Would a Superman movie ever be capable of grossing a billion dollars?

[Andreas Tanis]

Everyone knows Superman is a highly popular character and is pretty much America's biggest icon, but would a Superman movie ever be capable of grossing a billion dollars?

Personally, I'm not sure if he's capable of such a feat. Even with the best writing, Superman can come off as boring to many, whereas many more people hop right out their seat to see a Batman or Spider-Man movie. However, if a story like "The Death and Life of Superman" were to be adapted onscreen and be as compelling as the comic books, it could possibly gross a billion bucks.

[Karl O'Neill]

he is.

Just need the right script and director. Hope this doesn't sound like a cliched answer but that's all you need.

Remember, The audience is already there, Everybody knows who superman is, What we need is muliple viewings.

I went to the Dark knight 6 TIMES!

I went to see spiderman one- 5 times

I went to see superman returns 4 times

It's all about getting MORE people to see it more than once, Pretty much everybody I know went to see the dark knight 3 or 4 times because it was out of this world great.

[Libaax]

He needs to get more hype. Batman has passed him in mainstream too. People are used to Batman more these days thanks to the famous movies.
I have seen Batman animated shows,Batman 60s show,all old Batman movies ten times before any old Superman movie on tv.

A great Superman movie wouldnt do half as much TDK. He needs a restart in movies like Batman Begins did for Batman after the horrible late 90s movies.

[DonC]

Easily. All they need to do is make a really good Superman movie.

[WorstThingUS]

It pretty much did. Superman The Movie grossed $300M worldwide in 1978. Adjusted for inflation that's $980M.

[Mike Smith]

Give Superman a dark, evil and brutally harmful villain.

Not a campy villain named Lex Luthor.
Not a villain named 'Nuclear Man' who growls in space and scratches.

A hardcore, threatening villain...perhaps named Braniac. Build the arc into a JLU movie that will feature Darkseid and Apocalypse.

JLU: Apocalypse (or Superman: Apocalypse) may be a good seller with all the 2012 hype going about.

Superman movies should have the adventurous thrill-ride flair of Pirates of the Caribbean (through the extreme reaches of Earth and through space), have the escapism and optimistic tones of a traditional Superman film, and they NEED a dark, threatening element.

I've seen Disney films with more incarnate menacing challenges for the hero. I think that's what Supes is lacking, and if marketed correctly, is Godly level adventure, action and a villain that's powerful mentally and physically, it will do well.

It's oft said Christopher Reeve made people actually think "A man could fly." Superman is the premier comic character, as others have mentioned his mythos is of worldwide acclaim and it's time a Superman film once again pushes the boundaries of escapism and excitement.

Supporting characters could use a bit more realistic depth as well (they tend to come off campy/cliche at times). They need more personality.

[carabas]

Give Superman a dark, evil and brutally harmful villain.

Not a campy villain named Lex Luthor.Properly done, Luthor isn't camp, but rather dark, evil, and perhaps not brutal, but his staff certainly is.

A hardcore, threatening villain...perhaps named Braniac. Build the arc into a JLU movie that will feature Darkseid and Apocalypse.Doomsday, presumably. Apocalypse is the purple-lipped ancient Egyptian Big BAd from the X-Men.

But Doomsday is neither dark nor particularly evil. He's just a plot device that hits things.

[David Walton]

I like the idea of taking Superman in a more cosmic direction. The SFX are there now, so why not?

Let's see the Bottle City of Kandor, Braniac, Darkseid, everything.

[Mike Smith]

Properly done, Luthor isn't camp, but rather dark, evil, and perhaps not brutal, but his staff certainly is.

Doomsday, presumably. Apocalypse is the purple-lipped ancient Egyptian Big BAd from the X-Men.

But Doomsday is neither dark nor particularly evil. He's just a plot device that hits things.

Hah, how embarrassing to get my Apocalai (kalipses, calysai... ;) ) mixed up.

I think Doomsday can be generally dull, though Smallville did manage to give an interesting spin to the character. The character can be enriched with a back-story and supporting characters.

I was thinking more along the lines of Darkseid (hence apocalypse, though comically misspelled) and his forces building up an invasion over the course of several Justice League movies.

A trilogy of Superman films could tie in directly, or with a properly brief back-story I think even a casual audience could understand 1) Evil alien wants to take over Earth 2) Evil alien has his own hellish planet at his beck and call 3) Evil alien has Godly technology, minions and is very smart.

Job for Superman and a Doomsday scenario? Yep.

Summer blockbuster potential? I think so.

I think something like that could give the desperately needed dark, threatening element to Superman films. The could be the element of 'realism' to which the audience related in the film.

A proper Superman picture will be high action and contain feats that are far beyond reality for a normal man; however, bringing in an opponent (of amazing power, even for Superman) will allow the audience to fear for the hero and feel he's actually threatened.

Such a film couldn't be done as a one shot, so having guys like a darker Lex (exactly as you described) and a Brainiac or even Doomsday (among countless others) working in films building up to such a three-arc Superman feature or seguing into a DC collab film would be pretty awesome.

I think it could hook, line and sinker a billion dollars, though the budget going in would be on par with combing something like IE4 and your standard high-end hero film.

[websbestcomics]

I don't want a 'dark' Superman. I want good fun action, lots of HUMOR and characters that I can actually care about as a movie viewer. That's what made Superman I and II so great; it wasn't pretentious, and at times bordered on comedy. Let the Nolan/Bale movies do the dark, grim and gritty with Batman, where it belongs. I can't see why a new Superman movie can't be a massive blockbuster, given the right script.

[schwamp]

$100.00 a ticket. No problem, billion, schmillion.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Sure he could - it was what they were expecting with Superman Returns, it's just that wasn't the film to get them there (hence whilst despite making a profit, it's considered a flop for not living up to what many thought it would make).

In my opinion they should start over, do the origin movie and then smash on into a sequel with plenty of action - pretty much like the Batman franchise did, but in a more super way.


It's all about getting MORE people to see it more than once, Pretty much everybody I know went to see the dark knight 3 or 4 times because it was out of this world great.

Regardless of how good a film is, many people, myself included, won't go see it twice at a cinema.

[Avenger08]

Yes. Sadly, the only person that could have ever pulled it off passed away. (RIP). Christopher Reeves, if made right now with him in it, with all the effects we have now and with a story that wasnt trying to have funny aspects to it and if it had Kevin Spacy as LL and the original woman as lois lane, and CR and LL were the age they were when the first Superman movie came out, then yes, it could make a billion dollars.

However, if they have another Brandon Routh, "Hes been gone for years after being active and famous for years and then suddenly comes back weighing 150lbs and is 24 years old, and lois lane is played by an eight year old that is married and has superman's kid" THEN it could NEVER make a billion

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

However, if they have another Brandon Routh, "Hes been gone for years after being active and famous for years and then suddenly comes back weighing 150lbs and is 24 years old, and lois lane is played by an eight year old that is married and has superman's kid" THEN it could NEVER make a billion

You really blame Superman Returns lack of success on Brandon Routh?

Also, it's not his fault that Lois got married and had a kid - he starred in it, he didn't write it.

[Andreas Tanis]

I agree with everyone in that if they get a great script and director in there, as well as a cast that is immediately likeable, Superman could have as much success as Batman, but it really needs to be done for the sake of making a great movie and not just for the money.

[Calvin Government]

Of course. The problem here isn't with the character, who is still one of the most recognizable fictional characters on the planet, but with the writing, directing and acting.

The Dark Knight made as much as it did because it had a frankly ridiculous amount of positive buzz in a variety of media, with reviews to back it up and the final (full) performance of a beloved rising star. I have a hard time imagining anything with that much going for it not succeeding.

The Dark Knight did NOT succeed because it was dark. It succeeded because it had literally everything imaginable going in its favor, and had the content to justify repeat viewings.

Make the best movie you can. Don't get bogged down in 'continuity' and fan-service.

[_OM_]

...Actually, a Superman movie will one day make a Billion dollars. By then, the cost of living will have inflated to the point where a night at the movies for two will be $50 each, and that won't include popcorn.

[Craig T. Nelson]

However, if they have another Brandon Routh, "Hes been gone for years after being active and famous for years and then suddenly comes back weighing 150lbs and is 24 years old, and lois lane is played by an eight year old that is married and has superman's kid" THEN it could NEVER make a billion

Routh looked 150lbs to you?

I guess you're right, the list for 6'2+ actors built like this: http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/ADVG/595~Superman-DC-Comic-Posters.jpg is awfully long, they should have picked one of those guys instead.

[WorstThingUS]

...Actually, a Superman movie will one day make a Billion dollars. By then, the cost of living will have inflated to the point where a night at the movies for two will be $50 each, and that won't include popcorn.

Like I said, adjusted for inflation, it already has so the real title of this thread should be "Could A Superman Movie Make A Billion Dollars Again?"

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Given the right circumstances, it's possible, but highly unlikely given that there's a lot of people out there who just aren't Superman fans. Batman, on the other hand, is able to appeal to a larger audience because the character isn't as fantastical.

There are simply some people who have absolutely no interest in stories about aliens from outer space who fly around in a red cape doing good deeds. Whereas Batman, if you remove the bat-suit, is essentially no different than a thousand other larger than life action heroes like James Bond.

There's also the fact that Superman, who is a bright and hopeful character by his nature, is viewed as little more than a children's character by most unlike Batman, who is incorrectly perceived as more complex because the character lends itself to darker themes.

It didn't help that Bryan Singer's attempt to show the depth and complexity of Superman largely forgot to include the childlike wonder and enthusiasm that make him such a fun character. In many people's minds, Superman Returns further cemented the idea that Superman is either kiddie fare or boring.

That said, a Superman movie could certainly be a global blockbuster that rakes in untold millions, but, right now, that's an uphill battle.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I think people do like him, it's just tricky to nail what people like about him - you can't rule him out as the previous movies were smashes in the seventies, and the success of Lois And Clark, and early Smallville seasons, shows that people aren't adverse to the concept - Warners really thought Superman Returns was going to do Star Wars numbers.

For one example, I was at 'Movie World', the Warner Bros theme park in Australia, and Superman merchandise was selling like hotcakes - they had sold out of the red 's' shirts in my size (Medium) by closing time.

I don't think people not liking the guy is the problem.

[BYC]

Just make a movie for the masses. Have Superman and Darkseid throw each other through planets, destroy galaxies, and do ridiculous CGI stunts.

Gotta get the Dragon Ball crowd into it.

It also means poor reviews due to pure action.

[niall mc cann]

I think people do like him, it's just tricky to nail what people like about him - you can't rule him out as the previous movies were smashes in the seventies, and the success of Lois And Clark, and early Smallville seasons, shows that people aren't adverse to the concept - Warners really thought Superman Returns was going to do Star Wars numbers.

Yeah, i agree.

I remember bringing up superman at a break from a meeting in work, and though there were quite a few people who expressed disinterest in a character, there were just as many who smiled and expressed an interest.

It's also worth noting that Star Wars aside, the seventies in Hollywood is most notable for it's dark, cynical output (Chinatown, The French Connection, Godfather II). Superman would most certainly not have looked like a surefire hit back then, either (and indeed, take a look at the making ofs - it almost didn't get made at all; but for a select few people very close to the project, very few people had much faith in it).

For one example, I was at 'Movie World', the Warner Bros theme park in Australia, and Superman merchandise was selling like hotcakes - they had sold out of the red 's' shirts in my size (Medium) by closing time.

I don't think people not liking the guy is the problem.

It just occurred to me, though, that there may be a gender issue here. take a walk down my local town on a saturday, and you'll find a lot of guys in their late teens and twenties wearing Batman tshirts; you'll also find a lot of Superman tshirts, no question, but generally it's teen girls and women wearing them.

That's an idle thought that just occurred to me, I don't know how it would hold up to close scrutiny.

[Libaax]

The only time i have seen a Superman t-shirt this year was a girl i saw in town.

Thats one of his problems. They need to make a quality movie again before people think he is cool as merchandise but not as a movie series.

Also the problem is that fun,campy Superman wont work today like it did in 70s,80s. Too many superhero movies are like dark or action fun.

They need to make him as Spiderman. Just some adventure fun.

Also dump Lex. People think Superman is only about fighting Lex Luthor. Show other villains, more fantastical villains. Kryptons villain maybe.

[niall mc cann]

The only time i have seen a Superman t-shirt this year was a girl i saw in town.

Definitely not my experience. I see Superman merchandise all the time.

Interesting that the one you saw was on a girl, though.

Also the problem is that fun,campy Superman wont work today like it did in 70s,80s. Too many superhero movies are like dark or action fun.

That was my point. Nobody thought it would work back then, either, and the general tone of Hollywood production in the seventies was much grittier and more cynical than today.

[Libaax]

Difference is there are 100s of superhero movies in recent years. Its not the days where Superman and Reeves was the only big players in superhero film field.


Its just needs a writer,director who has a clear picture of Superman story he want to tell like Raimi,Nolan. There was no confusion in their works. They choosed different tones and both worked.

[_OM_]

Have Superman and Darkseid throw each other through planets, destroy galaxies, and do ridiculous CGI stunts.

...Were this a film featuring a to-the-death battle between Superman and Darkseid, then by all means do just this. The entire universe is at stake, so there *will* be collateral damage like that, and it should be shown in gratuity.

[Mainline]

What we need is muliple viewings.DVD turn-over time is shorter and shorter with pay-per-view options & piracy even shorter and High-Definition Blu-Ray too... the motivation for repeat viewings- for the people with the time and disposable income- is lower than ever irrespective of film quality. A film that provides value to all-ages and brings in the fairer sex (without betraying the male core)... will do best but is a tricky balancing act that few can manage.

[Karl O'Neill]

I agree with whoever said use DARKSIDE.

That kirby creation is a joy to read/watch.

[Andreas Tanis]

They should use Darkseid like they used the Joker in TDK if they want to make an uber successful movie. I think filmmakers have yet to realize is that Darkseid is a far more interesting villain than Lex Luthor. I'm tired of seeing Lex as the main villain in every Superman movie.

[Avenger08]

You really blame Superman Returns lack of success on Brandon Routh?

Also, it's not his fault that Lois got married and had a kid - he starred in it, he didn't write it.

No i dont blame him. I blame the horrible director/producer/writer/ anyone else that was involved in making the film and casting a guy that sucks at acting and is also a skinny 24 year old as freaking SUPERMAN.

[Spiffy]

Everyone knows Superman is a highly popular character and is pretty much America's biggest icon, but would a Superman movie ever be capable of grossing a billion dollars?
Well the thing is you say "gross". So the answer is that eventually, with inflation and rising ticket prices? Sure. A lot of films may gross a billion.

Now if you'd asked about net, that would be a different question.

Although to confuse things, there's also the concept of "gross profits". But when people speak about movies and use the term "gross", typically they are referring simply to the face cost of every ticket sold (and sometimes every DVD sale and rental) added together, and that's not necessarily an accurate reflection of profits.

[Hanzo the Razor]

Of course.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Also dump Lex. People think Superman is only about fighting Lex Luthor. Show other villains, more fantastical villains. Kryptons villain maybe.

That was the biggest problem with Returns - Lex was the evil mastermind, which is fine, but the actual villain.,.. WAS AN ISLAND!

Who the hell want to see Superman fight a landmass?

Definitely not my experience. I see Superman merchandise all the time.

Interesting that the one you saw was on a girl, though.

I see them on girls a fair bit.

'No really, it is you t-shirt I'm staring at!'


Its just needs a writer,director who has a clear picture of Superman story he want to tell like Raimi,Nolan. There was no confusion in their works. They choosed different tones and both worked.

There wasn't confusion in Singer's works until this one - from his early stuff to his X-Men stuff.
I really think it was the script that went awry - which is odd as the two writers wrote X-Men 2 (although the rest of their track record isn't so hot).

There's also the horror stories of the producer that Kevin Smith tells (and Neil Gaiman when the guy was set to produce Sandman) - he really doesn't seem to 1) have a clue about what makes a good film (giant spiders apparently) 2) have clue why people like Superman.

No i dont blame him. I blame the horrible director/producer/writer/ anyone else that was involved in making the film and casting a guy that sucks at acting and is also a skinny 24 year old as freaking SUPERMAN.

Routh was fine - I quite liked his portrayal.
Ask around - not just on a Superman message board - and generally people think he was fine at it.
It was the fact he had nothing to do, and that he was an absentee father spying on his ex, that trouble most people.

[Andreas Tanis]

I'd be uber happy if they ditched Lex or reduced his role to a cameo. I'd much rather see someone like Darkseid, Doomsday, or the Eradicator on the big screen.

As for Routh, I wouldn't mind if they kept him, but whoever gets attached as director should avoid trying to make his performance just like Chris Reeve's.

[dumbstruck]

No. Not unless a big name actor is cast and dies before the movie hits. Never underestimate the gruesome power of death. Ledger's untimely death drew a lot of people to Dark Knight who wouldn't normally have gone to see a Batman flick.

Does Superman have the potential for larger box office? Yes. But I don't want to see Superman turned into the same formula as the Marvel movies, which have some kind of action piece every 10-15 minutes. Lets not forget the original Superman didn't have Superman in it until nearly halfway through. And there was no Superman battle in Superman 2 until 3/4 of the way through. I have no problem with a slower pace, which is probably why I really liked SR, but I do agree going to the Lex Luthor/real-estate scheme pool again was stretching things. There should have been a new, never-before-seen villain in the movie, which is what a sequel will need. The problem is few of the Superman villains are worthy of the movie treatment, and the ones that are, are world-shatteringly godlike in their threat levels, making them cost-prohibitive. Any sequel will have to come up with a creative way to show such a villain while keeping the budget under control.

[carabas]

No. Not unless a big name actor is cast and dies before the movie hits.May I suggest Tom Cruise?

Never underestimate the gruesome power of death. Ledger's untimely death drew a lot of people to Dark Knight who wouldn't normally have gone to see a Batman flick.Kidding aside, I just don't buy this. A few accident tourists may go have a look, but I don't think they'd go for multiple viewings.
Is there anything that substantiates this legion of morbid movie maniacs? Why isn't "The Crow" in the top 20 of most succesful films of all time?

[dumbstruck]

May I suggest Tom Cruise?

Kidding aside, I just don't buy this. A few accident tourists may go have a look, but I don't think they'd go for multiple viewings.
Is there anything that substantiates this legion of morbid movie maniacs? Why isn't "The Crow" in the top 20 of most succesful films of all time?


Because Brandon Lee was not a movie star. The general audience, at that time, wouldn't have known who Brandon Lee was, much less name a movie he'd been in. The Crow would have been his break into stardom. That being said, I'm sure the fact he was killed on set, which delayed completion and release of the film, did serve to attract people who wouldn't normally have seen this type of movie. They want to see what the big deal is.

Dark Knight is similar. While Ledger's death didn't hold up completion or release, he was a well regarded and honored movie star, not just an actor. While obviously there's no proof or statistics to back it up, it only makes sense his death too would attract the non-target audience. (People have a morbid fascination with tragedy. Why else do drivers always slow down when they see flashing lights? Why do crime scenes attract crowds? Why do they tell assault victims to yell "Fire"?) They want to see his final, complete performance. It would also attract Ledger fans who might otherwise have passed because it's a comic book movie, since they would not be able to see Ledger in any more films. Out of this crowd, there would inevitably be those who ended up liking it and going for repeat viewings.

As good as Dark Knight was, (and don't get me wrong, I love the movie) I think many want to downplay the attraction Ledger's death gave this movie. Was it a $400-500 million attraction? No. But I don't think this film would have made over $1 billion without Ledger's death.

[WorstThingUS]

Kidding aside, I just don't buy this. A few accident tourists may go have a look, but I don't think they'd go for multiple viewings.
Is there anything that substantiates this legion of morbid movie maniacs? Why isn't "The Crow" in the top 20 of most succesful films of all time?

Sadly, there is some truth to it. It was hailed as great performance before he died, but then it became "must see" because it then became a great "last performance" (though technically he still has one more in the can).

Because Brandon Lee was not a movie star. The general audience, at that time, wouldn't have known who Brandon Lee was, much less name a movie he'd been in. The Crow would have been his break into stardom. That being said, I'm sure the fact he was killed on set, which delayed completion and release of the film, did serve to attract people who wouldn't normally have seen this type of movie. They want to see what the big deal is.

Exactly. They saw it, then told other people who wouldn't have gone otherwise and they saw it and then told others. Like the old shampoo commercials, "They told two friends and they told two friends and so on and so on..." It was a snowball effect amongst the "wouldn't be caught dead here otherwise" masses. It was them PLUS the multiple viewers that made it a $1B film.

And I'll say it again: a well-made Superman movie did this thirty years ago without cosmic battles and with somewhat silly Lex Luthor so it's not a matter of special effects or cosmic battles. It's just a a matter of presenting the character correctly. Spider-man and Iron Man did. Almost everyone else didn't and the box office reflects that.

[Solaris01]

No i dont blame him. I blame the horrible director/producer/writer/ anyone else that was involved in making the film and casting a guy that sucks at acting and is also a skinny 24 year old as freaking SUPERMAN.

Brandon Routh was more than fine.

And if you didn't have a problem with Reeve's build, then you shouldn't have a problem with Routh's build. This is live action not a cartoon. Superman's power comes from the sun not from his muscles.



No. Not unless a big name actor is cast and dies before the movie hits. Never underestimate the gruesome power of death. Ledger's untimely death drew a lot of people to Dark Knight who wouldn't normally have gone to see a Batman flick.

Does Superman have the potential for larger box office? Yes. But I don't want to see Superman turned into the same formula as the Marvel movies, which have some kind of action piece every 10-15 minutes. Lets not forget the original Superman didn't have Superman in it until nearly halfway through. And there was no Superman battle in Superman 2 until 3/4 of the way through. I have no problem with a slower pace, which is probably why I really liked SR, but I do agree going to the Lex Luthor/real-estate scheme pool again was stretching things. There should have been a new, never-before-seen villain in the movie, which is what a sequel will need. The problem is few of the Superman villains are worthy of the movie treatment, and the ones that are, are world-shatteringly godlike in their threat levels, making them cost-prohibitive. Any sequel will have to come up with a creative way to show such a villain while keeping the budget under control.

Great post. And it's true that TDK had a lot of extra press with Ledger's death (plus he was playing THE JOKER, yeah). It was everywhere when it happened. It was even reported by Fandango that many people wanted to see the movie because it was Ledger's last film. And I like the movie too.


And on the subject, I think a Superman movie can do very well at the BO (better than Returns); it just needs lots of well done action sequences that do justice to the character, a good story, a sense of fun (not dumb humor, please), lots of heart, and yes, it definitely needs a new and powerful supervillain able to fight with Superman. We all want to see Supes kicking butt like we've never seen him before in live action. I'd like to see him fighting Brainiac's robots!

I prefer a sequel, but I can live with a reboot, prequel, requel, whatever, as long as Routh returns to reprise the role.

[Solaris01]

And I'll say it again: a well-made Superman movie did this thirty years ago without cosmic battles and with somewhat silly Lex Luthor so it's not a matter of special effects or cosmic battles. It's just a a matter of presenting the character correctly. Spider-man and Iron Man did. Almost everyone else didn't and the box office reflects that.

I strongly disagree with that. Like someone said earlier, I think, Superman The Movie worked because yes it was a good movie about this character, but there was nothing to compete with, aka no other superhero movies like it like there is now. One of a kind. The market was not like it is now. I can asure you that STM would perform similarly like Returns did nowdays.

People want to see new things, yes, Superman fighting awesome supervillains and stuff. Despite what many fans think, the mainstream don't really care that much about characterization as much as we do, or about LexCorp, pre-crisis/post-crisis, etc, they just want to be entertained. I don't know anyone who hated Superman's kid, for instance.

[BYC]

If Reeve made another Superman, and then he broke his neck before release, that might have also made huge box office numbers. There's no doubt in mind my Dark Knight got boosted from Ledger's death.

[Phantom Druid]

You really blame Superman Returns lack of success on Brandon Routh?


I know, right? I think Brandon Routh is today's perfect Clark Kent. I'd actually like to see him in the re-boot. Brandon Routh was not the bad part of Superman Returns in any way. Did you guys hear about how he got the role? When he met Bryan Singer in a coffee shop the first thing he did was spill coffee all over the director's lap. Routh thought he had blown it; as it happened, though, Singer laughed and figured that was just the kind of bumbling Clark Kent would do, and that helped make up the director's mind that Routh was right for the role.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Maybe some went to see it for Ledger - does anyone know anyone personally who did this?
I heard more hype about his actual performance than 'see his last appearance'.
(And I'm in Australia!)

I'm Not There was out for his death, and people didn't flock to that - despite him looking like Ledger and doing a solid performance.

I'd say it has more to do with Batman Begins being a solid film, and it getting more views on DVD than at the cinema - a lot would have stayed away after Batman & Robin, but then Batman Begins turned out to be really good.
So the sequel would have more people going anyway - throw in the hype level and the oscar buzz...

Look, the strong opening weekend would be the hardcore Ledger fans - the rest of it though was the hype factor of everyone - movie goers and critics - saying it was brilliant.
On Rotten Tomatoes it has 94% from the critics - in the 'Top Critics' section there are only two negative reviews (both of which say Ledgers performance is the highlight).
I don't think it owes it's success to his death.

[Andreas Tanis]

People are blowing this "people went to see it because of Ledger's death" thing way out of proportion. There were millions hyped to see TDK & were planning on seeing it even before he died.

[WorstThingUS]

I strongly disagree with that. Like someone said earlier, I think, Superman The Movie worked because yes it was a good movie about this character, but there was nothing to compete with, aka no other superhero movies like it like there is now. One of a kind. The market was not like it is now. I can asure you that STM would perform similarly like Returns did nowdays.


By this logic The Dark Knight shouldn't have made $1B either because it not only was another superhero movie, it came out barely a month after Iron Man, so people do in fact care what goes on in terms of character and story. No one saw SR and recommended it to a friend as a "must see." Aside from being nearly a remake of STM it was simply not that good a film, nor was it true to Superman's character. STM was a good film and totally true to the big boy scout.

Maybe some went to see it for Ledger - does anyone know anyone personally who did this?
I heard more hype about his actual performance than 'see his last appearance'.
(And I'm in Australia!)

I don't think it owes it's success to his death.

Most of the art film crowd I know here in New York were motivated to see it because it was his "last great performance" so some of its success can be attributed to a Brokeback Mountain art film crowd that would not have been there without him and definitely not without this being his last great work.

People are blowing this "people went to see it because of Ledger's death" thing way out of proportion. There were millions hyped to see TDK & were planning on seeing it even before he died.

There were millions of people hyped and planning to see Watchmen too. How'd that work out?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Most of the art film crowd I know here in New York were motivated to see it because it was his "last great performance" so some of its success can be attributed to a Brokeback Mountain art film crowd that would not have been there without him and definitely not without this being his last great work.

I doubt it - Nolan is film buff favourite, and the oscar buzz was there for the perfomance.
They still would have gone and seen it.


There were millions of people hyped and planning to see Watchmen too. How'd that work out?

No there wasn't - there was plenty of marketing hype, and some articles about it being based on a critically acclaimed graphic novel - but it had no star/talent power and no good critical buzz.
That trailer that was so awesome to fanboys wasn't particularly awesome to anyone else, as it did nothing to stand out from the pack.

[Andreas Tanis]

By this logic The Dark Knight shouldn't have made $1B either because it not only was another superhero movie, it came out barely a month after Iron Man, so people do in fact care what goes on in terms of character and story. No one saw SR and recommended it to a friend as a "must see." Aside from being nearly a remake of STM it was simply not that good a film, nor was it true to Superman's character. STM was a good film and totally true to the big boy scout.



Most of the art film crowd I know here in New York were motivated to see it because it was his "last great performance" so some of its success can be attributed to a Brokeback Mountain art film crowd that would not have been there without him and definitely not without this being his last great work.



There were millions of people hyped and planning to see Watchmen too. How'd that work out?

No, there wasn't. I didn't see nearly as much discussion or hype going around for Watchmen as I did for TDK. I was on superherohype around the time TDK was coming out, and I saw how much hype was going around for that movie. With Watchmen, there were never that many people posting on that part of the forum, mostly everyone was stationed in TDK forum.

[Libaax]

People are blowing this "people went to see it because of Ledger's death" thing way out of proportion. There were millions hyped to see TDK & were planning on seeing it even before he died.

Yeah people are taking it too far. Its easy to say after the fact. The hype was mostly it was a epic Batman movie and Heath got great reviews for his portrayel of the most classic Bat villain.

If Heath lived he might not have got the oscar but the movie would still have huge BO numbers.

People are around the world, all of us arent freaks that go to see the movie just of his death.

Most of us over here people i knew who didnt care about Heath,Bale or anything just went to see cause it was a Batman movie that got hype as being a great superhero movie.

[dumbstruck]

Batman Begins grossed around $400 million at the box office. Strong DVD sales and good word of mouth does not more than double a sequel's numbers. Yes it will increase numbers, but not to that extent. Yes, DK would have still had huge box office, but not $1 billion. That can be attributed to Ledger's death, who's performance buzz ramped up exponentially after he died. So yes, a sizable chunk of DK's box office was thanks to Ledger's death, as gruesome as that sounds.

[Solaris01]

WorstThingUS said,
By this logic The Dark Knight shouldn't have made $1B either because it not only was another superhero movie, it came out barely a month after Iron Man, so people do in fact care what goes on in terms of character and story.
By your logic BB, a film so loved by the online community, should have done much better at the BO. Also, by your logic, movies like the star wars prequels, Transformers, 300 shouldn't have done so well at the BO since they are considered very shallow and mostly eye candy by a lot of people, including professional critics.

TDK was a phenomenon. An exception.

Get this, quality doesn't go hand on hand with BO. General audiences just want to be entertained, and those movies were made to satisfy the lowest denominator.


No one saw SR and recommended it to a friend as a "must see."
Show me those polls, statistics, links to prove that. In fact, there was some repeated viewing of SR, otherwise the film wouldn't have done nearly $400 mil wordwide. If the film didn't do better is mainly because it was not an action-driven one and had no superfights/new supervillain; it was more of a character/drama-driven one.

Aside from being nearly a remake of STM it was simply not that good a film, nor was it true to Superman's character. STM was a good film and totally true to the big boy scout.
In your opinion. Not a fact. A lot of people liked/loved it and think is a very good Superman film.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

Read the consensus.

[Avenger08]

Brandon Routh was more than fine.

And if you didn't have a problem with Reeve's build, then you shouldn't have a problem with Routh's build. This is live action not a cartoon. Superman's power comes from the sun not from his muscles.




Okay, Routh's performance was not more than fine. Maybye, just maybye, it reaches the point of being fine, but that would be an overstatement. Yes, the guy wasnt terrible. However, the fact that he was cast was rediculous. He is a 24 year old guy that is of normal build. THAT ISNT SUPERMAN. Superman is a huge guy that is strong and powerful looking that commands respect without him asking for it. It doesnt matter what the power comes from, superman is BIG. Christopher Reeves was BIG. CR was the ULTIMATE superman. He looked like him. He was built like him. He looked mature like him. He was PERFECT for the part. Routh was a guy who looked like he was still in college. Lois Lane looked like she was a teenager that just graduated, the whole story didnt make SENSE. He was active for years before the movie. Then he left for YEARS. Then he comes back. And hes 24? Did he become famous as superman when he was 8? Yea, maybye the whole "Hes superman he ages really slowly" thing applies to him. Fine. But what about lois lane? Im pretty sure she isnt frozen in her age. Its totally rediculous. A 23 year old with a kid thats at least 8? Yea, Superman impregnated her when she was 15. Great hero. Isnt that statatory rape? Hmmmm. Again, great storyline. Marvelous movie. Super-boy vs. THE ROCK OF DOOM!!!!

[WorstThingUS]

By your logic BB, a film so loved by the online community, should have done much better at the BO.

I mean "normal people" not us here. And it did well for a movie that's just as much about talking heads as it is action, especially given Nolan is a poor action director.

Also, by your logic, movies like the star wars prequels, Transformers, 300 shouldn't have done so well at the BO since they are considered very shallow and mostly eye candy by a lot of people, including professional critics.

I should have qualified myself and pointed out I'm talking specifically about superhero comic book movies. Bad character = disappointing box office. As far as movies in general go, William Goldman said it best when said in Hollywood "Nobody knows anything," in regards to what makes a success.

TDK was a phenomenon. An exception.

No argument there. It's rare you get an enthusiastic geek crowd, mainstream audiences and the art house people.

Get this, quality doesn't go hand on hand with BO. General audiences just want to be entertained, and those movies were made to satisfy the lowest denominator.

Really? Wow. Thanks, because I just got here to this planet called Earth. I don't know why I know who William Goldman is.


Show me those polls, statistics, links to prove that. In fact, there was some repeated viewing of SR, otherwise the film wouldn't have done nearly $400 mil wordwide. If the film didn't do better is mainly because it was not an action-driven one and had no superfights/new supervillain; it was more of a character/drama-driven one.

$400 really isn't a lot of repeat business as movies with actual repeat business (Dark Knight, Pirates of the Caribbean, Titanic, Spider-Man) have shown. It's what you get when everyone sees a movie once and that I attribute to the ultimate power of the "S" that so many went to see a bad Superman film. It's ironically why it was also so disappointing. So many people were willing to see Superman, but none twice.

In your opinion. Not a fact. A lot of people liked/loved it and think is a very good Superman film.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

Read the consensus.

Fair enough. But the irony is a consensus doesn't make it a fact. Otherwise the earth would be flat and the center of the universe.

FYI: you just have to hit the "Quote" button to get another person's quotes.

[Andreas Tanis]

"Superman Returns" was an okay film but very boring...it didn't offer anything new, and besides Routh's performance there wasn't really all that much to the film. Spacey's Lex was too much like Hackman's to which he failed to do as good, Bosworth utterly sucked as Lois Lane and the guy playing Jimmy seemed like a perv.

Keep Routh, replace everyone use, use Darkseid instead of Lex, don't make a predictable story, give the audience something to rave about and tell friends to go see, and don't bore the hell out of us.

[MyManD]

No, DON'T keep Routh. I've kept up with his career since Superman and the simple fact is the man can't act worth a damn. Reboot the entire franchise Batman Begins style instead of awkwardly trying to continue on from the Richard Donner Superman.

Get a script and director that isn't afraid of aiming for a mature audience. It doesn't have to be Doomsday (never liked that story arc anyways), but give Superman a legitimate threat and, if the story calls for it, don't be afraid to let major characters die.

[Andreas Tanis]

In all fairness he's never had a chance to really show any acting chops because he's seemed to have a lot of bit parts. Singer didn't know what he was doing with Superman...it was basically a remake of the past Donner movies. Get a director who has a totally new take on Superman, and get Routh back, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that he'd deliver a great performance. Don't count Routh out yet because Singer didn't know what he was doing.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

I'm not sure if a budget could handle it, but I honestly think that the best direction to go is the All-Star Superman route. They need to EMBRACE Superman's godlike status and give him challenges that test that. A dark Superman film just sounds wrong. Superman is a character that should have universal appeal across every demographic and age group. The director/writers/producers need to remind us why Superman is such an icon, why he can be a role model. It should have absolutely larger than life sequences and cosmic action.

Honestly, I'd love to see a movie that deals with Superman dying. You could do it along the lines of ASS Issue 10. Just doing all kinds of incredible feats now that he knows his time is limited. Even have him do his Will and Testament. Provide a closing chapter to the saga Donner started.

Then they can reboot the franchise a little down the line.

[Avenger08]

After they were actually talking about the series reeboot they actally said that it would be darker. NO. That ISNT superman. It worked with batman because that was batman. Superman is different. Thats why they compliment eachother so well. They are polar opposites. Superman needs to be just that, a Superman. No routh. NO. He was awful. And they need a sheer badass superman fighting sequence. Just full out amazingness. No more Lex Luthor for a while. Hes not his only villain. I could see brainiac. I could see doomsday. I could see General Zod again (but much different than in Superman 2) . I think they need a good amount of villains in the next movie. Just full out amazing new beggining with a new actor and an amazing director. Id like to see some serious bad-ass Superman yet still everything true to what superman is

[Phantom Druid]

To put it simply, I don't think a reboot is necessary. I say... bring Routh back, introduce a new villain, and make it more action packed... and actually market it that way. I'm not against possibly keeping Lex as a supporting character, but I wanna see Supes in some fisticuffs with a more powerful villain. If they show trailers with a new villain and more action (and make a point to emphasize on this), it will bring people into the theatres.

[carabas]

I think the presence of the super-kid kind of necessitates a reboot.

[Avenger08]

Not only does the series need a reboot, it needs to be destroyed. Burn it. All copies should be collected and thrown in a mass pile that shall be burned. Horrible disgrace to superman.

[Andreas Tanis]

Lol

I do hope the next franchise and for it to be better they need to try something new, instead of rehasing the Donner movies.

[ACK!]

I never understood why Singer wanted to do a sequel to the series started by Donner. By that point, it had nearly been 20 years since the last movie and I think most fans want to forget Superman IV.

I realize that Singer's movie took place after II, but I was just making a point.

I don't need to have the origin rehashed or refurbished, just give us a good story that's true to the character (not dark) and use another villain, as Lex Luthor has been done to death.

I didn't think Superman Returns was a bad film, but it didn't rise to the heights of the first two movies either. The only bit of casting I had issue with was Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth was a total lightweight. It was as though the feisty, brainy Lois had been replaced by a valley girl. They would have been better off going with Erica Durance from Smallville, although obviously they wanted to keep their Superman story separate.


And did we really need Superman to have an illegitimate son floating around?

[Solaris01]

Okay, Routh's performance was not more than fine. Maybye, just maybye, it reaches the point of being fine, but that would be an overstatement. Yes, the guy wasnt terrible. However, the fact that he was cast was rediculous. He is a 24 year old guy that is of normal build. THAT ISNT SUPERMAN. Superman is a huge guy that is strong and powerful looking that commands respect without him asking for it. It doesnt matter what the power comes from, superman is BIG. Christopher Reeves was BIG. CR was the ULTIMATE superman. He looked like him. He was built like him. He looked mature like him. He was PERFECT for the part. Routh was a guy who looked like he was still in college. Lois Lane looked like she was a teenager that just graduated, the whole story didnt make SENSE. He was active for years before the movie. Then he left for YEARS. Then he comes back. And hes 24? Did he become famous as superman when he was 8? Yea, maybye the whole "Hes superman he ages really slowly" thing applies to him. Fine. But what about lois lane? Im pretty sure she isnt frozen in her age. Its totally rediculous. A 23 year old with a kid thats at least 8? Yea, Superman impregnated her when she was 15. Great hero. Isnt that statatory rape? Hmmmm. Again, great storyline. Marvelous movie. Super-boy vs. THE ROCK OF DOOM!!!!

He was not a "normal" looking guy during the filming of the movie. Have you seen the behind the scenes documentary of SR? You can see him training. He was big, plus he is 6' 3" tall. And he is not 24 years old anymore; he is 29.

I'm curious, Can you please post pictures of how Superman should look in live action?

[Darrell D.]

He was not a "normal" looking guy during the filming of the movie. Have you seen the behind the scenes documentary of SR? You can see him training. He was big, plus he is 6' 3" tall. And he is not 24 years old anymore; he is 29.

I'm curious, Can you please post pictures of how Superman should look in live action?
He should look like the comics, like all big and stuff, like the suit is painted on, with every muscle defined.
I agree with you, Routh looked the part just fine, and he was a more than capable actor.

[Andreas Tanis]

I never understood why Singer wanted to do a sequel to the series started by Donner. By that point, it had nearly been 20 years since the last movie and I think most fans want to forget Superman IV.

I realize that Singer's movie took place after II, but I was just making a point.

I don't need to have the origin rehashed or refurbished, just give us a good story that's true to the character (not dark) and use another villain, as Lex Luthor has been done to death.

I didn't think Superman Returns was a bad film, but it didn't rise to the heights of the first two movies either. The only bit of casting I had issue with was Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth was a total lightweight. It was as though the feisty, brainy Lois had been replaced by a valley girl. They would have been better off going with Erica Durance from Smallville, although obviously they wanted to keep their Superman story separate.


And did we really need Superman to have an illegitimate son floating around?

I agree with everything you said, and I think most here do as well. Also, as far as the son is concerned, it wouldn't have been a bad idea if Superman knew from the get-go. Superman is supposed to be setting an example for all humans to follow, so making him a deadbeat dad isn't setting a good example.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Okay, Routh's performance was not more than fine. Maybye, just maybye, it reaches the point of being fine, but that would be an overstatement. Yes, the guy wasnt terrible. However, the fact that he was cast was rediculous. He is a 24 year old guy that is of normal build. THAT ISNT SUPERMAN. Superman is a huge guy that is strong and powerful looking that commands respect without him asking for it. It doesnt matter what the power comes from, superman is BIG. Christopher Reeves was BIG. CR was the ULTIMATE superman. He looked like him. He was built like him. He looked mature like him. He was PERFECT for the part.
Routh was a guy who looked like he was still in college.

Who says Superman is big?
His appearance changes from artist to artist.
In you interpretation he's a brawler and looks like one.
In this film he wasn't.

And I don't think reeves was that much bigger...
http://www.did-art.fr/images/ORIG_1165069017_Superman-ReturnsPoster.jpg
http://images.allposters.com/images/54/039_16626.jpg

And after this, you move away from discussing Routh again - you really need to be able to separate him from the film if you wantyour argument to carry wait.
Lois Lane looked like she was a teenager that just graduated, the whole story didnt make SENSE. He was active for years before the movie.
Then he left for YEARS. Then he comes back.

They said it comes after the second one.
OR, you just go 'he hooked up with Lois after Superman 4 and then he left'.

Then he left for YEARS. Then he comes back. And hes 24? Did he become famous as superman when he was 8? Yea, maybye the whole "Hes superman he ages really slowly" thing applies to him. Fine. But what about lois lane? Im pretty sure she isnt frozen in her age. Its totally rediculous. A 23 year old with a kid thats at least 8? Yea, Superman impregnated her when she was 15. Great hero. Isnt that statatory rape? Hmmmm. Again, great storyline. Marvelous movie. Super-boy vs. THE ROCK OF DOOM!!!!

Have you ever seen them age in the comics?
And the kid was five.
Only weird if you assume the actors age is the characters age that they are portraying.
However, like in the comics, it's pretty silly to put age to appearance.

[Avenger08]

He was not a "normal" looking guy during the filming of the movie. Have you seen the behind the scenes documentary of SR? You can see him training. He was big, plus he is 6' 3" tall. And he is not 24 years old anymore; he is 29.

I'm curious, Can you please post pictures of how Superman should look in live action?


Yea, he was big in a sense. But he didnt have a physical build that was that like " Damn, that guy could destroy me" he looks like a guy who is big but not that big.

Reeves. Just Christopher Reeves. He wasnt like "holy crap hes huge!" but he was built like a strong, strong guy. But he LOOKED like Superman. He acted like superman. He was PERFECT as superman. Look at The Trials of Shazam #12. In a single image, superman is identical to christopher reeves. If someone has a scan and knows what im talking about please post it (im not sure how)
And every single artists rendition of superman is a guy who is built very thick and muscularly big and wide. Routh isnt. It doesnt matter how muscular he gets, he doesnt have that body type.

Also, in the movie, he didnt look like a man. He looked like superboy. If the movie was about Superboy, hed have been perfect. But it wasnt. It doesnt even matter that now hes 29. If he was 29 when Superman Returns came out hed still have been way too young.
The kid in the movie was like 8 at the youngest. So hed have been gone for at least 9 years, plus the time when he was active for so long and became famous. So, if he became superman when he was 11, it may have worked right now, much less when he was 24 and cast as superman.

[Avenger08]

oh, heres a link to a page where the fact that superman looks like christopher reeve is discussed
theere is an image.
Look at it. This is what all the heroes would look like in real life basically. Look at it. Who does superman look like to all of you?

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=145310

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

. Look at The Trials of Shazam #12. In a single image, superman is identical to christopher reeves.

Yeah, that's a comic made almost thirty years after the release of the film... pretty sure they copied it/based it on Reeves - wouldn't really use that as proof that he is exactly what Superman should look like.

You find evidence of an artist using Reeve as the basis from before the film, it strengthens the case, decades later when the film is considered a classic, not so much.

[Avenger08]

http://www.spruillarts.org/images/Superman_1panelCUFull.jpg

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/374/superman6sept1940.gif

[MyManD]

Brandon Routh's build really isn't an issue. He's about the same height as Reeves and have the same body type. I really didn't mind his look when he was cast (aside from always looking like he had a moustache).

The problem with Routh is that he just doesn't have the charisma or gravitas that whenever he's on the screen you say to yourself, "man, nobody can take this guy."

Also, I don't want a "darker" Superman, just a new film series that's mature enough to handle more adult situations while still keeping Superman himself intact. Look at the recent Action Comics prior to New Krypton, with Superman losing his dad, or going to the future to deal with worldwide xenophobia. The movies have so far been a real life cartoon (though I still love the first two). There wasn't a single menacing thing about Superman Returns. I want to actually be thrilled at the possibility of consequences.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

http://www.spruillarts.org/images/Superman_1panelCUFull.jpg

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/374/superman6sept1940.gif

Was the meant to prove a point?

They don't look like they were based on Reeve at all.

[carabas]

http://www.did-art.fr/images/ORIG_1165069017_Superman-ReturnsPoster.jpg
http://images.allposters.com/images/54/039_16626.jpg

I think Routh did as best as he could, given the story he was given to work with.

And I've never noticed it before, but seeing them side by side like this, I can't help but notice how fake the new costume looks compared to the old one.

[Andreas Tanis]

All I'm going to say is that mostly everyone who's portrayed Superman has been big, but not bodybulder big. Tom Welling is the biggest of the Superman actors thus far. I don't think it's necessary for Superman to look like a bodybuilder, he should be a little buff but mostly toned.

[Andreas Tanis]

All I'm going to say is that mostly everyone who's portrayed Superman has been big, but not bodybulder big. Tom Welling is the biggest of the Superman actors thus far. I don't think it's necessary for Superman to look like a bodybuilder, he should be a little buff but mostly toned.

[Avenger08]

Was the meant to prove a point?

They don't look like they were based on Reeve at all.

Honestly, i didnt mean for them to show that they were based on reeve, i meant reeve was based on them. Also, notice the build, they are extremely similar. Routh does NOT have a build that is anywhere near superman. See, the big thing about Christopher Reeve was that he looked like superman. Routh didnt. In any way. Routh has a different body type. Its slimmer.

Brandon Routh's build really isn't an issue. He's about the same height as Reeves and have the same body type.

I disagree. Although Routh did have a build that was big, he doesnt have the same build as chris reeve. CR had a build like superman. A wide, strong build. like i said, its much slimmer. And his age, yet again, was a huge factor of him being a horrible choice as superman.

[Avenger08]

His appearance changes from artist to artist.


Could you show me a picture of superman that looks like Brandon Routh?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, if you think Reeves looks like the two examples you showed - and I would have said more George Reeves - then sure...

http://theages.superman.nu/ges/birthright/SupermanBirthrightCVR3.jpg
http://readrant.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/superman-new-krypton.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/192660014_e33216108c_o.jpg

Yeah, the last one is based on him!

Now I know you'll argue, but Routh looks enough like these to drawings to cast him as that character.
Throw in the fact that he can act, which most overly muscly guys cannot (and I never saw muscles as a big part of Superman), and I really can't see what's wrong with his casting, except that his last name isn't Reeves.

[Andreas Tanis]

I never saw the problem with Routh, but the fact that Singer tried to make his version of Superman too much like Reeve's. Trying something new with the character wouldn't hurt considering Routh actually does have talent. Give him a well done script and a director who isn't still hung up over the original Donner Superman films and I bet that more people will accept him in the role.

[Avenger08]

Well, if you think Reeves looks like the two examples you showed - and I would have said more George Reeves - then sure...



Actually, for my first image i would have said more CReeve and the Second one George Reeve.
And for the first image, look at the bottom one. He is ten times bigger than Routh. Yea, the Clark looks like him, but not the superman (yea, they are the same person, i know)

Second image
I agree, that is a much smaller superman. However, if i had to find an image before Superman the movie came out, why cant you? I know why, because there is maybe 1 image ever drawn before 2005 in which superman is that skinny. Not trying to distract from the point, but still, please, find one.

Third image doesnt count.

Finally, Here are the reasons Routh should not have been cast as superman:
1. Waaay too young.
2. His build is large, however, he does not share the build that superman of the comics is commonly portrayed as and he looks extremely young.
3. His acting is not at all spectacular, although he can act, it is nothing that special.
(also terrible script and movie but thats beside the point)

Actually, it is not the Reeve/Reeves that bothers me so.Honestly, i could probly deall with a guy with a body type similar to Routh (the face, not so much because it was extremely far off), but what made it all ruined was he was 24. That was the dumbest thing i have ever seen done.

[Craig T. Nelson]

Seems like you're just being extremely picky. Finding an actor to the standards you've set would be extremely difficult given Christopher Reeves has been dead for years.

[carabas]

2. His build is large, however, he does not share the build that superman of the comics is commonly portrayed as and he looks extremely young.People built like Superman in the comics can't really play Clark Kent though, and they usually can't act even a tiny little bit due to some unknown side-effect of steroids.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, for my first image i would have said more CReeve and the Second one George Reeve.
And for the first image, look at the bottom one. He is ten times bigger than Routh. Yea, the Clark looks like him, but not the superman (yea, they are the same person, i know)

Second image
I agree, that is a much smaller superman. However, if i had to find an image before Superman the movie came out, why cant you? I know why, because there is maybe 1 image ever drawn before 2005 in which superman is that skinny. Not trying to distract from the point, but still, please, find one.

Third image doesnt count.

Gotta say I'm recent to reading Superman, so would have trouble finding said image - don't know which artists to search!


Finally, Here are the reasons Routh should not have been cast as superman:
1. Waaay too young.

Same age as Chris Reeves was.

2. His build is large, however, he does not share the build that superman of the comics is commonly portrayed as and he looks extremely young.

I really think this is personal taste as to how you view Superman.
Christopher Reeves doesn't look like the musclebound Superman that some artists like to draw either.


3. His acting is not at all spectacular, although he can act, it is nothing that special.
(also terrible script and movie but thats beside the point)

George Reeve, Christopher Reeves and Dean Cain weren't exactly winning awards for their acting either.
He did the job.

Actually, it is not the Reeve/Reeves that bothers me so.Honestly, i could probly deall with a guy with a body type similar to Routh (the face, not so much because it was extremely far off), but what made it all ruined was he was 24. That was the dumbest thing i have ever seen done.

Then you haven't seen too many things!

Actors play older and younger all the time.
Ignore that he'd been in space for fie years - maybe he doesn't age like we do in the films - and I think you'll find that Routh looks fine.
Imagine if he'd been cast in a Superman Begins type deal - not darker, but a modern telling of the origin - and he would have been fine.
I just think it's odd to single him out as the element that was off in that film.

[Avenger08]

Same age as Chris Reeves was.


Actually Reeve was two years older. Just nit picky but still. But the differencce is that Reeve was playing superman from the beggining. Not after about 10-20 years of being active and 8 years being gone.

George Reeve, Christopher Reeves and Dean Cain weren't exactly winning awards for their acting either.
He did the job.


Okay, Dean Cain, was the worst superman (other than the dude in smallville) ever. Not disputing that.
Christopher Reeve was amazing. He IS superman. It was foolish to try to re-make that movie without him in the first place.

Then you haven't seen too many things!

Actors play older and younger all the time.
Ignore that he'd been in space for fie years - maybe he doesn't age like we do in the films - and I think you'll find that Routh looks fine.
Imagine if he'd been cast in a Superman Begins type deal - not darker, but a modern telling of the origin - and he would have been fine.
I just think it's odd to single him out as the element that was off in that film.


Ignor that hes been in space for years? THAT IS WHY IT ANNOYS ME!!!!!!!

Im not saying he is the only element. Hes just one of the biggest. Him, that 8 year old girl that played lois, and the whole "SHE HAS YOUR SON!" thing were the worst. (but Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor was good)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually Reeve was two years older. Just nit picky but still. But the differencce is that Reeve was playing superman from the beggining. Not after about 10-20 years of being active and 8 years being gone.

Who said he'd been active for ten to twenty years?

That's never mentioned in the film.

That's longer than he's been active in the comics where his married to Lois.

Okay, Dean Cain, was the worst superman (other than the dude in smallville) ever. Not disputing that.
Christopher Reeve was amazing. He IS superman. It was foolish to try to re-make that movie without him in the first place.

That's your personal preference - there was Superman before him, there will be Superman after him.
He'll always be the one for you, but it can keep going.

Take Bond - some say Connery was the best (you've got to ignore the latter films he did though).
First I saw was Roger Moore, but it was Dalton who I thought nailed it.
However, I can enjoy all the films, even though the majority of them don't star the guy I thought did it best.

Ignor that hes been in space for years? THAT IS WHY IT ANNOYS ME!!!!!!!

Pretend he arrived as Superman when he was twenty or twenty one.
He goes for five years, he's now twenty six.

Im not saying he is the only element. Hes just one of the biggest. Him, that 8 year old girl that played lois, and the whole "SHE HAS YOUR SON!" thing were the worst. (but Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor was good)

But he really, really wasn't.
No one would have had an issue with the film, if he'd actually done somehting.
Heck, the film still wouldn't have done well if it was Chris Reeves in the role.

[Andreas Tanis]

People built like Superman in the comics can't really play Clark Kent though, and they usually can't act even a tiny little bit due to some unknown side-effect of steroids.

Agreed and again, as I've said before, the actor portraying Superman doesn't have to be bodybuilder big. At the most, I'd say he should be around the same size as Hugh Jackman was for Wolverine.

Speaking of Hugh Jackman, I think he'd be perfect for Superman.

[carabas]

Actually Reeve was two years older. Just nit picky but still. But the differencce is that Reeve was playing superman from the beggining. Not after about 10-20 years of being active and 8 years being gone.If he'd been active that long, Lois Lane should be well into her fourties.

[lou-bert vs. q-bert]

Actually, Chris Reeve was also too thin to play Superman, but he refused to wear a padded suit. So he actually changed his diet and worked out like six(?) hours a day before initial shooting. All of that muscle underneath the spandex was real.

[Avenger08]

Who said he'd been active for ten to twenty years?


Okay, i overexaggerated, but still, it was AT LEAST 5 years. Plus the 8 from the whole, y'know, IN SPACE, thing. Him being 24 was rediculous. Plain and simple

[QUOTE][Pretend he arrived as Superman when he was twenty or twenty one.
He goes for five years, he's now twenty six. /QUOTE]

What? I cant pretend like that is the truth because it isnt.

[celticguy]

He is supposedto be gone 5 years in the movie right and he it is supposed to take place right after Superman 2 i think.

So that puts him at about 31 -33 in the movie timeline assuming he started as superman at the age of 23 -25

and yes the more movie tickets rise Superman coule easily break a billion if the movie got enough hype and was good enough..

[Avenger08]

Actually im pretty sure it was at least 7 or 8 years because thatt kid is NOT 5 years old (if he was supposed to be that is rediculous)

[Craig T. Nelson]

Children in movies are always older than the characters they play. It was stated numerous times in the movie that Superman had been gone for 5 years

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Okay, i overexaggerated, but still, it was AT LEAST 5 years. Plus the 8 from the whole, y'know, IN SPACE, thing. Him being 24 was rediculous. Plain and simple

He was in space for five years.

[Pretend he arrived as Superman when he was twenty or twenty one.
He goes for five years, he's now twenty six. /QUOTE]

What? I cant pretend like that is the truth because it isnt.

What?
There's no truth in it - it's actors playing a part, and at no point is ANY of the adults ages mentioned.
It was mentioned he was in space for five years though.

He is supposedto be gone 5 years in the movie right and he it is supposed to take place right after Superman 2 i think.

So that puts him at about 31 -33 in the movie timeline assuming he started as superman at the age of 23 -25



How do you arrive at that age?
Is it to be assumed that he started at 23-25?

Actually im pretty sure it was at least 7 or 8 years because thatt kid is NOT 5 years old (if he was supposed to be that is rediculous)

No - it was five years.
Remember, actors playing a part.
He was gone for five years, so the kid is five years old (just under).
That's the only solid age ever given in it.

[WorstThingUS]

How do you arrive at that age?
Is it to be assumed that he started at 23-25?

In Superman The Movie, after Clark leaves Smallville as a teenager and goes to the North Pole, Jor-El tells him they've been in the Fortress for ten years, putting him in his late 20's.

[pariah-1972]

I don't think a Superman movie can gross a billion dollars cause unfortunately he isn't as popular as he once was.

Sometimes i'm afraid that Superman is going to become one of those heroes that people have forgotten like The Shadow or the Lone Ranger.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

In Superman The Movie, after Clark leaves Smallville as a teenager and goes to the North Pole, Jor-El tells him they've been in the Fortress for ten years, putting him in his late 20's.

So if you just ignore that one line.... (basically there to justify Christopher Reeves looking older).... BAM!
It all works.

[Andreas Tanis]

I thought Clark was 30 when he became Superman in the Chris Reeve movies?

[Mat001]

The timeline of the first film.

1948: Krypton explodes. Kal-El is a young baby. Zod and the others are put into the Phantom Zone.

1951: Clark lands in Smallville and is adopted by the Kents. According to Lex when he is looking up about the Kryptonite fragments that landed on Earth, he states from the article that it took Superman three years to reach Earth. The novelization for the fifth film states that it took Clark two and a half years to make the journey to Krypton and back to Earth.

1966: Jonathan Kent dies. Clark is 18 at about this time. Clark graduates high school according to the third film, this same year. He goes north to construct the Fortress.

1978: Clark is 30 at this time. Superman II takes place shortly after the first film, so it is the same year.

So Clark is 30 in the first two films. Christopher Reeve was 24 when he began shooting both films. He just happened to look 30 based on his genetics. Brandon Routh was 24 when he began filming "Superman Returns". He looks his age in the film, even though Superman is still supposed to be in his 30's. For the fifth film, the years are shifted around a bit, but the age is supposed to be consistant for both Lois and Clark. Even if the actors don't look it.

[Avenger08]

So if you just ignore that one line.... (basically there to justify Christopher Reeves looking older).... BAM!
It all works.


You cant just ignor lines in the movie! Its part of the PLOT! its the WHOLE REASON WE ARE ARGUING!
It doesnt matter WHY it was said, it WAS. In the movie, he starts as superman at around 28 years old (thank you Matt001 for the information). (and also chris reeve was like 25 so 3 years difference isnt huge. He clearly impregnates Lois and leaves for 5 years (fine, although it is rediculous that that kid is also playing a 5 year old) and he is now 33. The guy playing him is 24. The guy playing him does not look older in the slightest. A 9 year difference is rediculous. Its like a ten year old playing a 19 year old. It doesnt make sense. Plus the only physical similarity between the actor and the guy he was playing was black hair and being reletively tall

[Solaris01]

You cant just ignor lines in the movie! Its part of the PLOT! its the WHOLE REASON WE ARE ARGUING!
It doesnt matter WHY it was said, it WAS. In the movie, he starts as superman at around 28 years old (thank you Matt001 for the information). (and also chris reeve was like 25 so 3 years difference isnt huge. He clearly impregnates Lois and leaves for 5 years (fine, although it is rediculous that that kid is also playing a 5 year old) and he is now 33. The guy playing him is 24. The guy playing him does not look older in the slightest. A 9 year difference is rediculous. Its like a ten year old playing a 19 year old. It doesnt make sense. Plus the only physical similarity between the actor and the guy he was playing was black hair and being reletively tall

In short: you don't like Brandon Routh's look as Superman. Period. And that's fine.

But, to me and many people, including fans and professional critics, he has the look, the voice and he did a good/great job actingwise in the movie.

I mean, I SEE Superman when I look at these pictures, there is no way around that; he has the square jaw, the wide chin, the long face, he is tall, has the presence, he is in good physical shape/athletic --for live action-- without looking ridiculously big. Like I said, if you didn't have a problem with Reeve's build, you shouldn't have it with Routh's build. They were about the same in general. And he doesn't look so young to me; he looks like in his late 20s. They cast them young to age well into multiple films.


http://hollywooddame.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/superman-brandon-routh-1.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u107/shieldshero/routhmuscle.jpg


http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/eee5f855dd.jpg



.

[Avenger08]

In short: you don't like Brandon Routh's look as Superman. Period. And that's fine.


Y'know what. okay. I can understand that. I dont like him personally. He doesnt give me the feeling of superman that he does others. I can respect that some of you do like him as superman. I do understand how you could feel that way. I do. I just feel differently. Id prefer someone a bit older and bigger. And i personally have always thought Reeve was perfect and it always bothered me he'd ever be replaced. That is it.

[Jimmy'sFriend]

Brandon Routh's Superman was WAY too effeminate. He was a chick boy with chicken arms.

Start over from scratch! There is no reason why this is not THE best supe movie franchise!

Keep Lex, dump Superman.

[pariah-1972]

Brandon Routh's Superman was WAY too effeminate. He was a chick boy with chicken arms.

Start over from scratch! There is no reason why this is not THE best supe movie franchise!

Keep Lex, dump Superman.I endorse this statement (and find a new Lois too)

[Mat001]

Routh wasn't that skinny. He did bulk up for the part. The suit is what makes him look small because it doesn't allow for muscle definition. As to ages, Tom Welling was 25 playing 15 in season one. George Reeves was much older than the character was supposed to be at. Marc McClure was older than 16. Hugh Jackman was 33 playing Logan the first time, when the character is described as looking 55-62.

Because Superman has to look the enternal 30 year old, all actors have to be within that age bracket. Hell, there are 33 year olds who look 25-26. It's just how far we've come in the world.

[Jason1Kent]

Superman birthright in comic book form was stunning and scenes within in it were cinematic, that would translate into a fantastic movie, but! with retcon at the moment by Geoff Johns Superman Secret origin and him knowing/worked Richard Donner? He wrote the legion episode of Smallville? It makes sense to have Tom Welling become Superman on the big Screen . It could be worked so well and with a seasons of back story, the earnings could be very high.

[Mat001]

Welling refuses to put on the costume. So, it would have to happen without him.

[Avenger08]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT EVER HAVE THAT GUY EVER BE SUPERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE. IF THERE IS A GOD DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ill DEAL with Brandon Routh. But please NOT tom wellings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pariah-1972]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT EVER HAVE THAT GUY EVER BE SUPERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE. IF THERE IS A GOD DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ill DEAL with Brandon Routh. But please NOT tom wellings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate to tell you but Welling could do a better job cause he has much more acting experience than Routh and is better fit for the part.

[Avenger08]

Yea but at least Routh has SOME level of acting ability. Tom Wellings has NONE!

[pariah-1972]

Yea but at least Routh has SOME level of acting ability. Tom Wellings has NONE!You must have you're wires crossed Routh wasn't even allowed to do much acting in the movie.


Welling may not be the greatest actor ever but he has carried a television show for what ? ten years? that's a lot of acting experience under his belt.

[Avenger08]

I know actually. But everyone waas saying how Routh was a good actor so i figured id go with the flow even though he SUCKED in Superman Returns. and it doesnt matter if tom wellings has been acting as teenage superman for years (10?) He is a TERRIBLE actor and NO ONE should see the Smallville show as being legitimate superman. IT is rediculous.

[pariah-1972]

I know actually. But everyone waas saying how Routh was a good actor so i figured id go with the flow even though he SUCKED in Superman Returns. and it doesnt matter if tom wellings has been acting as teenage superman for years (10?) He is a TERRIBLE actor and NO ONE should see the Smallville show as being legitimate superman. IT is rediculous.

I don't know honestly i don't think i'm the best judge of actor's but i don't think Welling would do a bad job or any worse than Routh.

I also think Superman would be hard to pull off movie wise nowadays because the audience has changed and grown more cynical especially in terms of sci fi and superhero movies.

[Avenger08]

True to the second part.

But the only difference between Routh being a bad actor and Wellings being a bad actor is wellings, you just HATE HIM. Well, i do at least. Everything hes in he plays himself. No change whatsoever. You just wish hed get beat up somewhere in it.

[pariah-1972]

True to the second part.

But the only difference between Routh being a bad actor and Wellings being a bad actor is wellings, you just HATE HIM. Well, i do at least. Everything hes in he plays himself. No change whatsoever. You just wish hed get beat up somewhere in it.I don't have a problem with Wellings so don't understand the hate.

[son of jorel]

superman movie will only be succesful if they give him some balls and make him the guy he is supposed to be. in superman returns, it was like the makers were almost embarrassed bout the power of the character and went out of their way to try and 'humble' him. first they had him under the thrall of an ordinary woman, then they had him get the crap kicked out of him by harold ( or was it kumar)? they get rid of the 'truth justice and americanway bit also. final indignaty, him on some hospital bed fighting for his life! talk about 'soap-opera-ing the man of steel. wtf?! all you needed was the subplot of a romance between some flighty nurse and some hunky doctor. gimme a freakin' break!

this was a caring sharing pussified womans own version of what a female audience would want a superman to be. a castrated hero buried under a ton of pc nonsense. say what you want about the crapness of wolverine:origins...at least the guy kicked ass...with a cigar in his mouth and a wife beater vest. ditto for heroes like current batman and james bond. fans want action adventure and scorching heat vision. not romance angst and humility. i am sure i spotted the bulge of a 'tampax' in supes codpiece at one stage.

give supes some bollocks, give him an enemy people actually want and one that will test him (brainiac, doomsday) not named luthor (who has been in every superman film from chris reeves to present including smallville. boooring). make supes smart. funny. tough and make him a hero everybody looks up to, no matter what race creed or religion they may be, chris reeves kicked zods arse. brandon routh spent his time being a stalker over selfish ( me me me ) lois lane. pathetic. never mind some poor village somewhere was probably being buried under a ton of lava from an erupting volcano. this guy was too busy stalking and scoping lois at home in her underwear with super-vision . poor villagers!

the guy is supposed to be the 'man of steel'. film makers revel in that instead of castrating him and ya may have a hit!

[Jimmy'sFriend]

superman movie will only be succesful if they give him some balls and make him the guy he is supposed to be. in superman returns, it was like the makers were almost embarrassed bout the power of the character and went out of their way to try and 'humble' him. first they had him under the thrall of an ordinary woman, then they had him get the crap kicked out of him by harold ( or was it kumar)? they get rid of the 'truth justice and americanway bit also. final indignaty, him on some hospital bed fighting for his life! talk about 'soap-opera-ing the man of steel. wtf?! all you needed was the subplot of a romance between some flighty nurse and some hunky doctor. gimme a freakin' break!

this was a caring sharing pussified womans own version of what a female audience would want a superman to be. a castrated hero buried under a ton of pc nonsense. say what you want about the crapness of wolverine:origins...at least the guy kicked ass...with a cigar in his mouth and a wife beater vest. ditto for heroes like current batman and james bond. fans want action adventure and scorching heat vision. not romance angst and humility. i am sure i spotted the bulge of a 'tampax' in supes codpiece at one stage.

give supes some bollocks, give him an enemy people actually want and one that will test him (brainiac, doomsday) not named luthor (who has been in every superman film from chris reeves to present including smallville. boooring). make supes smart. funny. tough and make him a hero everybody looks up to, no matter what race creed or religion they may be, chris reeves kicked zods arse. brandon routh spent his time being a stalker over selfish ( me me me ) lois lane. pathetic. never mind some poor village somewhere was probably being buried under a ton of lava from an erupting volcano. this guy was too busy stalking and scoping lois at home in her underwear with super-vision . poor villagers!

the guy is supposed to be the 'man of steel'. film makers revel in that instead of castrating him and ya may have a hit!


I agree with all of that! I wa just to lazy to explain it!!! Nicely put.

[Avenger08]

Same here! well put

[Andreas Tanis]

I agree as well, we need a tough almost no nonsense Superman, yet still one that doesn't kill.

[UltraMagnetic]

superman movie will only be succesful if they give him some balls and make him the guy he is supposed to be. in superman returns, it was like the makers were almost embarrassed bout the power of the character and went out of their way to try and 'humble' him. first they had him under the thrall of an ordinary woman, then they had him get the crap kicked out of him by harold ( or was it kumar)? they get rid of the 'truth justice and americanway bit also. final indignaty, him on some hospital bed fighting for his life! talk about 'soap-opera-ing the man of steel. wtf?! all you needed was the subplot of a romance between some flighty nurse and some hunky doctor. gimme a freakin' break!

this was a caring sharing pussified womans own version of what a female audience would want a superman to be. a castrated hero buried under a ton of pc nonsense. say what you want about the crapness of wolverine:origins...at least the guy kicked ass...with a cigar in his mouth and a wife beater vest. ditto for heroes like current batman and james bond. fans want action adventure and scorching heat vision. not romance angst and humility. i am sure i spotted the bulge of a 'tampax' in supes codpiece at one stage.

give supes some bollocks, give him an enemy people actually want and one that will test him (brainiac, doomsday) not named luthor (who has been in every superman film from chris reeves to present including smallville. boooring). make supes smart. funny. tough and make him a hero everybody looks up to, no matter what race creed or religion they may be, chris reeves kicked zods arse. brandon routh spent his time being a stalker over selfish ( me me me ) lois lane. pathetic. never mind some poor village somewhere was probably being buried under a ton of lava from an erupting volcano. this guy was too busy stalking and scoping lois at home in her underwear with super-vision . poor villagers!

the guy is supposed to be the 'man of steel'. film makers revel in that instead of castrating him and ya may have a hit!

My wife (then girlfriend) and her mother enjoyed the film while I left the movie feeling pretty pissed off.

Also, the only thing Singer should've kept from the Donner movies was the costume. The one in Superman Returns looks like somebody sewed a plastic S on an under armour outfit.

[Andreas Tanis]

At first I liked it but now that I look back on it, that Superman costume should've looked way different. The only thing I approve of now was the darkening of the blue on the suit, but the red should've been lighter in color.

[Seven_Ride]

My wife (then girlfriend) and her mother enjoyed the film while I left the movie feeling pretty pissed off.

Also, the only thing Singer should've kept from the Donner movies was the costume. The one in Superman Returns looks like somebody sewed a plastic S on an under armour outfit.
To the first point: I'd bet your wife and her mother aren't big superhero fans. Superman Returns was a film designed for them: Adults more interested in the emotion and drama, rather than the superfeats.

Which is why critics were positive about the film and word of mouth was good. And why the internet raviings were all of a "Singer must DIE-EEEEE!" variety. It's not a comic fans movie. At all.

To the second point, I think the costume was a decent update. My criticism of the film was that it wasn't exciting. Luthor's scheme was humdrum. It didn't have a lot of suspense. It didn't have a more awe-inspiring villain or challenge for Superman to fight. These are the things that put butts in seats.

And to garner $500 mil. takes MORE than a good film, or a better script, or villain or whatever. It has to hit at the right time. Batman Begins was a really good movie. But it made less than half of its sequel. Timing and circumstance.

[Andreas Tanis]

Superman needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to also feel like a comic book movie. Aside from General Zod, we have yet to see Superman go up against someone and the entire film be taken seriously. III & IV were utter disasters.