Dark Knight: Dooming JLA Movie And Embarrassing Superman Returns Further

[WorstThingUS]

I think the success of Dark Knight has accomplished two things: 1) Doomed the JLA movie. Christopher Nolan hated this and now they won't dare cross him if they want a third Batman movie from him. 2) Demonstrated just how badly Bryan Singer blew it by making a $200M homage to Superman The Movie rather than simply start over from scratch. I know it made a tremendous amount on the back end, but theatrically, it was embarrassing in its underperformance.

[dotdotdot]

I think the success of Dark Knight has accomplished two things: 1) Doomed the JLA movie. Christopher Nolan hated this and now they won't dare cross him if they want a third Batman movie from him. 2) Demonstrated just how badly Bryan Singer blew it by making a $200M homage to Superman The Movie rather than simply start over from scratch. I know it made a tremendous amount on the back end, but theatrically, it was embarrassing in its underperformance.

what a terrible attitude. who cares what unmade movies have been effected by the one great movie that we've got.

[DayWing]

When a movie based on one of our boys is as good as this was, it is a time to rejoice not criticize. JLA movies can exist in a separate more cosmic-fantasy type of universe from the Nolan movies if the studios allow it. And I loved Superman Returns tribute feel.

[DayWing]

Sorry double post.

[Magneto Rocks]

Maybe the rubbishy JLA we were GOING to get, but there's no reason people won't make a JLA in future. And in any case, Nolan didn't care about a JLA pic, the idea that he was actively against it is a fantasy- he just didn't want HIS Batman in it.

But you're right in how much this shows Superman Returns up- Batman and Spider-Man now have the two biggest openings ever, and Superman by all rights should be up there with them.

[MythicBrawn]

Bryan Singer can't be happy by the success of Dark Knight. I'm sure he's happy on some level, but its success certainly shows how bad Superman Returns was. Maybe, if he had a villain whose motivation was more than acquiring real estate?

[Jmacq1]

Or maybe Superman just isn't as popular as DC/WB thinks he is. Recognizable, certainly, but liked/beloved? I dunno. There seem to be a whole lotta folks that think Superman is inherently "boring."

Then again, there's also a fair number of folks that have kept Smallville on TV for what...eight or nine seasons now? So I guess the trick is finding a hook that interests people, and a rehash of the Reeve/Donner films wasn't it.

(I did actually like Spacey's Lex, though. But I would've liked him better if he was the businessman-Lex vs. the zany mad-scientist Lex.)

This has done nothing to "doom" JLA, though. It might get it pushed back till after Nolan's hypothetical but likely inevitable 3rd Bat-Film, but if anything this has made JLA more likely, not less. It just may undergo some significant changes beforehand.

[DonC]

The Dark Knight is yesterday's news at Warner Brothers. No doubt in my mind, they're already planning a movie they hope will make $160 its opening weekend, if not more. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if that movie was Justice League. When similar movies come out (Justice League and The Avengers), it's often the movie that comes out first that makes the most money. Instead of dooming Justice League, TDK's success will probably fast-track it.

[bd2999]

Although somewhat true Marvel has been pimping the Avengers movie with its first two studio productions. DC has not. There is already buzz over an Avengers move where we have nothing. People dont go into DK and come out saying I want to see the JLA. DK is a very good movie, but just saying. It will be a different monster and I think it would hurt a live action movie to just assume everyone knows all of the characters on the team or just have one giant all origins at once story.

[jesse_custer]

Or maybe Superman just isn't as popular as DC/WB thinks he is. Recognizable, certainly, but liked/beloved? I dunno. There seem to be a whole lotta folks that think Superman is inherently "boring."

Bingo. And I think a large part of that is the inherent boringness of all the Superman movies. I really believe we need to see an Alan Moore-ish Superman movie, both because it would be great and because it could change some people's minds about the character.

[Shellhead]

A big opening weekend doesn't mean that the movie was great, just that the expectations created by advance marketing were great. The second weekend will undoubtably prove that The Dark Knight is a major hit.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

as far as origins go, the hulk(2008) showed that they don't have to be critical in the story to advance the plot. It was taken care of, with no dialog in the opening credits. And hancock would have been a better film if it left out the origin/explanation of his powers. Also the way the Joker kept changing his origin in TDK was pretty clever.
I wouldn't say TDK dooms JLA, not in the least. It sets it up for more adult themes that were present in identity crisis. It might make the film require a rewrite, if the script is even done. Villains get to be real villains and heroes get to be heroes. Also since character development won't really be a huge factor, I'd imagine each character would be pretty much a 1 dimmensional archetype and the development would be getting them to work as a team. a little cliche, but there haven't been but so many superhero team movies around. X-Men franchise, LXG and The Fantatasic Four, that's it. Oh yeah I guess the incredibles sort of counts too, but with the FF and Incredibles, they were families.

I think a way to approach the movie is a wizard of Oz type set up where a central character brings the rest of the team together and as you meet each character you get a brief explanation of what their history is. in a three act structure, build the team, build up the conflict, then the resolution of the conflict. throw in some nice costumes and a few memorable one lines and BAM it's a $100 Million opening weekend.

[Jmacq1]

A big opening weekend doesn't mean that the movie was great, just that the expectations created by advance marketing were great. The second weekend will undoubtably prove that The Dark Knight is a major hit.

Actually, I'm pretty sure when a summer tentpole flick comes within a stone's throw of making back its' production budget on its' opening weekend, it's a major hit, regardless.

It'd take an outlandishly high (say, 65%-70%+) drop in second-weekend sales to make it anything other than an unmitigated success/smash hit at this point. While I think a standard 50% is pretty possible, I've also been noticing over the last few hours that all those folks in my workplace that couldn't care less about TDK on Friday are hot-to-trot to go see it now. The massive box office + great reviews are definitely equalling greater interest now.

Even if I wouldn't have predicted it a week ago, it seems pretty clear that TDK is likely to be the box-office champ for this year.

[Omega Alpha]

A big opening weekend doesn't mean that the movie was great, just that the expectations created by advance marketing were great. The second weekend will undoubtably prove that The Dark Knight is a major hit.

Normally, I would agree, but TDK is just on another level. The reception has been the best any comic book adaptation ever had, it is #1 of all time in the IMDB top 250 (that will change, fortunately), the critic reception is as good as the one of most Oscar nominees, etc. This is a great hit already.

[shades of eternity]

I think TDK was nothing less then brilliant, but it's difficult to build on the success.

It's too realistic to build on too much within the dcu.

Marvel studios has a serious long term plan that will help rake in the cash for years to come.

iron man and the incredible hulk are not only telling their own story, but also a slow build up for the avengers movie.

I really hope dcu's superhero summit finally creates an official substudio for it's dc universe so we can continue a rivalry that forces both to create the best product they can make.

As for superman returns, I really believe that singer did the only thing he could do (especially after the superman V fiasco) and the money it raised allowed batman begins to be made.

[Jmacq1]

I think TDK was nothing less then brilliant, but it's difficult to build on the success.

It's too realistic to build on too much within the dcu.

Marvel studios has a serious long term plan that will help rake in the cash for years to come.

iron man and the incredible hulk are not only telling their own story, but also a slow build up for the avengers movie.

I really hope dcu's superhero summit finally creates an official substudio for it's dc universe so we can continue a rivalry that forces both to create the best product they can make.

As for superman returns, I really believe that singer did the only thing he could do (especially after the superman V fiasco) and the money it raised allowed batman begins to be made.

The DC/WB Superhero Summit has already come and gone. Unless they're waiting to announce something at SDCC, it was pretty much a non-event. WB just doesn't seem that interested in developing their superhero properties, probably because they're making solid profits on more modestly-budgeted films as opposed to taking big risks with high-budget films. Marvel Studios is exactly the opposite: All they're going to need is one serious "bomb" and the future of the entire "Marvel Cinematic Universe" could be in jeopardy because their films are pretty expensive to make.

To put it another way, WB is a very old and established studio with a lot of bureaucratic inertia and likely "tradition" behind it. Marvel's a newborn upstart with big visions and hopes. Hopefully they'll be successful, but that remains to be seen. As for WB, I know a lot of people are assuming that the DCU is a goldmine waiting to happen...but is it really? Maybe Marvel's heroes really are more marketable in movie-form. Maybe WB isn't just stupid, and instead realizes that a lot of DCU heroes come across as "boring" and "cheesy" to some viewers (not myself, but I'm sure there are plenty).

[WorstThingUS]

what a terrible attitude. who cares what unmade movies have been effected by the one great movie that we've got.

I care. Hence the thread. And it does affect all the unmade superhero movies out there. It will cause many to be made because everyone wants this kind of money, but will cause one in particular never to see the light of day.

Or maybe Superman just isn't as popular as DC/WB thinks he is. Recognizable, certainly, but liked/beloved? I dunno. There seem to be a whole lotta folks that think Superman is inherently "boring."

This has done nothing to "doom" JLA, though. It might get it pushed back till after Nolan's hypothetical but likely inevitable 3rd Bat-Film, but if anything this has made JLA more likely, not less. It just may undergo some significant changes beforehand.

It doesn't help that they made a movie where he was boring. And this dooms a JLA movie so long as Nolan is making Batman movies. Until he leaves, Warner Brothers will not cross him with Batman in another movie and you just cannot have a JLA without Batman.

[MaxofSteel]

I'm actually glad the JLA movie has been halted. I honestly don't see it being successful or faithful to the source material.

[kalorama]

It doesn't help that they made a movie where he was boring. And this dooms a JLA movie so long as Nolan is making Batman movies. Until he leaves, Warner Brothers will not cross him with Batman in another movie and you just cannot have a JLA without Batman.

Yes, actually, you can. It's been done many times in the comics and can just as easily be done in film. As for "not crossing Nolan" ... until it was derailed by the writer's strike Warner's was in the process of getting a Batman-inclusive JLA film up and running and into production this year.

[Jmacq1]

Yes, actually, you can. It's been done many times in the comics and can just as easily be done in film. As for "not crossing Nolan" ... until it was derailed by the writer's strike Warner's was in the process of getting a Batman-inclusive JLA film up and running and into production this year.

I would argue a JLA movie without Batman is a better idea than a JLA movie without Superman. Skipping Batman lets them dodge the whole question of "Why is this guy of any use at all when folks like Batman, Wonder Woman, and Martian Manhunter are here?" Plus avoids any potential confusion (not that I think it'd be much of an issue) between franchises.

[Black Atom]

Or maybe Superman just isn't as popular as DC/WB thinks he is. Recognizable, certainly, but liked/beloved? I dunno. There seem to be a whole lotta folks that think Superman is inherently "boring."


That's a hard thing to quantify. I personally believe that Returns only made the money it did because the characters has such a large fanbase. The film did exceptionally well it's opening weekend and wasn't marketed nearly as strongly as TDK.

[Jmacq1]

That's a hard thing to quantify. I personally believe that Returns only made the money it did because the characters has such a large fanbase. The film did exceptionally well it's opening weekend and wasn't marketed nearly as strongly as TDK.

True! It is hard to quantify, and purely anecdotal on my part. Though I don't know that "exceptionally" well describes how Superman Returns did its' opening weekend. I seem to recall its' opening was described more like "decent but not spectacular, and below expectations."

[Descartes_Lives]

you just cannot have a JLA without Batman.

You could, but I doubt the quality of such an endeavor. Personally, I'd go into a JLA movie expecting to see Batman. There's also the TV pilot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_of_America_%28TV_movie%29

which is Batman-less and made a lot of folks cringe.


Des.

[Dreadstar]

Wait. MaxofSteel just claimed the JLA movie was halted.

Link, please?

[Jmacq1]

I'm pretty sure it was "put on hold" right before the writer's strike hit. I don't have a specific source handy, but it was pretty well-covered on the genre-oriented movie websites.

[Jmacq1]

Among other things, the Australian government changed the tax-loophole laws that made it such a popular place to film big-budget movies in recent years. When the Director they'd hired couldn't get the Australian government to accept the film under the new guidelines, the project kind of caved, at least temporarily.

(Sorry for the double-post, computer doesn't seem to like editing posts right now).

[WorstThingUS]

Yes, actually, you can. It's been done many times in the comics and can just as easily be done in film. As for "not crossing Nolan" ... until it was derailed by the writer's strike Warner's was in the process of getting a Batman-inclusive JLA film up and running and into production this year.

Yeah, because there's nothing different now.

Nolan has clout he didn't have three days ago, much less six months.

And apparently no one understands the very point of the JLA is to have all the biggest heroes together. Not all but one.

.

[Jmacq1]

Yeah, because there's nothing different now.

Nolan has clout he didn't have three days ago, much less six months.

And apparently no one understands the very point of the JLA is to have all the biggest heroes together. Not all but one.

.

No need to get condescending. Plus, for nearly twenty years, the JLA rarely, if ever had even two much less all three of "The Trinity" (Bats, Supes, and Wondy) on the roster at the same time.

Hollywood changes stuff like that all the time. It's part of how they do business. If Hollywood thinks they can make a JLA movie that makes money without Batman, they will. If they think they have to have Batman but don't want Bale/Nolan Batman, they'll use a different one.

Nolan's "clout" doesn't mean jack when it comes to the actual business of moviemaking. If the studio thinks they can make more money in the long run by "crossing" him that's exactly what they'll do.

Still, Nolan and Bale never expressed anything more than mild annoyance at the whole thing. It wasn't exactly like they were hugely outraged or anything of the sort.

[Jmacq1]

EDIT: Double post

[kalorama]

Yeah, because there's nothing different now.

No, there really isn't.

[WorstThingUS]

No need to get condescending. Plus, for nearly twenty years, the JLA rarely, if ever had even two much less all three of "The Trinity" (Bats, Supes, and Wondy) on the roster at the same time.

My apologies, but we're not talking about "us" as the audience for this, but the general public. Yeah, "we" can accept a JLA without the big three, but when selling to the average person, they're gonna want to know to know just where the hell Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are. I mean, who's on the cover of every animated release of the JLA? Who's foremost in the opening to every episode? Even in the context of comics, who's been retconned into being founders of the JLA? No Batman, no JLA movie.

Hollywood changes stuff like that all the time. It's part of how they do business. If Hollywood thinks they can make a JLA movie that makes money without Batman, they will. If they think they have to have Batman but don't want Bale/Nolan Batman, they'll use a different one.

Nolan's "clout" doesn't mean jack when it comes to the actual business of moviemaking. If the studio thinks they can make more money in the long run by "crossing" him that's exactly what they'll do.

Still, Nolan and Bale never expressed anything more than mild annoyance at the whole thing. It wasn't exactly like they were hugely outraged or anything of the sort.

Nolan doesn't like the idea of another Batman and right now he's WB's MVP as far as superhero movies goes. They will not needlessly antagonize him no matter how slight. JLA "might" make money, Nolan "definitely" makes money. The go with the money.

No, there really isn't.

Yes, there really are. One hundred and ninety-seven million differences in fact (worldwide gross).

[kalorama]

My apologies, but we're not talking about "us" as the audience for this, but the general public. Yeah, "we" can accept a JLA without the big three, but when selling to the average person, they're gonna want to know to know just where the hell Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are. I mean, who's on the cover of every animated release of the JLA? Who's foremost in the opening to every episode?

You mean those same animated releases and episodes that most of the non-comics reading general adult populace doesn't watch?

Yes, there really are. One hundred and ninety-seven million differences in fact (worldwide gross).

Sorry, but if you think TDK's opening weekend box office take suddenly means he gets to dictate the production slate and schedule for all of Waner Bros. studios, you're quite mistaken. Batman Begins was a considerable success in it's own right, but didn't do a thing to stop the advance of the JLA film. This would have been no different.

[Black Atom]

A big opening weekend doesn't mean that the movie was great, just that the expectations created by advance marketing were great. The second weekend will undoubtably prove that The Dark Knight is a major hit.

That the second weekend returns will be exceptional isn't really a foregone conclusion. I don't expect The Dark Knight will get the word-of-mouth boost and return trips of something like an Iron Man. While the movie is critically acclaimed and highly praised among hardcore fans I'm not sure all of that zeal has crossed over to general moviegoers. It's not really a "fun" movie that warrants multiple viewings and a few people I've chatted with have already remarked about how long it was (even though they say they enjoyed the movie overall). I think it will do a decent amount next week, but nothing particularly astounding.

[WorstThingUS]

You mean those same animated releases and episodes that most of the non-comics reading general adult populace doesn't watch?

There aren't so many geeks watching shows to keep it on for so long. It took real people for that.

Sorry, but if you think TDK's opening weekend box office take suddenly means he gets to dictate the production slate and schedule for all of Waner Bros. studios, you're quite mistaken. Batman Begins was a considerable success in it's own right, but didn't do a thing to stop the advance of the JLA film. This would have been no different.

I said nothing of the sort. Nolan makes gold with Batman so they aren't going to risk alienating him where Batman is concerned. And Batman Begins was a blip on the radar comparted to Dark Knght. It made less than a third of DK's take on its opening weekend. So yeah, I think his feelings on the subject matter somewhat.

Apparently no one else remembers the territorial pissings that go on at Warner Brothers all the time over the DC characters, which is why you saw almost none of Batman's supporting cast on the JL animated show and why there's been Bruce Wayne on Smallville, though they beg and plead every year.

[regnak]

As for superman returns, I really believe that singer did the only thing he could do (especially after the superman V fiasco) and the money it raised allowed batman begins to be made.

Nope, Batman Begins came out first, therefore SR could not have anything to do with it being made.

[Indigo Al]

At some point Warner Bros will understand brand dilution, which is exactly what a JLA movie with Superman and Batman would do.

[kalorama]

There aren't so many geeks watching shows to keep it on for so long. It took real people for that.

Not really. The JLA animated stuff aired on the Cartoon Network, a network aimed directly at the heart of geekdom.

I said nothing of the sort. Nolan makes gold with Batman so they aren't going to risk alienating him where Batman is concerned. And Batman Begins was a blip on the radar comparted to Dark Knght. It made less than a third of DK's take on its opening weekend. So yeah, I think his feelings on the subject matter somewhat.

If Warner's thought there was cash to be made by making a JLA movie with Batman, they wouldn't hesitate to make one. And if Nolan had such a big problem with it that he started handing out ultimatums and drawing lines in the sand, they'd replace him. If he had a track record of making blockbusters outside of the batman franchise it might be different. But since every Batman feature that's been made has pulled in big numbers at the box office, even the critically reviled, publicly hated ones, it wouldn't take much of a leap for them to conclude that the Batman brand carries more drawing power than Nolan's name.

It's a business, pure and simple.

Apparently no one else remembers the territorial pissings that go on at Warner Brothers all the time over the DC characters, which is why you saw almost none of Batman's supporting cast on the JL animated show and why there's been Bruce Wayne on Smallville, though they beg and plead every year.

None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand.

[Shellhead]

My apologies, but we're not talking about "us" as the audience for this, but the general public. Yeah, "we" can accept a JLA without the big three, but when selling to the average person, they're gonna want to know to know just where the hell Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman are.

I think that you have an extremely distorted concept of the general public. The general public includes lots of people who don't read comics OR watch JLU cartoons. The general public includes lots of old people, women, people who are much more interested in professional sports than anything involving super-powers, etc.

In short, "the general public" doesn't know that DC's and the JLA's Big Three are Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. As a matter of fact, most of them don't even understand that Superman and Spider-man are from separate fictional settings owned by two different companies.

[Shellhead]

Normally, I would agree, but TDK is just on another level. The reception has been the best any comic book adaptation ever had, it is #1 of all time in the IMDB top 250 (that will change, fortunately), the critic reception is as good as the one of most Oscar nominees, etc. This is a great hit already.

What I'm getting at is that word-of-mouth has a big impact on box office returns, but even today, it takes several days. For example, Superman Returns got a lot of bad word-of-mouth, but still did major box office that first weekend, just because so many people wanted to see a Superman movie. If there is a huge drop in second weekend box office, that's a sign that the movie failed to live up to a strong marketing campaign or general expectations of the concept.

[J. Robb]

If The Dark Knight embarrasses Superman Returns, does that mean that Chris Nolan should be embarrassed about Batman Begins, for only bringing in about the same money as Superman Returns?

This is a ridiculous thread.

[Alex Dragon]

Bingo. And I think a large part of that is the inherent boringness of all the Superman movies. I really believe we need to see an Alan Moore-ish Superman movie, both because it would be great and because it could change some people's minds about the character.

I think Superman is a tougher character to write. Batman has more "cool" elements to play with on the screen. You have the dark settings, the gadgets, the more "realistic" fights, visually interesting villians, a sense of danger for the hero that Superman can't come close to and Gotham is far more interesting visually and otherwise than Metropolis.

Superman has a certain amount of "corniness" about him that he just can't shake because of the nature of character. Superman is a 'lighter" character and you just can't get too heavy and serious in a Superman movie. Anytime you start showing Superman's powers on screen the audience must turn up their "suspension of believe" a few notches because much what he does with his powers doesn't hold up if you apply logic to it. It's harder to feel that Superman is in much danger because of his powers and when the time comes to weaken him they have to fall back on the old and tired Kryptonite gags.

All that's not to say it isn't possible to write a good Superman movie...but it's much harder and I don't think it'll ever have the type of appeal that Batman has. And as tough as a good Superman movie is to write/produce a JLA movie could be even trickier.

[Ontir]

I think the success of Dark Knight has accomplished two things: 1) Doomed the JLA movie. Christopher Nolan hated this and now they won't dare cross him if they want a third Batman movie from him.

On this, I agree and hope Warners' sees things in just that way.

2) Demonstrated just how badly Bryan Singer blew it by making a $200M homage to Superman The Movie rather than simply start over from scratch. I know it made a tremendous amount on the back end, but theatrically, it was embarrassing in its underperformance.

You guys keep forgetting: A) Singer didn't make a $200 million movie. The extra is the money the studio tacked on after the fact. Money they spent, and wrote off YEARS AGO. B) He didn't make that movie in a vacuum. Every line of dialogue, each and every concept that was in that movie was read, considered, noted, revised, re-written, and approved by the suits.

Beyond that, he made a film in which Superman didn't punch anyone, which seems 2 years on, to be THE MAJOR sin of the film. There's no reason to throw the franchise away or re-start, they just have to go forward and give the audience the action they're so desperate for. That can be easily done.

[pitbull in a skirt]

I think the success of Dark Knight has accomplished two things: 1) Doomed the JLA movie. Christopher Nolan hated this and now they won't dare cross him if they want a third Batman movie from him. 2) Demonstrated just how badly Bryan Singer blew it by making a $200M homage to Superman The Movie rather than simply start over from scratch. I know it made a tremendous amount on the back end, but theatrically, it was embarrassing in its underperformance.

I agree with this part.

[Ontir]

I agree with this part.

No matter how false it is.

[xnef1025]

Superman fails in movies because they haven't made a real Superman movie still. Donner's movie is only great as a product of its time. Make that same movie today and you get... well... Superman Returns. A fine movie, but not a superhero, Superman movie... not a blockbuster. You want to make a real Superman movie? Embrace the whole mythos. Allow for there to be superpets, 5th dimensional imps, phantom zone projectors, giant keys, alien zoos, time traveling teens, crazy science, mutated photographers, alien invaders, and punching.... lots and lots of beating the hell out of things. If you don't put him in that fantastic wacky world, and leave him stuck in "our" world of realism, you just have Superman catching and throwing heavy shit over and over again <snore>. Don't play it all for laughs, and don't play it all for serious drama. It's just there. Accepted. If you can believe a man can fly, why can't you believe in this other stuff? It's no more or less ridiculous.

[Tetsuo_man]

Superman fails in movies because they haven't made a real Superman movie still. Donner's movie is only great as a product of its time. Make that same movie today and you get... well... Superman Returns. A fine movie, but not a superhero, Superman movie... not a blockbuster. You want to make a real Superman movie? Embrace the whole mythos. Allow for there to be superpets, 5th dimensional imps, phantom zone projectors, giant keys, alien zoos, time traveling teens, crazy science, mutated photographers, alien invaders, and punching.... lots and lots of beating the hell out of things. If you don't put him in that fantastic wacky world, and leave him stuck in "our" world of realism, you just have Superman catching and throwing heavy shit over and over again <snore>. Don't play it all for laughs, and don't play it all for serious drama. It's just there. Accepted. If you can believe a man can fly, why can't you believe in this other stuff? It's no more or less ridiculous.

Don't get into the whole its not a superhero movie because well...nolan's making realistic crime movies with a guy in a suit if you know what i mean. I mean their good crime movies but their not nevermind....don't want to get into arguement....i mean seriously if i even suggest well...nevermind.

[TROUBLEZ]

Yeah, I don't think Superman being less cool than Batman is a very good reason why The Dark Knight outshines it or out performs it, or gets better reviews than it.

I initially liked the idea that they were continuing from Superman II, that way Singer wouldn't have to retell the story, plus so many people already know it.
However, I was bored with the story, and I didn't like how the director tried to emulate the first movie, or make a "tribute."
Plus, after having so many interesting Lex Luthor interpretations in the comics and the great portrayal by the actor in Smallville, why go back to the cornball Luthor of the Donner film?

[TROUBLEZ]

Don't get into the whole its not a superhero movie because well...nolan's making realistic crime movies with a guy in a suit if you know what i mean. I mean their good crime movies but their not nevermind....don't want to get into arguement....i mean seriously if i even suggest well...nevermind.

Maybe he means comparing their respective "remakes."

Both Burton's Batman and The Dark Knight involve a love interest that makes Bruce feel torn about his identity, The Joker and organized crime. But as much as I love the first Batman, Nolan and everybody involved really surpassed all the things done in that one.

Superman Returns was continuing from a film made in '79. It seems like Singer, to me, unintentionally limiting himself by doing this, instead of trying to go above and beyond what had been done before.

[The Xenos]

Considering the idea about the JLA movie sounded awful and confusing and Superman Returns didn't really feel like any Superman I've ever known, I'll take more Nolan Batman films anyday. Don't get me started on the POS Batman vs Superman or Jack Black as Green Lantern and other aborted DC projects over the years!

If you ask me, Superman Returns deserved to be humiliated. It was a giant Hollywood wank fest with no respect for the comics or their characters. I could decide if it was a nostalgic remake or a sequel to a 30 year old movie and version of the characters. Oh and out of Hollywood's ass Superman has a bastard kid he abandoned years ago. Brilliant.

DC needs to get it's act together. Their new series of Batman films is about the only thing they have going for them in thearters. Maybe if they can develop some other characters and actually base them on the books and with a definitive vision of the character, then you can integrate Batman.

[BYC]

Batman tends to do better in the movie game. Batman back in 89 did record box office openings at the time. Fans and critic praised it for being "dark" and "edgy".

Since making money seems to equals quality, Spider-Man 3 was the best movie up until this weekend before being toppled by Dark Knight. Although many people like to believe that sales = quality, this is clearly not the case. Dark Knight does not fit into this trend, but all Hollywood cares about is a good enough movie. That's how we got things like Superman 3 and Batman and Robin.

Superman Returns was a good movie, and hopefully the next Superman will be better. And for the people thinking it sucked, just stop it. All those critics and fans gave it a good rating. Even more critics and fans liked Dark Knight, so let's not have any ridiculous argument about "those people don't know what quality is".

Oh yeah, when is James Cameron gonna do Aquaman? :biggrin:

[The Batman]

If you ask me, Superman Returns deserved to be humiliated. It was a giant Hollywood wank fest with no respect for the comics or their characters. I could decide if it was a nostalgic remake or a sequel to a 30 year old movie and version of the characters. Oh and out of Hollywood's ass Superman has a bastard kid he abandoned years ago. Brilliant.



Yeah, except for all the stuff they ported in from the comics that movie had no respect for the books.

And Superman didn't abandon his kid.

[The Batman]

If The Dark Knight embarrasses Superman Returns, does that mean that Chris Nolan should be embarrassed about Batman Begins, for only bringing in about the same money as Superman Returns?


I was wondering the same thing: Does the runaway success of TDK prove how terrible Batman Begins was with its $372 million worldwide B.O.?

[Tetsuo_man]

I'll just say that what i meant was that just because something doesn't fit the mold of a superhero movie doesn't mean superman returns wasn't a superhero movie (even if one liked it and still said it wasn't a superhero movie). Because I could make a case that nolan's batman films aren't superhero movies but are still good movies. I was afraid to make it clear because i thought it would be misiniterpted as me not liking nolan's batman films (which i do though i'll be honest and say not as much as i love the burton films). But by being encryptive i pretty much did become a bullseye anyway. I should probabbly just shut up now.

[WorstThingUS]

In short, "the general public" doesn't know that DC's and the JLA's Big Three are Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. As a matter of fact, most of them don't even understand that Superman and Spider-man are from separate fictional settings owned by two different companies.

I disagree. I think the public knows full well that Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are in the JLA and inhabit the same universe thanks to a little show that was seen weekly by more people than currently read comics. Can you say SUPER FRIENDS? 13 years in various incarnations on network television.

If Warner's thought there was cash to be made by making a JLA movie with Batman, they wouldn't hesitate to make one. And if Nolan had such a big problem with it that he started handing out ultimatums and drawing lines in the sand, they'd replace him. If he had a track record of making blockbusters outside of the batman franchise it might be different. But since every Batman feature that's been made has pulled in big numbers at the box office, even the critically reviled, publicly hated ones, it wouldn't take much of a leap for them to conclude that the Batman brand carries more drawing power than Nolan's name.

It's a business, pure and simple.

Exactly. Batman is essentially a sure thing now with Nolan. The JLA is not, so why risk a relationship with him over it? It's bad business, pure and simple. Batman 3 will be a guranteed money maker. You don't have that security with JLA especially when the only proven success in it would be...Batman.

None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand.

Yes, it does because it demonstrates the use of behind-the-scenes clout to shut things down.

If The Dark Knight embarrasses Superman Returns, does that mean that Chris Nolan should be embarrassed about Batman Begins, for only bringing in about the same money as Superman Returns?

No, because Batman Begins cost over a $100M less and made almost the same amount

This is a ridiculous thread.

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him...and joins in his conversations?



You guys keep forgetting: A) Singer didn't make a $200 million movie. The extra is the money the studio tacked on after the fact. Money they spent, and wrote off YEARS AGO. B) He didn't make that movie in a vacuum. Every line of dialogue, each and every concept that was in that movie was read, considered, noted, revised, re-written, and approved by the suits.

No, he did make a $200M+ film. If you add on the production costs of Burton's version then it's a $270M film. I was being kind to leave it out, but in reality, they're never discounted on other films so why give Singer a break? Failed production costs and delays happen all the time without people "deducting" it the way everyone does for Bryan Singer here. After all, if it had done Spider-man numbers, no one would care. And only an idiot suit would have approved that script. Anyone else with reading comprehension skills would have gone to town on it with a red pen.

Beyond that, he made a film in which Superman didn't punch anyone, which seems 2 years on, to be THE MAJOR sin of the film. There's no reason to throw the franchise away or re-start, they just have to go forward and give the audience the action they're so desperate for. That can be easily done.

There wasn't an excess of punching in Superman The Movie either, but there was a Superman with more than five lines and an actual personality in both superhero and civilian mode. You don't realize how much it matters until it's gone.

[SquidSquod]

The problem that Superman has that Batman doesn't have is Superman will always be the same guy, wears the same costume, goes with the usual routine, and does the same superhero feats like the very first time people know him.

On the other hand Batman has always been changing. His costumes, gadgets, batmobiles, motives, allies, villains are so dynamic people are looking forward to newer things that each movies bring.

[Jmacq1]

The thesis statement that WB will not make a JLA movie because TDK is a big success is still fundamentally flawed.

Batman is a "sure thing" sure, but that's going to get made regardless. With or without Nolan, Bale, or anyone else. (Nevermind the presumption that Nolan's a whiny prima-donna who'll storm off the WB backlots if someone else uses Batman in a movie...a position that's completely unsupported by the facts, incidentally). A "mildly annoyed" Nolan that still does his job means zero lost money to WB.

Furthermore, the "No Batman = No JLA" presumption is equally false. I can guarantee that if you just had Superman and Wonder Woman (plus Flash, Green Lantern, and a couple others), there might be a few people that ask "Where's Batman?"....but it sure as hell ain't going to stop anyone from seeing the movie if it looks good.

[kalorama]

Exactly. Batman is essentially a sure thing now with Nolan. The JLA is not, so why risk a relationship with him over it? It's bad business, pure and simple. Batman 3 will be a guaranteed money maker. You don't have that security with JLA especially when the only proven success in it would be...Batman.

First of all, the post you quoted was me, not Shellhead. Second, you're still wrong. It's not an either/or proposition. They don't have to choose between Batman and the JLA, as evidenced by the fact that until the Writer's strike shut it down, they were quite clearly planning on doing both. And if they do have to choose, they'll make their choice based on the larger economic picture, which is to say that a Batman film without Nolan can, as a matter of proven fact, make money, but they can't make money on a JLA movie that doesn't get made. Also, there's no such thing as a "guaranteed money maker." Films expected to do big business often fail. There are no guarantees. Which is why it's good business to maximize profit opportunities whenever possible.

Yes, it does because it demonstrates the use of behind-the-scenes clout to shut things down.

Again, me, not Shellhead. Again, wrong. Again, Nolan and Bale were openly disinterested, if not opposed to Batman in the JLA. Yet, the fact remains, Warner's was moving full steam ahead on a JLA film featuring both Batman and Superman despite the existence of ongoing, separate Batman and Superman franchises. So whatever territorial pissings might have yellowed the waters of Bruce Wayne appearing in Smallville, it's an already proven fact that they held no sway over Batman and Superman appearing in a JLA film. None.

[WorstThingUS]

First of all, the post you quoted was me, not Shellhead. Second, you're still wrong. It's not an either/or proposition. They don't have to choose between Batman and the JLA, as evidenced by the fact that until the Writer's strike shut it down, they were quite clearly planning on doing both. And if they do have to choose, they'll make their choice based on the larger economic picture, which is to say that a Batman film without Nolan can, as a matter of proven fact, make money, but they can't make money on a JLA movie that doesn't get made. Also, there's no such thing as a "guaranteed money maker." Films expected to do big business often fail. There are no guarantees. Which is why it's good business to maximize profit opportunities whenever possible.



Again, me, not Shellhead. Again, wrong. Again, Nolan and Bale were openly disinterested, if not opposed to Batman in the JLA. Yet, the fact remains, Warner's was moving full steam ahead on a JLA film featuring both Batman and Superman despite the existence of ongoing, separate Batman and Superman franchises. So whatever territorial pissings might have yellowed the waters of Bruce Wayne appearing in Smallville, it's an already proven fact that they held no sway over Batman and Superman appearing in a JLA film. None.

Sorry about the misquotes, but it's not a matter of Bale or Nolan pitching a bitch-fit to stop a JLA movie, it's a matter of Warner's not wanting to damage relationships with proven money-makers. It's DOA with 196 million nails in its coffin.

[Popgun]

Sorry about the misquotes, but it's not a matter of Bale or Nolan pitching a bitch-fit to stop a JLA movie, it's a matter of Warner's not wanting to damage relationships with proven money-makers. It's DOA with 196 million nails in its coffin.

Today's events have soured the success a little bit :/

[jesse_custer]

Furthermore, the "No Batman = No JLA" presumption is equally false. I can guarantee that if you just had Superman and Wonder Woman (plus Flash, Green Lantern, and a couple others), there might be a few people that ask "Where's Batman?"....but it sure as hell ain't going to stop anyone from seeing the movie if it looks good.

I'd say the general movie public knows less about the JLA than they did about X-Men before it became a movie. So I agree.

[Wolf-Man]

In order to make a good Batman movie, the plot has to be a problem ONLY Batman can resolve.

In order to make a good Superman movie, the plot has to be a problem ONLY Superman can resolve.

Also, the viewer needs to relate to the main character in some small way. Batman is much easier to relate to because he's still essentially human. I think Superman Returns failed because it set a focus on the fact he's really not, and never will be human.

A JLA movie will be even harder to make because there's far less for regular people to hook on to. Its fine for the fanboys because they have a pre-knowledge of the characters. Only Superman, Batman and maybe Wonder Woman and Flash will work with the general public. Ask a non comic person who Green Lantern is and they'll think he's the guy who worked with Kato.

Forget about Martian Manhunter, Hawkpeople and the others. If you have Plastic Man they'll confuse him with "the guy from that movie with Jessica Alba".

A JLA movie will be really tough to get right.

[kalorama]

Sorry about the misquotes, but it's not a matter of Bale or Nolan pitching a bitch-fit to stop a JLA movie, it's a matter of Warner's not wanting to damage relationships with proven money-makers. It's DOA with 196 million nails in its coffin.


The only proven money maker in the equation is Batman, not Nolan or Bale. Every Batman movie has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars, regardless of who directed or starred in it. How many non-Batman blockbusters do Bale and Nolan have on their resumes? Neither Bale nor Nolan has entered the ranks of big-timers to the point that a major studio will bend over backwards to accommodate their egos, esp. if doing so costs them the chance to build even more money making franchises.

One blockbuster does not a king make.

[xnef1025]

I'll just say that what i meant was that just because something doesn't fit the mold of a superhero movie doesn't mean superman returns wasn't a superhero movie (even if one liked it and still said it wasn't a superhero movie). Because I could make a case that nolan's batman films aren't superhero movies but are still good movies. I was afraid to make it clear because i thought it would be misiniterpted as me not liking nolan's batman films (which i do though i'll be honest and say not as much as i love the burton films). But by being encryptive i pretty much did become a bullseye anyway. I should probabbly just shut up now.
I guess I wasn't really clear. What I wrote was only regarding Superman. Batman works in a realistic world. I love Nolan's take and they fit the mold of blockbuster superhero flicks. Superman just doesn't have anything to work with in a realistic setting. Nothing to challenge him.

[kalorama]

A JLA movie will be even harder to make because there's far less for regular people to hook on to. Its fine for the fanboys because they have a pre-knowledge of the characters. Only Superman, Batman and maybe Wonder Woman and Flash will work with the general public. Ask a non comic person who Green Lantern is and they'll think he's the guy who worked with Kato.

Forget about Martian Manhunter, Hawkpeople and the others. If you have Plastic Man they'll confuse him with "the guy from that movie with Jessica Alba".

None of which would be an impediment to making a JLA movie or a JLA movie being a success. No one knew who Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were before the first Star Wars movie. nobody knew who Scott Summers or Jean Grey were before the first X-men movie. No one knew who Indiana Jones was before Raiders. Extensive foreknowledge of the characters is by no means a prerequisite to a film's box office success.

[BYC]

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/report-batman-accused-of-assaulting-mom-sister/11062?nc

Maybe the stress got to him? I don't remember him ever being a problem before.

[Jmacq1]

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/report-batman-accused-of-assaulting-mom-sister/11062?nc

Maybe the stress got to him? I don't remember him ever being a problem before.

That we know of.

And if studios based all their decisions on "not upsetting proven moneymakers" very few things would get done at movie studios.

[kusanagi6913]

The DC/WB Superhero Summit has already come and gone. Unless they're waiting to announce something at SDCC, it was pretty much a non-event. WB just doesn't seem that interested in developing their superhero properties, probably because they're making solid profits on more modestly-budgeted films as opposed to taking big risks with high-budget films. Marvel Studios is exactly the opposite: All they're going to need is one serious "bomb" and the future of the entire "Marvel Cinematic Universe" could be in jeopardy because their films are pretty expensive to make.

To put it another way, WB is a very old and established studio with a lot of bureaucratic inertia and likely "tradition" behind it. Marvel's a newborn upstart with big visions and hopes. Hopefully they'll be successful, but that remains to be seen. As for WB, I know a lot of people are assuming that the DCU is a goldmine waiting to happen...but is it really? Maybe Marvel's heroes really are more marketable in movie-form. Maybe WB isn't just stupid, and instead realizes that a lot of DCU heroes come across as "boring" and "cheesy" to some viewers (not myself, but I'm sure there are plenty).
Jmacq1--thank you so much. I read a few of the threads over the weekend and ofcourse the usual silly and lame fanboy flames by Marvel and DC's respective lovers...I'm just a comicbook fan and an actual Executive in the Entertainment industry and your point was the most well-reasoned and accurate depiction. I think personally that Iron Man was enjoyable but certainly not as grand as Dark Knight. I do think DC and Warners has a problem in that DK is soooo good and possibly Oscar quality that many will want to pursue this realistic storytelling motiff and fans (both mainstream and hardcore) will expect this going forward (especially should Watchmen be anywhere as brilliant/ mature as the GN). Honestly, as much as I would like to see Flash, Wonder Woman and a Black GL movie..and I really do, I'd gladly wait a decade to see more realistic, James Bond meets Bourne versions of films that introduce us to Nolan's vision of Catwoman, Penguin, Bane, Poison Ivy villains (if not possibly a unique take on Robin). I could see this film series going as far as Bond's where every film is just really good for what type of story it tells.

I think in some ways DK though is far superior to any superhero film than before if for one simple reason, Nolan respected the mystique enough to allow the characters to be true to their comicbook counterparts without changing things for his own ego or Bale's (true props to Bale for never having the vanity to have to show his face in the climactic moments-- so that we all know who he is under the mask..as if we care). The sheer fact that batman keeps his mask on..as opposed to X-men, Spiderman (I mean, who cares about Toby maguire? That guy cannot carry a movie without being spiderman so why did we need to see his face every 5 minutes?) and Iron Man (while downey is the bomb...seriously, I could almost count the seconds down till his helmet came off).

Marvel's gambit is also exciting but scary. This is business and nothig makes me chuckle more than these fanboys who confuse reality with their own pent up desires...I don't know any average american queing up for an Avengers movie. That was for the hardcore fans but as you said in your post..one or two more Incredible HULK grossing pictures and expect Avengers to either disappear for sequels to major flicks like Spidey, Iron man and so on or worse, expect a very low budget flick version for Avengers which with today's technology and expectations would be brutal for mainstream and fan expectations of general superhero flicks (although Hellboy 2 looks amazing for $85M).

Regardless, I just wanted to drop you a line and say continue to preach common sense because the fact remains that DK is a phenomenon that exposes problems for both Warners and Marvel. I will add one last bit...I have no idea on JLA movie--I do not want to see it unless a true visionary steps in and is given a monster budget. I can wait for it--if we're going to get cheap directing and ego sitting like Singer's single father/ homosexual/ christ like elements he tried to invoke within the superman mythos. After decades being off the big screen that this idiot and those writers chose to write and produce a script 'homaging' a film from '78 as opposed to a comic of 60+ years is amazing and retarded. Superman Returns almost killed Warners' movie business..and to return with a true vision like DK is what we should all be telling warners to do.

[kalorama]

I can wait for it--if we're going to get cheap directing and ego sitting like Singer's single father/ homosexual/ christ like elements he tried to invoke within the superman mythos.

Uhhh ... wha?

[BYC]

Uhhh ... wha?
It's probably Dr. Banner with a new handle.

[WorstThingUS]

I'd say the general movie public knows less about the JLA than they did about X-Men before it became a movie. So I agree.

Was there a 13 year network tv series about the X-men when Saturday morning cartoons were so big they'd have prime time show on Friday nights announcing them? No. There is no comparison.

[Shellhead]

Was there a 13 year network tv series about the X-men when Saturday morning cartoons were so big they'd have prime time show on Friday nights announcing them? No. There is no comparison.

You are old.

[jesse_custer]

Was there a 13 year network tv series about the X-men when Saturday morning cartoons were so big they'd have prime time show on Friday nights announcing them? No. There is no comparison.

But that show wasn't called the Justice League of America. And it ended more than 20 years ago.

Whereas X-Men had a cartoon of the same name, various video games, action figures, etc. no more than 10 years before the film. Also, sources say the first 1990s X-Men comics were the highest selling of all time.

[kalorama]

Was there a 13 year network tv series about the X-men when Saturday morning cartoons were so big they'd have prime time show on Friday nights announcing them? No. There is no comparison.

Most of the people who saw that show when they were kids have only vague memories of it (at best). Once their ages nudged into double-digits, most of them turned their attention to other things and forgot all about it. As adults, the vast majority of them have no strong memory or emotional connection to those characters, certainly not to the extent of heated outrage at the idea of a JLA film without Batman in it.

[The Batman]

No, because Batman Begins cost over a $100M less and made almost the same amount


That's great but that's not how it works. There's no set ratio for budget to box office. The only place that should matter is in the accountant's office.

It's also not what you originally said. If The Dark Knight's smashing success makes Superman Returns look like an embarassing underperformer with its $391 million worldwide then it does the same to Batman Begins and its $371 million.

If we're going to talk about what Bryan Singer did wrong then we should probably wonder about what Chris Nolan did so wrong with his first Batman movie that it couldn't make as much as this one.

Rather than embarrassing other movies or proving the power of reboots (something the Incredible Hulk kind of argues against) it seems that this just proves the power of hype combined with remarkably positive buzz combined with a young dead celebrity combined with morbid curiosity to drive a movie through the roof.

[The Batman]

Most of the people who saw that show when they were kids have only vague memories of it (at best). Once their ages nudged into double-digits, most of them turned their attention to other things and forgot all about it. As adults, the vast majority of them have no strong memory or emotional connection to those characters, certainly not to the extent of heated outrage at the idea of a JLA film without Batman in it.

Honestly, and I say this as someone who grew up watching Superfriends and reruns of Superfriends, being closely associated with those cartoons would probably be a hinderance, not a help, to any JL movie.

[Nate Grey]

Honestly, and I say this as someone who grew up watching Superfriends and reruns of Superfriends, being closely associated with those cartoons would probably be a hinderance, not a help, to any JL movie.

Agreed. They'll wonder where's Aquaman, Robin, and the Wonder Twins. lol

Non-comic folk don't stay up to date (which is why when someone said some / most non-comic folk don't even get Superman and Spider-Man are in seperate universes they had no idea how right they are). I think the studios should approach it, via massive ad compains, as essentially "that may be what you knew, but this is what's happening now" to get away from the Super Friends association.

[Shellhead]

Non-comic folk don't stay up to date (which is why when someone said some / most non-comic folk don't even get Superman and Spider-Man are in seperate universes they had no idea how right they are).

I said that, a number of posts back. And it's true. My girlfriend doesn't know or care that Superman and Spider-man are owned by different comic book companies and therefore operate in separate worlds. My parents and sister don't know that either. Most of my co-workers could care less, although I believe that my new boss might, judging by the Ghost Rider action figure on his bookshelf. Most women that I've dated were clueless about comics. Lots of old people don't care, and lots of kids can't even afford $3 comics and can't be expected to know these things.

[pitbull in a skirt]

No matter how false it is.

Yeah, exactly.

[Black Atom]

Before the X-Men movies, I'd say many more people knew/understood the concept of the Justice League (even if they recognized it as the Super Friends). The Justice League has greater penetration in mainstream popular culture, including stuff like being parodied on sitcoms, cartoons and shows like SNL. The only reason anyone knows/remembers Aquaman at all is because of his affiliation with the Justice League.

[Toku King]

I don't want a JLA movie. It just wouldn't work(not well, at least).

[jesse_custer]

How is Superman not about alienation to some degree?

[Omega Alpha]

That's great but that's not how it works. There's no set ratio for budget to box office. The only place that should matter is in the accountant's office.


So, you're saying that the budget is irrelevant when taking into account what is a hit? Really? It doesn't make any difference to anyone whether the studio gave it an independent film budget or spent $ 200 million, plus ads? Really? Are you sure? Don't want to think about it for a while?

[kalorama]

How is Superman not about alienation to some degree?

Exactly. The themes of alienation, social isolation, and being cast as "the other" by the rest of the world have been long-standing elements of both Superman and X-Men long before Singer got his hands on either. The suggestion that he somehow arbitrarily imposed his pernicious homosexual agenda on these two precious franchises is nonsense. Amusing nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

And again, I now understand that you're in your own world.

Mine and a few billion other people's. Feel free to come over and join us. There's still some room left.

[kusanagi6913]

How is Superman not about alienation to some degree?

Well, first of all thanks for actually engaging in this conversation intelligently and expressing yourself. This isn't an either or proposition..you can support Kalorama (sic) and still have your own opinion on the film.

As for your question, this is not the real question. Superman is about a champion for the under-represented and the challenges of one man doing so. DK showcased this well. Supes could have done this true to the Supes storyline of 60+ years and not have Supes act so incredibly strange throughout the film. He was saddled with a child never in the history of the comic. Was overtly hurt over Lois having left him for another man after he was gone for 5 years--this is a man who can lift continents and yet he's mr. sensitive all of a sudden.

If you honestly believe superman was about that..did you enjoy the film? I wonder if they had gone with the Lex as president storyline and Supes found his mother and lois threatened because of some threat of him using his powers and such..that would have represented a great feeling of alienation..a man so powerful that he cannot use his powers because of political forces (which is the only real alienation the character has to deal with in comics).

[kusanagi6913]

Exactly. The themes of alienation, social isolation, and being cast as "the other" by the rest of the world have been long-standing elements of both Superman and X-Men long before Singer got his hands on either. The suggestion that he somehow arbitrarily imposed his pernicious homosexual agenda on these two precious franchises is nonsense. Amusing nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless

Mine and a few billion other people's. Feel free to come over and join us. There's still some room left.

Well, there we go. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and you could have said that you felt that I was attacking your sexual preferences and I would have gladly said I wasn't. I never said anything about perniciousness (which is just you reading way too much into that). After all, I said X-men worked like a charm because of his understanding of prejudice and its' effects. As a democratic liberal man with a blended family, I can understand and appreciate racism and prejudice. But, unfortunately, this was not what Supes was (you may feel it is and that's your right but I don't and clearly millions didn't either since they stayed away from the flick) and while I had heard about it from other executives when the film was being made..I eagerly attended the screening and was just shocked at how lame it was. Remember I stated that Singer's homage, christlike desires were also missplaced. Likewise, there was nothing pernicious about his religion either..it just was missplaced. Superman is not christ and even if he was..him lifting a continent of Kryptonite into the air is stupid by anyone's definition.

Bottom line is that this thread is about criticizing the film not culture and attacking those elements that detracted from it. Had Jimmy Olsen been made black and had to deal with a subplot of Klan rallies, I'd objected to that too--Singer's ego is no better than Maguire's or Rattner or Burton's just because he is gay and while you can defend him, all I ask you is to defend the film on its' merits or detract it but don't devolve the discussion into attacking those of us who think the film sucks.

Lastly as a member of my college's civil rights group, I sure as heck don't need to get on your side. I was on it and fighting for it when you were whining on other message boards about perceived threats.

[Jmacq1]

I think I'm still trying to figure out where all these supposedly "homosexual" themes of alienation particularly materialized in the film. As opposed to being about other themes altogether (like, say, being an orphan).

Nevermind that I've read plenty of critiques of Superman Returns, but only one that accused it of having "homosexual" themes. Alienation isn't a homosexual theme. It's a theme in and of itself.

[Black Atom]

Not that we need to have yet another conversation about Superman Returns, but I feel pretty comfortable objectively saying Singer's Superman is easily the most navel-gazing Superman we've seen on the big screen (and probably elsewhere, with the possible exception of Smallville). There was an emphasized focus on Superman's feelings of isolation, which, while present, were never defining elements of the character. Still, I don't think it was the revelation that Superman had feelings that threw people for a loop (after all, Donner's Superman cried twice in his first movie) but the sort of irresolute, lame duck way he responded to his feelings in that movie. None of that translates to Singer trying to "gay up" Superman, but it's clear he made a conscious choice to make a more introspective superhero movie than people were probably expecting.

Having said that, Singer did pitch Returns to fans at ComicCon by describing it as a movie about "what happens when old boyfriends come back". That struck me as bizarre because the phrasing describes the sort of situation a woman or gay man might easily relate to and one the average Superman fan could probably give less than a rat fuck about.

[kalorama]

Well, there we go. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and you could have said that you felt that I was attacking your sexual preferences and I would have gladly said I wasn't.

Not that it matters, but I'm not gay, so your little diatribe is, in no way, "attacking (my) sexual preference." But the fact that you automatically conclude that any opposition to your opinion must mean the critic is gay speaks (even more) volumes about you. As for hurting my feelings ... yeah, not so much with the caring enough.

I never said anything about perniciousness (which is just you reading way too much into that). After all, I said X-men worked like a charm because of his understanding of prejudice and its' effects. As a democratic liberal man with a blended family, I can understand and appreciate racism and prejudice. But, unfortunately, this was not what Supes was (you may feel it is and that's your right but I don't and clearly millions didn't either since they stayed away from the flick) and while I had heard about it from other executives when the film was being made..I eagerly attended the screening and was just shocked at how lame it was. Remember I stated that Singer's homage, christlike desires were also missplaced. Likewise, there was nothing pernicious about his religion either..it just was missplaced.

Nice little jig you dance but you're stepping over your own feet. You've repeatedly blasted Singer for injecting "homosexual" themes into X-Men and Superman in ways that were "bad" and put the franchise "in jeopardy." The entire thrust of your argument is that Singer's introduction of homosexual undertones ruined Superman. Pejorative terms and opinions that fall well within the boundaries of "causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful" or "highly injurious or destructive" which, in case you haven't figured it out, are the definitions of "pernicious."

Bottom line is that this thread is about criticizing the film not culture and attacking those elements that detracted from it. Had Jimmy Olsen been made black and had to deal with a subplot of Klan rallies, I'd objected to that too

Putting aside the reasonableness of that stance in and of itself, Superman was not "made gay" in Superman Returns, so that analogy (such as it is) has no value to your argument (such as it is).

Singer's ego is no better than Maguire's or Rattner or Burton's just because he is gay and while you can defend him, all I ask you is to defend the film on its' merits or detract it but don't devolve the discussion into attacking those of us who think the film sucks.

I'm not attacking you at all, first of all. I'm arguing against your point. And I'm not arguing your point based on your opinion that the film sucks, I'm arguing your point based on the reasons you present in support of said opinion, reasons you present as having some reasonable basis in objective fact when, in fact, they have none at all.


Lastly as a member of my college's civil rights group, I sure as heck don't need to get on your side. I was on it and fighting for it when you were whining on other message boards about perceived threats.

(A) What, exactly, is my "side"? I wasn't aware I had one. (And if I do, believe me, I'm not pining for you to join me on it.) (B) What, exactly, were these other message boards where I was "whining" and what "perceived threats" was I "whining" about? (C) What the hell are you talking about?

[MJC]

The problem with the Superman movie was that it just wasn't all that good.

IMO the biggest problem was lack of an interesting villain. I want Supes to actually have to fight somebody instead of only being threatened by cheap Kryptonite tricks.

[MaxofSteel]

Can't we just talk about Batman, guys? This is a Batman thread.

*Reads Thread title*

Oh wait.

Sike! Just kidding!

[G. Wayne]

...(true props to Bale for never having the vanity to have to show his face in the climactic moments-- so that we all know who he is under the mask..as if we care). The sheer fact that batman keeps his mask on..as opposed to X-men, Spiderman (I mean, who cares about Toby maguire? That guy cannot carry a movie without being spiderman so why did we need to see his face every 5 minutes?) ...

Huh. That's bugged me to no end in the Spider-Man movies, but yeah, I didn't even think about Bale's lack of tearing off the mask at pivotal moments to get in that extra expression.

[The Batman]

So, you're saying that the budget is irrelevant when taking into account what is a hit? Really? It doesn't make any difference to anyone whether the studio gave it an independent film budget or spent $ 200 million, plus ads? Really? Are you sure? Don't want to think about it for a while?

I'd say that budget, when compared to box office, says more about profitablility than it does about popularity for big Hollywood movies like Batman Begins or Superman Returns. Indie movies are completely different animals and Batman Begins was most assuredly not an indie movie so I'm not sure what your point is there.

All things being equal, had Superman Returns cost less, the only people who would change their opinion of the movie would be the accountants and executives at WB. The haters would still hate and the lovers would still love and everybody else would just keep keeping on.

Or are you suggesting that had Superman Returns cost less more people would've liked it?

[The Batman]

Huh. That's bugged me to no end in the Spider-Man movies, but yeah, I didn't even think about Bale's lack of tearing off the mask at pivotal moments to get in that extra expression.

Well, Bale gets plenty of face time in the Batman movies. He's got a couple of out-of-the-suit action sequences in TDK.

Also, the Batman mask doesn't strip away the actor's tools as much as the Spider-Man mask does. Alot of Bale's face is still visible, most importantly his eyes, something that isn't the case for Tobey when he's in the Spidey-suit.

[RaulTheCat]

Well, Bale gets plenty of face time in the Batman movies. He's got a couple of out-of-the-suit action sequences in TDK.

Also, the Batman mask doesn't strip away the actor's tools as much as the Spider-Man mask does. Alot of Bale's face is still visible, most importantly his eyes, something that isn't the case for Tobey when he's in the Spidey-suit.

Maybe it's just me, but when Bale was in the Bat-Suit, he really didn't look like Bale. It really hid his identity well. I could tell it was Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney under the mask; not with Bale. Again, maybe it was just me.
The eyes were so dark (some serious black make-up), that in some shots they were hardly visible.

[The Batman]

Maybe it's just me, but when Bale was in the Bat-Suit, he really didn't look like Bale. It really hid his identity well. I could tell it was Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney under the mask; not with Bale. Again, maybe it was just me.
The eyes were so dark (some serious black make-up), that in some shots they were hardly visible.

All well and good, but they were still there ready to be used when and if he needed them. Something that the Spider-Man mask can't provide unless it's torn or taken off.

[Ronald Bryan]

Plus, you of course have his whole mouth area uncovered, so you can see his expression. And you can see him talking, which was the goofiest scene in the first Spider-Man. Spidey and Goblin on the roof and they are both fully masked.

[The Batman]

Bryan Singer himself on how gay Superman is:

Superman 'not gay' says director


Superman Returns director Bryan Singer has played down newspaper, magazine and internet speculation that his version of the superhero is gay.
Superman "is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made," said Singer.

The issue has been debated in gay magazine The Advocate, the Los Angeles Times and on entertainment websites.

Singer's new film stars Brandon Routh, who takes over the role following the death of Christopher Reeve in 2004.

Rather than reinvent the character's appearance, director Bryan Singer - who directed two X-Men movies - has kept the cartoon superhero's cape, red tights and blue body suit.

Some of the speculation over the sexuality of Singer's hero has focused on his appearance in promotional posters.

But Singer said his version of the superhero was a "very romantic icon" - handsome, virtuous and vulnerable.

Paul Levitz, president and publisher of Superman owner DC Comics said: "We were all scratching our heads. He's not a gay character."

In the movie, Superman comes back to Earth after a five-year absence to find that Lois Lane - his true love - has a new boyfriend and a child.

Superman Returns opens in the US on 28 June and in the UK on 14 July.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/5067874.stm

Now can we get back to complaining that Superman didn't punch anything?

[The Batman]

Or there's this (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532463/05242006/story.jhtml):

"I've always felt like an outcast of some sorts myself," he said. "I was an only child, I was adopted, I was the only Jewish kid in my neighborhood, I was picked on a lot, and I was a terrible student. Even as a film director, you feel like a bit of an outcast — it's lonely at the top. Even now in my career, as a film director, you find yourself surrounded by a great many people because it takes an army of people to make a film, particularly a film of this size. Yet at the same time, you feel a weird sense of loneliness. Your burden is unique."

Still no mention of gay.

[kalorama]

Now can we get back to complaining that Superman didn't punch anything?

Is that what we were arguing about? I thought we were arguing about whether TDK's opening weekend take made Nolan the most powerful man in Hollywood and gave him the raw power to shut down production of other directors' movies that offended his sensibilities.

[The Batman]

Well, why can't it be both?

[2-4-5_Trioxin]

what a terrible attitude. who cares what unmade movies have been effected by the one great movie that we've got.

Terrible attitude is what I was thinking. I care about unmade movies. Yeah having a great dark knight movie is really cool and all, but which is better, having one good movie or having the next 3 or 4 that comes out be awful?

If it does somehow influence the next ones to come out to better then that is great to me. If they didnt then we would still have joel directing batman movies.

I hope this helps usher in more care for future comic movies because studios might actually see quality is what makes a movie, not special effect filled, action packed and brain dead sequel like fantastic four 2, spiderman, xmen 3.

[Maresk]

Bryan Singer himself on how gay Superman is:


Superman "is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made," said Singer.

Now can we get back to complaining that Superman didn't punch anything?

Whaaat? So Keyser Soze and Wolvie are gays? :eek:

[The Batman]

No, they're just not as hetero as Superman.

[kalorama]

Is there some kind of scale or matrix we can use to objectively measure these sort of things?

[Black Atom]

Is there some kind of scale or matrix we can use to objectively measure these sort of things?

There's the internationally recognized Elton John scale of gayness, on which Superman Returns ranks a solid two Elton Johns. That's really nothing compared to Mamma Mia, which was measured around 4 Elton Johns and Richard Simmons..