more selfish, but it also was a move that saved a person's life (and presumably others' lives). The motives for Superman in "Superman Returns" come off as self-serving and only to his benefit.

"The character in SR may not have been the same we see in the comics every month, but he was the character we have seen in the first and (maybe) the second movie."

We have to agree to disagree. You cited an incident in "Superman: The Movie" that saved someone's life and possibly others' lives. What you cited in "Superman II" can't really be called immature.

[CaptainAwesome]

I feel it's too uconvincing, given that Superman has known about Krypton's destruction for years. It's not like he couldn't go there any time in the past and it's not an issue of having the means. Superman has no other reason to think there were other survivors.

The scientists had just found the remnants of Krypton. He could have gone there any time he wanted if he knew where it was, but there was nothing in any movie to indicate that he did.


You have to clue me in on how giving up your powers to be with the woman you love is immature. If anything, it's selfless.

Also, "Superman Returns" is years after "Superman: The Movie" so you are talking about a more mature character. I would call the scene in "Superman; The Movie" more selfish, but it also was a move that saved a person's life (and presumably others' lives). The motives for Superman in "Superman Returns" come off as self-serving and only to his benefit.


Superman gave up his powers when he knew that people had grown to depend on him. He left the world unprepared for any major threat that, up till that point, Superman would have dealt with. That is why he was being immature. If going to Krypton to try and find out what happened to his people means Superman was only acting out of his own self interest, then giving up his powers to be with a woman is just as bad.

Secondly, the act in Superman Returns (him going to Krypton) could have saved many people, it just didnt work out that way. He may have been more mature, but that doesnt mean he was completely mature. He felt it was his responability to try and help other people who may have survived Kryptons destruction, meaning it was a less selfish act than going back in time to save one person (Lois).


We have to agree to disagree. You cited an incident in "Superman: The Movie" that saved someone's life and possibly others' lives. What you cited in "Superman II" can't really be called immature.

The act in Superman Returns (him going to Krypton) could have saved many people, it just didnt work out that way. He may have been more mature, but that doesnt mean he was completely mature. He felt it was his responability to try and help other people who may have survived Kryptons destruction, meaning it was a less selfish act than going back in time to save one person, or even giving up his powers for one person.

[Smarty Jones]

"The scientists had just found the remnants of Krypton. He could have gone there any time he wanted if he knew where it was, but there was nothing in any movie to indicate that he did."

And considering Superman knew he was going to a long-destroyed planet light years away, that wasn't enough reason to think, "Maybe I should say good-bye to Lois. And while I'm at it, I'll hang around for a few weeks to see if I didn't get her pregnant." It's not he doesn't have X-ray vision and he doesn't see her every day as Clark Kent.

It's just unconvincing, IMO. He knows that Krypton was destroyed decades ago. The odds of finding anything were slim to impossible. Anyone left from that area were dead a long time ago. He knows he survived because his father put him in a rocket and it left the planet. If there were other survivors in a similar situation, they likely would be in other parts of the universe. All the more reason not staying around for a short time and then saying good-bye to Lois just looks him look bad.

"Superman gave up his powers when he knew that people had grown to depend on him. He left the world unprepared for any major threat that, up till that point, Superman would have dealt with."

The world grew accustomed to Superman, not dependent upon. If that was the case -- nations threw away its weapons, police forces stopped working, etc. -- then that's the fault of the powers-that-be, NOT Superman. That's also contradicted by "Superman Returns," where the world moved on without Superman.

Again, Superman gave up his abilities for the love of someone he loves. How is that immature?

"Secondly, the act in Superman Returns (him going to Krypton) could have saved many people, it just didnt work out that way. He felt it was his responability to try and help other people who may have survived Kryptons destruction, meaning it was a less selfish act than going back in time to save one person (Lois)."

Krypton exploded decades earlier; if there were survivors, they would have been in other parts of the universe. If Superman saw bodies, they would have been corpses. It's just better to say this is a unconvincing, dumb plot device that wasn't thought out.

[bfrank]

I feel it's too uconvincing, given that Superman has known about Krypton's destruction for years. It's not like he couldn't go there any time in the past and it's not an issue of having the means. Superman has no other reason to think there were other survivors.



what were the means?

[CaptainAwesome]

what were the means?
I think he means the space ship that brought Superman to earth.

[curefreak]

he did go to see if there was any krypton left in a comic during the 80s.
but the difference is he didnt abondon the planet to do it,
especially considering that hes not the only superhero around that version was an easier pill to swallow.

[David Walton]

It's just better to say this is a unconvincing, dumb plot device that wasn't thought out.[/color][/font]

It was bad drama. Nothing came of a plot element that should have been explored. If Supes had found, say kandor, it would have made him look like less of a jerk.

I wouldn't pay for a sequel. It was bad enough this time, but "asthma-boy" is just a horrendous plot vehicle to suffer through an entire film.

Kids. Don't. Work. In. Comics. Films.

[curefreak]

It was bad drama. Nothing came of a plot element that should have been explored. If Supes had found, say kandor, it would have made him look like less of a jerk.

I wouldn't pay for a sequel. It was bad enough this time, but "asthma-boy" is just a horrendous plot vehicle to suffer through an entire film.

Kids. Don't. Work. In. Comics. Films.
*ahem* invisibles:p

[J. Robb]

*ahem* invisibles:p
I'm going to assume you mean "The Incredibles" and agree. ;)

[curefreak]

I'm going to assume you mean "The Incredibles" and agree. ;)
yeah what he said (oops)

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Three years is just how long it takes. Writing a script, allowing stars to do other projects, pre-production, etc. If you read what Singer says carefully, it says HE would like to do a sequel in three years, but WB hasn't decided if it was worth it yet. He said he would have liked to have had confirmation from WB but they hadn't given it to him yet. I think this is Singer's ideal timetable, and not an official one. There still might not be a sequel.

In a recent interview Singer confirmed the sequel for 2009.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Hmmm at last estimate Superman Returns has grossed $ 191 Million USA and Overseas $ 146 Million. Its total worldwide take stands at $ 337 Million.

[Hellcow]

In a recent interview Singer confirmed the sequel for 2009.


Ah... Singer's just saying that he WANTS to do one. He's hoping if he tells enough people, it will become true and he can screw WB for another 12 million and another trip to mardi gra with his writing budies. Lucky for us the final decision is out of his hands.

[van-zee]

MB> And idea when Superman 2 might come out?
BS> It will be released sometime in 2009.

Here's another great interview where he talks about the sequel and what he cut from Returns. So Kal Penn's character was involved in the whole dropped plot thread concerning Lex? I thought it was odd he didn't have any lines. Actually it was one of my two complaints about the flick.

So he teases that the villain in the next flick might be from Krypton. I hope that doesn't mean it's Zod... I never really liked that character. It's a shame they probably won't use Mxyzptlk... imagine the imagery!

[curefreak]

Here's another great interview where he talks about the sequel and what he cut from Returns. So Kal Penn's character was involved in the whole dropped plot thread concerning Lex? I thought it was odd he didn't have any lines. Actually it was one of my two complaints about the flick.

So he teases that the villain in the next flick might be from Krypton. I hope that doesn't mean it's Zod... I never really liked that character. It's a shame they probably won't use Mxyzptlk... imagine the imagery!
he probably means brainiac...

[van-zee]

he probably means brainiac...

But Brainiac is Coluan. Wait. Damn it. He's using the S:TAS characterization? Don't get me wrong, love the series, but I never really liked that element.

[curefreak]

But Brainiac is Coluan. Wait. Damn it. He's using the S:TAS characterization? Don't get me wrong, love the series, but I never really liked that element.
lol each to there own i guess.

[David Atkins]

But Brainiac is Coluan. Wait. Damn it. He's using the S:TAS characterization? Don't get me wrong, love the series, but I never really liked that element.

Same here. S:TAS, as far as I can tell, raped both the mythos of the Eradicator and that of the Brainiac in order to give us a dumbed down villain called the Brainiac that served a function on Krypton vaguely similar to that of the Eradicator and subsequently had one of the most ridiculous agendas (to digitize all of the information in the universe?) I've ever heard of.

However, that said, I would be somewhat intrigued if the villain turned out to be the Eradicator. :D

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Ah... Singer's just saying that he WANTS to do one. He's hoping if he tells enough people, it will become true and he can screw WB for another 12 million and another trip to mardi gra with his writing budies. Lucky for us the final decision is out of his hands.

Hmmm... The feeling I got is that the sequel will be made and released in 2009. Yep, I'm pretty sure that's what Singer meant.

I take you didn't like the movie?

[West Mantooth]

So what was the Colu Brainianc after? I only know about the Kryptonian Brainiac from the cartoon.

I hope Singer gets his sequel. The movie did well enough considering it didn't have a real fight. Give people a couple of good fights and the movie is going to be spectacular.

And in regards to Superman II, the movie only works if you believe Superman never heard any of the screams for help before giving up his powers. And why would he need to? He can bang Lois with powers. It was done just for emotion.

[J. Robb]

And in regards to Superman II, the movie only works if you believe Superman never heard any of the screams for help before giving up his powers.
God, could you imagine if "Superman II" came out today? The message board would be even crazier than they are now! Not to mention "Superman: The Movie", where you have to wait forever for Superman to even appear, and when he does he doesn't punch anyone!! :p

[curefreak]

God, could you imagine if "Superman II" came out today? The message board would be even crazier than they are now! Not to mention "Superman: The Movie", where you have to wait forever for Superman to even appear, and when he does he doesn't punch anyone!! :p
it would tear the internet in half, literally.

[jaguarshark]

God, could you imagine if "Superman II" came out today? The message board would be even crazier than they are now! Not to mention "Superman: The Movie", where you have to wait forever for Superman to even appear, and when he does he doesn't punch anyone!! :p
That's a great point. I think the way that messageboards can be overly critical, and perhaps too analytical and deconstructive... especially when the credentials of the people (ie. us) doing the criticising and analysing are non-existent... can be a real problem, and can lead to skewed, overly negative representations.

At the same time, the ability to be able to discuss a movie or a comic or whatever with likeminded fans is a godsend, and in theory, the more scrutiny our entertainment is put under, the better it will become.

It does seem like the ability to use imagination or accept whimsy for what it is is a lost art sometimes, but you know, I'm probably over-analysing it.

[West Mantooth]

That's a great point. I think the way that messageboards can be overly critical, and perhaps too analytical and deconstructive
It does seem like the ability to use imagination or accept whimsy for what it is is a lost art sometimes, but you know, I'm probably over-analysing it.

I was having a conversation with my brother about this subject. Why we don't have any real major villians added to the superhero rogue galleries anymore unless it's tied to some grand event.(Doomsday,Superboy Prime, Bane) The majority of Spidey's villians were created in like the first 38 issues of his run. Only Venom has come in to being a widely accepted villian and that was twenty years ago.(Carnage doesn't count)

[curefreak]

I was having a conversation with my brother about this subject. Why we don't have any real major villians added to the superhero rogue galleries anymore unless it's tied to some grand event.(Doomsday,Superboy Prime, Bane) The majority of Spidey's villians were created in like the first 38 issues of his run. Only Venom has come in to being a widely accepted villian and that was twenty years ago.(Carnage doesn't count)its hard to find anyone who can go to toe to toe with supes a lot i would imagine.

[West Mantooth]

I just mean in general across all comics. I can't name a villian in the last ten years that was created in a comic that I'd want seen on the big screen in the way of a Green Goblin or Joker. I believe it's because we are so ready to rip a new villian apart after one apperance that creator don't reuse them so they can have a chance at a great story.

[jaguarshark]

I just mean in general across all comics. I can't name a villian in the last ten years that was created in a comic that I'd want seen on the big screen in the way of a Green Goblin or Joker. I believe it's because we are so ready to rip a new villian apart after one apperance that creator don't reuse them so they can have a chance at a great story.
There's probably a lot of truth to that. It's probably also a function of the industry's modern storytelling- important new characters tend to be introduced in massive event storylines that kinda make people tire of the character reasonably quickly; especially if the character comes off as a gimmick unable to stand up outside of said 'event' storyline. Doomsday, anyone?

It also makes sense that film makers want to use characters who they grew up with; or who were creations of the original creative teams; so as to stay truer to the 'core' of the character. Of course, this second point never stopped the generation of new creators in the Silver Age from introducing popular and ever-lasting characters, like Braniac, for example.

That said, I think a bunch of characters created in the last 20 years will be seen in the upcoming Direct-to-DVD animated DC movies, and the recreated Mr Freeze from B:TAS was (sort of) seen in 'Batman & Robin'. There's probably other examples I'm forgetting.

[Hellcow]

Hmmm... The feeling I got is that the sequel will be made and released in 2009. Yep, I'm pretty sure that's what Singer meant.

I take you didn't like the movie?

I want to see another Superman movie, but I think there are a number of great Directors more suited to the project.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I want to see another Superman movie, but I think there are a number of great Directors more suited to the project.

Any names in particular?

[curefreak]

Any names in particular?
i bet sam raimi would do an excellent job.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

i bet sam raimi would do an excellent job.

Sam Raimi? Hmmm... Perhaps, but only if he doesn't make him look like Spider-Man.

[curefreak]

Sam Raimi? Hmmm... Perhaps, but only if he doesn't make him look like Spider-Man.
i seriously doubt he would.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

i seriously doubt he would.

Then it's good.

[curefreak]

Then it's good.
didnt raimi audition to do a superman movie during the 90s anyways?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

didnt raimi audition to do a superman movie during the 90s anyways?

Is that so? I didn't know that.

[curefreak]

Is that so? I didn't know that.
let me look it up to make sure but i think so.

[curefreak]

ok i was wrong he wanted to do batman after burton left.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

ok i was wrong he wanted to do batman after burton left.

Ok then. On a side note, I knew Cameron wanted to make Spider-Man. Never knew why that project never came to fruition.

[curefreak]

Ok then. On a side note, I knew Cameron wanted to make Spider-Man. Never knew why that project never came to fruition.
look it up on wikipedia its on there i just cant remember.

[David Atkins]

Sam Raimi? Hmmm... Perhaps, but only if he doesn't make him look like Spider-Man.

Who would get the Power Ranger make-over, Darkseid or Doomsday? :D

In truth, I like Sam Raimi. And he has made me very happy recently. He's reached an agreement with the author Terry Goodkind to turn the first book of the Sword of Truth series into a TV mini-series.

[Allen Klingelhoets]

2009 is not so long of wait for sequel. I will also go to Superman sequel. I really enjoyed this summers movie in theatre.

[rushx5]

For the record, I loved Superman Returns, it's my favourite film of 2006 yet and my favourite film in 2005 was Batman Begins.
Marvel better churn out some quality films or I'm jumping ship from being a Marvel fan to DC lol!!
Superman returns actually made me LIKE superman. I always thought him as a...well let's just say he isn't cool. But after the film I was so hyped I went and watched it the second time!! I hope there'll be more Superman Movies and other Super heroes!! (of-course good quality films not some half-assed attempt rip-offs)

[666MasterOfPuppets]

look it up on wikipedia its on there i just cant remember.

Cool. Thanx for the info.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Who would get the Power Ranger make-over, Darkseid or Doomsday? :D

*LOL* That would be so... Bad.

In truth, I like Sam Raimi. And he has made me very happy recently. He's reached an agreement with the author Terry Goodkind to turn the first book of the Sword of Truth series into a TV mini-series.

What's that all about?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

For the record, I loved Superman Returns, it's my favourite film of 2006 yet and my favourite film in 2005 was Batman Begins.
Marvel better churn out some quality films or I'm jumping ship from being a Marvel fan to DC lol!!
Superman returns actually made me LIKE superman. I always thought him as a...well let's just say he isn't cool. But after the film I was so hyped I went and watched it the second time!! I hope there'll be more Superman Movies and other Super heroes!! (of-course good quality films not some half-assed attempt rip-offs)

HELL YEAH!

Welcome to the Superman fandom!

[davids]

They all ready have all those sets. They don't have to spend millions on speciale effect tests. They don't have to include the cost of all those earlier bad attmpts to bring superman to the screen. and I;m sure a proper producer wont let singer or any other director spend 10 million dollars on a return to Krypton sequence that was never used!

It will cost about 150 million with another 50 million budgeted for adverstizing for a total cost of right around 200 million. Remember if the current budget was 200 million Superman Returns would be in the black all ready.

[van-zee]

It will cost about 150 million with another 50 million budgeted for adverstizing for a total cost of right around 200 million. Remember if the current budget was 200 million Superman Returns would be in the black all ready.

As presented by Singer that was the budget. Also with foreign box office and merchandising the flick has already made it's loot back.

[cactusmaac]

From Variety, via the Comic Reel:

There's an in-depth article at Variety (subscription required) about why Warner execs are still not sold on a Bryan Singer-led sequel. The trade believes the film will eventually break even. "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."

[666MasterOfPuppets]

They all ready have all those sets. They don't have to spend millions on speciale effect tests. They don't have to include the cost of all those earlier bad attmpts to bring superman to the screen. and I;m sure a proper producer wont let singer or any other director spend 10 million dollars on a return to Krypton sequence that was never used!

Deleting scenes from the final cut happens with all movies. It happened with Terminator 2, which was the most expensive movie ever shot back then. I don't think WB will get mad at Singer for doing that. It's typical.

It will cost about 150 million with another 50 million budgeted for adverstizing for a total cost of right around 200 million. Remember if the current budget was 200 million Superman Returns would be in the black all ready.

Superman Returns has made so far around $350 million worldwide. There are net gains for WB and Legendary already.

[Broken Shakespeare]

So you work in Warner Bros accounting offices or have a "secret" contact in them that's giving you updates on Superman Returns' financial situation? :rolleyes:

Like I said, I've had access to their records.

And gee, about a week later this shows up ...

"There's an in-depth article at Variety (subscription required) about why Warner execs are still not sold on a Bryan Singer-led sequel. The trade believes the film will eventually break even. "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."

Gee, it says Warner execs claim they are still in the red, they have a "shot" at breaking even, and to make that "shot" they are going to be depending on strong home entertainment sales.

Gee, a week ago I said they were still in the red and the only way they can even break even is if they have the #1 DVD release of all time.

Gosh, sounds like they said the same thing but with a bit rosier tint to it. I must be psychic or something...

Van-zee, you better send that Singer interview link to Variety and to the WB Exec's. They are reporting something contrary to what Singer said in his interview, so they must be wrong.

Boo-Yah!

[Broken Shakespeare]

Deleting scenes from the final cut happens with all movies. It happened with Terminator 2, which was the most expensive movie ever shot back then. I don't think WB will get mad at Singer for doing that. It's typical.



Superman Returns has made so far around $350 million worldwide. There are net gains for WB and Legendary already.

Wrong, their are no net gains. They are still in the red.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Wrong, their are no net gains. They are still in the red.

Crap. How much did that movie cost then?

[van-zee]

Van-zee, you better send that Singer interview link to Variety and to the WB Exec's. They are reporting something contrary to what Singer said in his interview, so they must be wrong.

Boo-Yah!

There are no direct quotes from anybody at Warners in the article. It's simply a speculative article that has absolutely no official credence other than being "from an inside source," who could be a disgruntled secretary for all we know. Besides, Variety isn't much more than a gossip rag anymore. For real industry news check out The Hollywood Reporter (although they ain't no great shakes either)

[van-zee]

Crap. How much did that movie cost then?

Around $200 Million.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Around $200 Million.

Supposed so.

Why does Shakespeare say that WB is still on the red line then?

[van-zee]

Wrong, their are no net gains. They are still in the red.

Because factors like licensing and television rights and other misc. revenue streams haven't been accounted for yet.

And the film is only about $7 mil away from making back it's budget in domestic box office. (Yes, I know that doesn't translate to money in the WB's pocket, but movies who have turned around less money have been called successes. )

[van-zee]

Supposed so.

Why does Shakespeare say that WB is still on the red line then?

Because Shakespeare is making things up (including supposed access to very heavily guarded corporate financial documents).

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Because factors like licensing and television rights and other misc. revenue streams haven't been accounted for yet.

And the film is only about $7 mil away from making back it's budget in domestic box office. (Yes, I know that doesn't translate to money in the WB's pocket, but movies who have turned around less money have been called successes. )

Like I said, SR has made so far around $350 million. A good number, I think.

[regnak]

Never mind. Broken Shakespeare has better info than my estimates.

[Broken Shakespeare]

The movie has grossed $192 million domestically at the box office and about $120 million internationally. So yes, that number does add up to $312 million.

However, everyone overlooks the fact that WB doesn't get 100% of the money. Domestically, movie theaters kept about 12% (its individually negotiated by theatre chain, but this was the average for SR), so WB got 88% of $192 million.

Internationally, the outlook is worse. Not only do they have to pay the individual theatres, but they also have to pay international distributors a percentage. Also, not every country is a free market and the government can also take a big chunk. 20 years ago China would take 60% of the take in its country (leaving the studio with 40%). In this case, WB got around 65% of the international box office.

That leaves about $169 mil domestic and $78 mil international. This means WB has pocketed about $247 mil from the box office and the movie has pretty much ran its course now for the box office. It may scrape up a few million more, but not much.

WB spent ~$260 mil on restarting the Superman Franchise. They originally spent $100 mil worldwide on marketing. Then when the movie faltered on openng weekend, they threw another $25-$30 mil in marketing.

This brings their cost up to a total of $395 mil. They got a tax break of $20 mil from Australia, bringing that number down to $375 mil. Remove the box office take and it brings it to ~$125 mil in the red. So for the franchise to break even, they basically need $125 mil in licensing and home video. They made $25-$30 mil in licensing, which leaves them $95 mil short. If you cut them a break and remove the $40 mil spent on past startup attempts, that still leaves $55 mil in the red.

The single best video release (DVD, VHS, PPV) to date did not make the studio that much money (I believe it brought in about $45 mil globally). So again, Superman Returns would have to be the most successful release ever to break even, and that is if you cut the $40 mil out of the total (which I would think you could because the wrote the money off on their taxes as a loss over the years). If you don't count the $40 mil, you can forget about it.

[regnak]

Since the edit button doesn't seem to be working right now let me add this. According to Box office mojo SR has a $260 budget:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

Now remember the Hulk? It was considered a bust at the box office. It made 179% of it's budget back in worldwide gross. It grossed over $245 million on a $137 million dollar budget.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hulk.htm

179% of SRs budget would be $465.4 million. It's currently at just over $348 million. $348/260= 134% of it's budget. If the Hulk at 179% of it's budget things look bad for SR this way as well.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Not for it's reported $260 million budget. Here's a post I did on it from the TV/Film board.

No it's all about income vs costs. You know that the studios don't get all of the box office right? In the Superman box office thread a poster claimed that the theaters get 30%. It's probably an average but lets go with it for now. 100% -30% leaves 70% for the studio assuming they haven't given any actors or directors a cut of the gross. So with a budget of $260 million divide by 70%= $371.4 million to cover just the production budget. The worldwide gross for SR might reach that but there is still the top secret advertising budget.

Back at the time of DD and the Hulk the ad budgets were listed and generally about half of the production budget. I use half loosely as IIRC the ad bdugets I saw went from 40-60% of the prod budgets. So let's lowball the SR ad budget $260 million x 40%= $104 million dollars. Add that to the prod budget of $260 m and you get a conservative estimate of $364 million to be covered. Divide that by 70% and you get $520 million dollars needed to break even from the box office.

When you consider that there may be other costs we know nothing about it's easy to see that with it's budget SR may be lucky to break even when everything is accounted for.

Dammit. I want my goddamn sequel!!!

[666MasterOfPuppets]

The movie has grossed $192 million domestically at the box office and about $120 million internationally. So yes, that number does add up to $312 million.

However, everyone overlooks the fact that WB doesn't get 100% of the money. Domestically, movie theaters kept about 12% (its individually negotiated by theatre chain, but this was the average for SR), so WB got 88% of $192 million.

Internationally, the outlook is worse. Not only do they have to pay the individual theatres, but they also have to pay international distributors a percentage. Also, not every country is a free market and the government can also take a big chunk. 20 years ago China would take 60% of the take in its country (leaving the studio with 40%). In this case, WB got around 65% of the international box office.

That leaves about $169 mil domestic and $78 mil international. This means WB has pocketed about $247 mil from the box office and the movie has pretty much ran its course now for the box office. It may scrape up a few million more, but not much.

WB spent ~$260 mil on restarting the Superman Franchise. They originally spent $100 mil worldwide on marketing. Then when the movie faltered on openng weekend, they threw another $25-$30 mil in marketing.

This brings their cost up to a total of $395 mil. They got a tax break of $20 mil from Australia, bringing that number down to $375 mil. Remove the box office take and it brings it to ~$125 mil in the red. So for the franchise to break even, they basically need $125 mil in licensing and home video. They made $25-$30 mil in licensing, which leaves them $95 mil short. If you cut them a break and remove the $40 mil spent on past startup attempts, that still leaves $55 mil in the red.

The single best video release (DVD, VHS, PPV) to date did not make the studio that much money (I believe it brought in about $45 mil globally). So again, Superman Returns would have to be the most successful release ever to break even, and that is if you cut the $40 mil out of the total (which I would think you could because the wrote the money off on their taxes as a loss over the years). If you don't count the $40 mil, you can forget about it.

Damn. I overlooked a lot of things, and other ones I didn't know about.

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Since the edit button doesn't seem to be working right now let me add this. According to Box office mojo SR has a $260 budget:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

Now remember the Hulk? It was considered a bust at the box office. It made 179% of it's budget back in worldwide gross. It grossed over $245 million on a $137 million dollar budget.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hulk.htm

179% of SRs budget would be $465.4 million. It's currently at just over $348 million. $348/260= 134% of it's budget. If the Hulk at 179% of it's budget things look bad for SR this way as well.

No good then. I just hope I can get my sequel for 2009.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Singer said his movie, minus the cost of preproduction of the Cage/Burton and McG/Ratner misfires, was around 230 million. When you add on the cost of that preproduction, that's another 20 million. Then you take on another 100 million for promotion worldwide. Then you take into account that Warners and Legendary split the revenue 50/50 and that a chunk of the money from the opening weekend went to the theaters. Given all that, it's pretty big stretch to say that Superman returns has made much money yet.

However, DVD and TV rights will definitely bring in some cash, but how much is still up in the air. Given the lukewarm reaction the film has gotten from audiences thus far, it might not be as big a rental as Warners is hoping.

[jaguarshark]

Singer said his movie, minus the cost of preproduction of the Cage/Burton and McG/Ratner misfires, was around 230 million. When you add on the cost of that preproduction, that's another 20 million. Then you take on another 100 million for promotion worldwide. Then you take into account that Warners and Legendary split the revenue 50/50 and that a chunk of the money from the opening weekend went to the theaters. Given all that, it's pretty big stretch to say that Superman returns has made much money yet.

However, DVD and TV rights will definitely bring in some cash, but how much is still up in the air. Given the lukewarm reaction the film has gotten from audiences thus far, it might not be as big a rental as Warners is hoping.
For sure. But, I suppose another way of looking at it is to say that now that the stillborn Cage/Ratner/McG productions are out of the way, sets have been built, the effects have been sorted out and a young cast is in place, the best way for Warners to make back the money they lost on this one is to churn out a franchise of cheaper Superman sequels taking advantage of these factors.

I mean, that way, they might actually make some money longterm. That's what I hope, at least, because I want a sequel!

[Broken Shakespeare]

Singer said his movie, minus the cost of preproduction of the Cage/Burton and McG/Ratner misfires, was around 230 million. When you add on the cost of that preproduction, that's another 20 million. Then you take on another 100 million for promotion worldwide. Then you take into account that Warners and Legendary split the revenue 50/50 and that a chunk of the money from the opening weekend went to the theaters. Given all that, it's pretty big stretch to say that Superman returns has made much money yet.

However, DVD and TV rights will definitely bring in some cash, but how much is still up in the air. Given the lukewarm reaction the film has gotten from audiences thus far, it might not be as big a rental as Warners is hoping.

As I've mentioned before, WB gets $0 for TV rights. They have the same deal as with Batman. The WB Network (now CS Network I guess) gets exclusive first run TV rights. Since the WB network is owned by WB, they don't pay themselves for the TV rights. If any other networks carry the movie, it will be 5-10 years down the road and the revenue won't be booked to the movie, but rather to the WB catalog in general.

Really all that is left is standard PPV and DVD/VHS (my estimates already included the few million they got for hotel chain early PPV's).

I think there may very likely be a sequel, but as I've said before, unless they want a huge budget again (and thus a huge amount of risk), Singer cant be behind the helm (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), Spacey can't return (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), and they won't be able to spend as much on CGI. It could turn out to be the best thing that happens for the franchise, or it could go horribly wrong (ala Batman and Robin).

Again, my guess is a movie with Superman mostly punching it out with a human sized super villain to reduce CGI costs (hopefully not Zod, even Darkseid/Doomsday would be a stretch because of CGI). I guess if they can do the Thing in FF on a reasonable budget, they might be able to do a Darkseid.

[jaguarshark]

Again, my guess is a movie with Superman mostly punching it out with a human sized super villain to reduce CGI costs (hopefully not Zod, even Darkseid/Doomsday would be a stretch because of CGI). I guess if they can do the Thing in FF on a reasonable budget, they might be able to do a Darkseid.

Meh, if they go with a movie about Superman punching an unconvincing Darkseid for two hours... well, I'm not gonna lie, I'd almost definitely enjoy it, but it would probably just further romanticise Singer's film for me.
I'm very predictable that way, so I can see it now: "Remember that really good, artful Superman movie? Tragically, they changed course for the sequel..."
Having said that, if someone can make a movie about Superman fighting Darkseid that maintains (what I saw as) the artistic quality of 'SR', I'd be stoked.

[cactusmaac]

I think there may very likely be a sequel, but as I've said before, unless they want a huge budget again (and thus a huge amount of risk), Singer cant be behind the helm (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), Spacey can't return (since he is contractually guarenteed a pay increase), and they won't be able to spend as much on CGI. It could turn out to be the best thing that happens for the franchise, or it could go horribly wrong (ala Batman and Robin).

Again, my guess is a movie with Superman mostly punching it out with a human sized super villain to reduce CGI costs (hopefully not Zod, even Darkseid/Doomsday would be a stretch because of CGI). I guess if they can do the Thing in FF on a reasonable budget, they might be able to do a Darkseid.

If they're not going to get Singer (and Dougherty and Harris) and Spacey, I wouldn't be surprised if they take a leaf from Batman Begins and just do a $175m restart with a new cast.

[Broken Shakespeare]

If they're not going to get Singer (and Dougherty and Harris) and Spacey, I wouldn't be surprised if they take a leaf from Batman Begins and just do a $175m restart with a new cast.


I think that would be more of a possibility if it takes more than 3 years to make the sequel.

WB has taken a bath this year and lost money on almost every major release that they though would make big $$$. Since they are way down this year, they won't be willing to risk a big gamble next year. A Superman sequel is definately a big risk.

Consider that it takes 1.5 years from pre-production through release for a big movie like Superman. If you want to have a sequel out in 3 years, you have to pull the trigger within 1.5 years (around December of next year).

WB will only gamble on a SR sequel following a successful year. This means that if WB has another bad year next year, they won't pull the trigger on the sequel. This means a sequel is pushed from 2009 to 2010. The more the sequel is delayed, the more likely they are to bring in a new cast, new director, etc. Also, the more it is delayed the less likely it is that the project will even happen.

It is very similar to the Hulk syndrome. It has been so long since the first, there likely won't be a second. I doubt they could even get Eric Bana back, so they would have to find a new Bruce Banner. CGI has came along way even in just a few years, so there would probably be a considerable cost in improving the Hulk CGI. The longer they wait, the more obsticles to overcome.

[cactusmaac]

Thanks for the info.

Do you work in the movie industry?

[van-zee]

Since the edit button doesn't seem to be working right now let me add this. According to Box office mojo SR has a $260 budget:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm


Box Office Mojo's budget information is wrong. It was $200 million. Singer and WB have said as much.

That of course isn't counting false starts, but this movie wasn't responsible for recouping those costs.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Meh, if they go with a movie about Superman punching an unconvincing Darkseid for two hours... well, I'm not gonna lie, I'd almost definitely enjoy it, but it would probably just further romanticise Singer's film for me.
I'm very predictable that way, so I can see it now: "Remember that really good, artful Superman movie? Tragically, they changed course for the sequel..."
Having said that, if someone can make a movie about Superman fighting Darkseid that maintains (what I saw as) the artistic quality of 'SR', I'd be stoked.

I'd love to see Darkseid on a alive-action movie. But this would have to be handled very, very carefully, IMO. Darkseid comes from the most fantastic part of the Superman mythology, and when something that fantastic is to be translated to live-action, it must be done very carefully, IMO.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

BTW, there's this (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10030192 46) interesting article about X-Men 3 and Superman Returns. In it, Jeff Robinov himself confirms that there will be a sequel.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Box Office Mojo's budget information is wrong. It was $200 million. Singer and WB have said as much.

That of course isn't counting false starts, but this movie wasn't responsible for recouping those costs.

Yep, the reported $265 million apparently includes the costs of the failed attempts to shot Superman Lives.

[cactusmaac]

Box Office Mojo's budget information is wrong. It was $200 million. Singer and WB have said as much.

That of course isn't counting false starts, but this movie wasn't responsible for recouping those costs.

The cost was $225m. They got a $20m tax break from the Aussie government. Including the costs of the McG and Ratner versions is where the $260m figure comes from.

[cactusmaac]

BTW, there's this (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10030192 46) interesting article about X-Men 3 and Superman Returns. In it, Jeff Robinov himself confirms that there will be a sequel.

That is interesting. Still it depends on whether or not Robinov and Horn don't change their minds in the future. And if they're still in their jobs when it's time to decide on future Superman movie plans. Another crap year and they might not be.

[jaguarshark]

I think that would be more of a possibility if it takes more than 3 years to make the sequel.

WB has taken a bath this year and lost money on almost every major release that they though would make big $$$. Since they are way down this year, they won't be willing to risk a big gamble next year. A Superman sequel is definately a big risk.

Consider that it takes 1.5 years from pre-production through release for a big movie like Superman. If you want to have a sequel out in 3 years, you have to pull the trigger within 1.5 years (around December of next year).

WB will only gamble on a SR sequel following a successful year. This means that if WB has another bad year next year, they won't pull the trigger on the sequel. This means a sequel is pushed from 2009 to 2010. The more the sequel is delayed, the more likely they are to bring in a new cast, new director, etc. Also, the more it is delayed the less likely it is that the project will even happen.

It is very similar to the Hulk syndrome. It has been so long since the first, there likely won't be a second. I doubt they could even get Eric Bana back, so they would have to find a new Bruce Banner. CGI has came along way even in just a few years, so there would probably be a considerable cost in improving the Hulk CGI. The longer they wait, the more obsticles to overcome.

Yeah, I guess that all makes sense, except that they are making a Hulk sequel. Louis Lettierer is directing, isn't he?

[The Batman]

I'd love to see Darkseid on a alive-action movie. But this would have to be handled very, very carefully, IMO. Darkseid comes from the most fantastic part of the Superman mythology, and when something that fantastic is to be translated to live-action, it must be done very carefully, IMO.

agreed. it seems that what worked about the Donner take on Superman, which Singer more or less continued, was that with the exception of the fantastic element of Superman and his world [ie Krypton and Zod and Co.] it was more or less our world.

if they're going to go in a more fantastic direction for a sequel, to introduce a character like Bariniac or even Darksied, must be done carefully and done well for it to work.

[Broken Shakespeare]

Yeah, I guess that all makes sense, except that they are making a Hulk sequel. Louis Lettierer is directing, isn't he?

I've heard that recently, but I've also heard they are really just looking at scripts and that no filming has been approved or a budget set. Sort of like the McG/Cage/blah/blah that went on with Superman.

I'd be a bit surprised if they did a Hulk sequel before exploring some of their other properties (like Captain America). If you look, Marvel has a film in "production" for almost every character they have (even third stringers like Black Widow). At Marvel, "production" seems to be used pretty loosely.

[chriskenny]

I've heard that recently, but I've also heard they are really just looking at scripts and that no filming has been approved or a budget set. Sort of like the McG/Cage/blah/blah that went on with Superman.

I'd be a bit surprised if they did a Hulk sequel before exploring some of their other properties (like Captain America). If you look, Marvel has a film in "production" for almost every character they have (even third stringers like Black Widow). At Marvel, "production" seems to be used pretty loosely.

No, I'm pretty sure it is going to be one of the first movies totally produced by Marvel Studios. And they signed the director and are pretty set to make a "soft reboot." Basically, they are going to make a movie that addresses the mistakes of the too arty Lee film. I think that would be a good thing for Superman, too.

[PatrickG]

Well, after reading the linked article, I'm pretty sure that we'll see Luthor establishing Lexcorp in the sequel.

He didn't go to jail at the end of SR. There's no evidence of criminal activity. And thanks to Gertrude, Lex is one of the world's wealthiest men.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

That is interesting. Still it depends on whether or not Robinov and Horn don't change their minds in the future. And if they're still in their jobs when it's time to decide on future Superman movie plans. Another crap year and they might not be.

I just hope that they don't change their minds. It's only fair to assume that the sequel will make more money.

I want a sequel, dammit.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

agreed. it seems that what worked about the Donner take on Superman, which Singer more or less continued, was that with the exception of the fantastic element of Superman and his world [ie Krypton and Zod and Co.] it was more or less our world.

if they're going to go in a more fantastic direction for a sequel, to introduce a character like Bariniac or even Darksied, must be done carefully and done well for it to work.

Exactly. In those movies you could see some reality, even when the main character was a guy flying around in a red cape, able to make Earth go back in time and lift enormous weights.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Well, after reading the linked article, I'm pretty sure that we'll see Luthor establishing Lexcorp in the sequel.

He didn't go to jail at the end of SR. There's no evidence of criminal activity. And thanks to Gertrude, Lex is one of the world's wealthiest men.

Now that would be nice. And what you just said makes total sense.

[Captain Smith]

If the next Supes movie continues with the tale of Lois and baby and non-truly supervillian Lex (as in the current unbelievable continent plot), that will kill the franchise for all time.

It's an Alien 3 moment. It stunk and led to the abysmal 4.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

If the next Supes movie continues with the tale of Lois and baby and non-truly supervillian Lex (as in the current unbelievable continent plot), that will kill the franchise for all time.

It's an Alien 3 moment. It stunk and led to the abysmal 4.

And here I thought it was actually fun. Lex was shown as an evil genius (what he is), and the true Superman's arch-nemesis.

As for the other thing, well, it's going to happen.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

"Evil genius" is not exactly the words I´d choose to qualify Spacey´s Luthor.

He gets his wealth from sleeping with a decrepit old lady and he plans on creating a godawful continent to sell to (mostly) atlantic nations whose economies would plummet to the ground if the US were destroyed as he planned.

Very bright.........

[666MasterOfPuppets]

"Evil genius" is not exactly the words I´d choose to qualify Spacey´s Luthor.

He gets his wealth from sleeping with a decrepit old lady and he plans on creating a godawful continent to sell to (mostly) atlantic nations whose economies would plummet to the ground if the US were destroyed as he planned.

Very bright.........

Well, but Spacey's Luthor wasn't dumb either. The part of "sleeping with a decrepit old lady" was shown to make him look like the bastard he is.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

IMHO, making him have to sleep with a fossile to gain wealth really undermines a character like Luthor.

Sleeping with anything uglier than Claudia Schiffer would be BENEATH Comic Luthor.
If there was no alternative, he´d have henchmen to do that for him.

Actually, strike that!
His henchemen would have henchmen to do that for them.

[Broken Shakespeare]

Yes, SR's Luthor must be a genius. After all, he had crystals that when placed in water, would take on the properties of any nearby minerals.

Then instead of making a sleeve out of gold, plantium, or even jewels, he made one out of Kryptonite. That way he could grow one massively large irradiated island (proabably not fertile for plant growth either), instead of several small plantiunm and diamond deposits he could mine to become the wealthiest and most powerful man on the planet.

[Black Atom]

Yes, SR's Luthor must be a genius. After all, he had crystals that when placed in water, would take on the properties of any nearby minerals.

Then instead of making a sleeve out of gold, plantium, or even jewels, he made one out of Kryptonite. That way he could grow one massively large irradiated island (proabably not fertile for plant growth either), instead of several small plantiunm and diamond deposits he could mine to become the wealthiest and most powerful man on the planet.

Yeah. Pretty retarded. It would've worked much better if he'd use the crystals to set up his business empire in this movie while Supes tackled something else.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

IMHO, making him have to sleep with a fossile to gain wealth really undermines a character like Luthor.

Sleeping with anything uglier than Claudia Schiffer would be BENEATH Comic Luthor.
If there was no alternative, he´d have henchmen to do that for him.

Actually, strike that!
His henchemen would have henchmen to do that for them.

Hehehe, good one. Well, I guess everybody has their version of the character, don't they?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Yes, SR's Luthor must be a genius. After all, he had crystals that when placed in water, would take on the properties of any nearby minerals.

Then instead of making a sleeve out of gold, plantium, or even jewels, he made one out of Kryptonite. That way he could grow one massively large irradiated island (proabably not fertile for plant growth either), instead of several small plantiunm and diamond deposits he could mine to become the wealthiest and most powerful man on the planet.

PErhaps he cared more about killing Superman than having money (something he already had)? And who's to say that he wasn't going to do that with the other crystals?

[Broken Shakespeare]

PErhaps he cared more about killing Superman than having money (something he already had)? And who's to say that he wasn't going to do that with the other crystals?

Is that whay he beat the crap out of him and then stabbed in the side, as opposed to the heart, or eye, or throat? And then threw him into the ocean instead of finishing the job?

It was also my understanding of the film that all the crystals were required to form the super continent that outsized the US. The one crystal just made the small island Superman lifted into space.

[Evan Waters]

Yes, SR's Luthor must be a genius. After all, he had crystals that when placed in water, would take on the properties of any nearby minerals.

Then instead of making a sleeve out of gold, plantium, or even jewels, he made one out of Kryptonite. That way he could grow one massively large irradiated island (proabably not fertile for plant growth either), instead of several small plantiunm and diamond deposits he could mine to become the wealthiest and most powerful man on the planet.

Except the price of such materials is set by their rarity. If you keep selling diamonds, the price of diamonds goes down.

Plus, he wanted to kill Superman. As he often does.

[Broken Shakespeare]

Except the price of such materials is set by their rarity. If you keep selling diamonds, the price of diamonds goes down.

Plus, he wanted to kill Superman. As he often does.

That is why you mix it up with some diamonds, gold, platinum, other precious jewels and metals and you do it in smaller quantities (like using a sliver of the crystal like he did in the train room). If you show up with $100 million dollars in diamonds over the course of a couple of months, it won't effect the market at all, since the market is worth billions. Then you do a batch of gold, then platinum, etc, eventually coming back around to diamonds again and starting over. After a few cycles of that, you may impact the global market, but you'll already be a billionaire.

Heck, evey if he had used it to make coal, he would have a vast wealth. Coal sells for about $120 a ton. A island of of coal that is 1 mile x 1 mile x 1 mile in volume would weigh 5,519,923,200 tons, which would make Lex over $500 billion dollars. Even if the market value drops to $1 a ton, it would still be over $5 billion dollars. Since coal is a consumable, non-renewable natural resource, it will always be in demand. And we are only talking about a tiny 1 mile island, which is small compared to the continent he wanted to create. He would only need to use a fraction of one crystal.

Basically he could use one shard of the crystal to make anything; diamonds, gold, coal, aluminum, iron, etc and each payload would earn him billions of dollars.

I think an intelligent Lex would relize that with hundreds of trillions of dollars, he could basically buy the world, put himself in power, change the laws to favor his activities, and eventually make Superman work for him in a manner of speaking. I think this thought would give Lex much more pleasure than just killing Supes. He could bend the Man of Steel into doing his bidding...

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Is that whay he beat the crap out of him and then stabbed in the side, as opposed to the heart, or eye, or throat? And then threw him into the ocean instead of finishing the job?

You're right on that one. Lex, indeed, had the chance to finish Superman, once and for all.

It was also my understanding of the film that all the crystals were required to form the super continent that outsized the US. The one crystal just made the small island Superman lifted into space.

Hmmmm... Not sure about it.

[Captain Smith]

Lex's plot was idiotic. He if reverse engineered the crystals and just marketed the tech, he would rival Bill Gates.

But that's the trouble with all scientific super geniuses - just go into business with your invention and be rich.

Like I said before - move Supes more into DCU plots with better supervillians and fights.

NO LOIS LOVE STALKING and WHINING!! Lois, Lois, you had my baby - wah, wah.

Supes - go chase other girls. Get it on with good looking girls. Forget that you were a farm boy.

[jaguarshark]

Is that whay he beat the crap out of him and then stabbed in the side, as opposed to the heart, or eye, or throat? And then threw him into the ocean instead of finishing the job?

It was also my understanding of the film that all the crystals were required to form the super continent that outsized the US. The one crystal just made the small island Superman lifted into space.
Sorry, I missed something here... he stabbed him with a shard of Krptonite and then threw him into an ocean surrounded by Krptonite, and that's not vicious enough?
Superman can't actually die for the stories to work, so I'd say what Lex did was as close as you're gonna get.

[The Batman]

Exactly. In those movies you could see some reality, even when the main character was a guy flying around in a red cape, able to make Earth go back in time and lift enormous weights.

exactly. Superman, a being from another planet with powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men, was the one fantastic element in a movie that was set in a world which was more or less, for all intents and purposes, ours.

[The Batman]

Sorry, I missed something here... he stabbed him with a shard of Krptonite and then threw him into an ocean surrounded by Krptonite, and that's not vicious enough?
Superman can't actually die for the stories to work, so I'd say what Lex did was as close as you're gonna get.

agreed. Lex's actions were designed to make Superman suffer and die a slow and painful death. where's the revenge in quick and painless?

[West Mantooth]

I actually loved Luthor's plot. I mean come on. Why would any villain set up shop in Metropolis? Luthor wanted to create a world where Superman couldn't go.

On the subject of the crystals, the island was still growing when Supes threw it so I don't know if it would take more crystals. I understand that the visuals of the rocky island is hard to believe, but I figured that if mixing a crystal with Kryptonite created an island then putting a blade grass with a crystal would give you vegetation.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Sorry, I missed something here... he stabbed him with a shard of Krptonite and then threw him into an ocean surrounded by Krptonite, and that's not vicious enough?
Superman can't actually die for the stories to work, so I'd say what Lex did was as close as you're gonna get.

I agree with this. Had Lex really stabbed Supes in the heart, he would be dead. Something like this happened in the original movie: Lex putting a collar with a chunk of K on Supes, and throwing him to the pool, leaving him for dead.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

exactly. Superman, a being from another planet with powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men, was the one fantastic element in a movie that was set in a world which was more or less, for all intents and purposes, ours.

Yep, and that's one of the things that makes this movie COOL.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I actually loved Luthor's plot. I mean come on. Why would any villain set up shop in Metropolis? Luthor wanted to create a world where Superman couldn't go.

On the subject of the crystals, the island was still growing when Supes threw it so I don't know if it would take more crystals. I understand that the visuals of the rocky island is hard to believe, but I figured that if mixing a crystal with Kryptonite created an island then putting a blade grass with a crystal would give you vegetation.

Don't know. Didn't Luthor imply that the crystals work only with minerals?

[West Mantooth]

I don't remember him saying just minerals. Maybe Singer will have audio commentary and explain his reasoning.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I don't remember him saying just minerals. Maybe Singer will have audio commentary and explain his reasoning.

Excellent. But I'll have to wait till the release of the mega-hyper box set to find out.

[inhumans99]

Warner Bros. is waiting to see if the movie cracks $200 million at the box office, before they decide on doing a sequel...

It has been 8 weeks, and so far, Superman has grossed $194,386,206.

[curefreak]

i cant believe people are still talking about this damn movie !!!

[David Atkins]

On the subject of the crystals, the island was still growing when Supes threw it so I don't know if it would take more crystals. I understand that the visuals of the rocky island is hard to believe, but I figured that if mixing a crystal with Kryptonite created an island then putting a blade grass with a crystal would give you vegetation.

The island would have grown with or without the Kryptonite. By placing it within the Kryptonite, Luthor caused it to absorb the properties of the Kryptonite when building the 'island.'

Also, it should be noted that Lex wasn't just building an island. Kryptonian technology was based upon the growth of crystals (note Superman's space ship, both in his original flight to Earth and at the beginning of SR when he returns to Earth). What Luthor was actually building was a gargantuan machine, the full capabilities of which would have presumably been known only to Superman and Luthor (the two whom had occasion to study the information stored in the crystals).

In the novelization, it was stated that both the island and the Fortress of Solitude before it were complete replicas of Krypton (or, more precisely, replicas of certain parts of Krypton). The island, obviously, covered a bigger area. Superman recognized several of the landmarks he'd seen when he visited Krypton's remains, another event which was covered in the novel.

I am eagerly awaiting the release of Superman Returns on DVD so that I can find out how much, if any, of that was covered in the deleted scenes.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

It has been 8 weeks, and so far, Superman has grossed $194,386,206.

I think it will make the $200 million.