Superman Returns . . . . . . and crash lands
#31
Posted 14 July 2006 - 08:52 PM
#32
Posted 14 July 2006 - 10:55 PM
Excellently said. I can safely say that I enjoyed the latest version of Superman just as much as I did the "new" Batman...both really were just reasonably entertaining and well made but not particuarly memorable bits of pop culture fluff. Really, one is about a man dressing all in bat-themed bondage gear and another wears his red undies outside of his blue tights. It's not art OR rocket science...it's 4-color-funnymen smacking about the baddies and being self-important. Done and done.
#33
Posted 15 July 2006 - 01:25 AM
Oh, and Batman Begins borrowed story elements from established Batman lore. It took from some of the classic stuff that Bob Kane thought up, and mostly from the newest versions of his origins, namely Year One by Frank Miller and The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb. And it's actually pretty damn close to the current origin that Batman has in the comics, and it's way closer to Batman as a character than the new Superman is. Again, just me here.
#34
Posted 15 July 2006 - 12:23 PM
#36
Posted 16 July 2006 - 11:42 PM
I could really rip this film apart and I'm very aware of that, but I went into it with a very open mind and came out of it with that feeling of enjoyment. That in itself is a happy thing for me. I was worried about Routh but I thought he was great and performed s well as anyone could given the shoes he was stepping into, both the mythology of Superman and the performance of Chris Reeve.
Just a point of clarification on the pre and post crisis Superman. Yes he was powered down from the Silver Age, but he has since been shown to exhibit these almost godlike abilities from time to time. I cannot recal the story line, but one of the comics I read that was definately post-crisis (possibly in the JLA book) Superman is shown to be holding the moon in its orbit and stopping it from crashing into the planet. The moon I believe is a little heavier than the island he lifted at the end of the film so there really should be no issue with this. The Kryptonite infusion however, that is what should have made the difference and I agree with Civ#2. I would have liked to have seen a more cerebral resolution.
All up though I enjoyed this film.
This post has been edited by Supes: 16 July 2006 - 11:44 PM
Yoda
#37
Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:43 AM
I may be out of touch, but the Batman I read about didn't seriously contemplate murdering his parents' killer, and he was not trained by ninjas in the service of Ra's Al Ghoul. Everything in BB was totally circular, to the point that if Batman said he was going to eat a hot dog we knew we were going to have to watch him take a dump later. This kind of screenwriting becomes predictable and dull; the occasionaly atmospheric moment would have worked wonders.
I think though a problem is that the filmmakers chickened out on the moral ambiguity of the Batman. Rather than show us the struggle of conscience as Bruce beats up simple thugs and similarly-troubled economic criminals, he goes straight after organized crime from his first action. Not a single throwaway scene like a bank robbery or a purse snatching. I guess a chief complaint for me is that with the three villains along with the origin story (al threads includint eh origin story tied stupidly together), Batman Begins seemed rushed.
I didn't mean in any way to compare it with Superman Returns. BB is the best of the Batman films by far, while SR did not live up to the two Superman films it tried to follow.
#38
Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:09 AM
by at least 57grams
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#39
Posted 17 July 2006 - 05:11 PM
Superman Returns, on the other hand, is only true to the Donner Superman and manages to ignore everything that has come since. There are so many stories, characters, sequences, and ideas that they could have found inspiration in while making SR and they (the creators) chose not to. They also did not seek DC's blessing on this film and WB made the mistake (imo) of giving Singer and company complete creative control over the project with no check and balance system in place. By ignoring so many different stories and versions of Superman mythos to "borrow" from they managed to neglect an entire segment of the audience. It's interesting to note that many comic book writers, artists, and people in the comic industry have been very critical of this movie. I will find the quotes and post them as I'm sure some of you will be skeptical of this. It included Rob Leifeld (sp?), Geoff Johns, Dan Didio, and Paul Levitz himself. Levitz is the current CEO of DC and he was very let down by SR.
Again, we just have to agree to disagree, and I find your p.o.v. extremely interesting and I respect it completely, but I found BB to be a far more interesting, entertaining, and engaging film that never once bored me or made me check my watch to see how much longer I had to wait before it was over. Something that I, sadly, did through both viewings of SR.
On a related note, SR dropped at the box office to 4th place with just over 11 million dollars. It's total stands at around 163 or so million dollars, and most are predicting that it will NOT hit the 200 million dollar mark. The current prediction, based on the trends at the box office, the films being released this weekend, the number of screens it's still playing on, and the large percentage of audience drop off that SR has experienced over the weeks, is predicted to be somewhere around 188 million dollars. One can only hope.
I'm not trying to be mean, I swear. I just really don't want to see a sequel to this movie get made.
** Oh yeah, Barend... YOU CRACK ME UP!!
#41
Posted 17 July 2006 - 11:35 PM
In my best Queenie from Blackadder voice... "I think you'll find it's 58grams with pink elephants."
Yoda
#42
Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:09 AM
I'm not trying to be mean, I swear. I just really don't want to see a sequel to this movie get made.
You're ignoring the total gross, including box office outside of the US (almost always higher than total US gross) and the eventual DVD sales, which will be pretty damn huge. This film is a lock to have a sequel or two.
#43
Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:16 AM
Well, the film's around $164 million now, and if I heard right there won't be a sequel unless it can crack $200 million domestically, not taking in the money they'll make from overseas (and I hear that SR is getting beaten over there by the Pirates sequel as well). Meanwhile, Pirates 2 is up to $258 million, breaking the previous July records set by Spider-Man. Of course, it's Warner Brothers own fault - they shouldn't have sent the new Superman up against the Pirates sequel. They should have either released Superman in June or waited for either Thanksgiving or Christmas, especially since there are no Harry Potter and no Lord of the Ring movies out to compete against.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#44
Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:32 AM
You're ignoring the total gross, including box office outside of the US (almost always higher than total US gross) and the eventual DVD sales, which will be pretty damn huge. This film is a lock to have a sequel or two.
Lord Aquaman is correct. WB has stated that unless SR cracks $200 million domestic, just DOMESTIC, not including the international gross, there will be NO sequel to SR. The reason behind this is because the reports now say they spent close to $260 million on this film. That's just the budget on the filming and post. It's reported they spent another $50 - $100 million on advertising and publicity for SR. In order for them to green light a sequel, they feel they have to break that $200 million mark. The international and DVD sales will NOT count because there is money to be spent there as well, including international ads and publicity, and then the pressing of the DVD's and the ads for when it is released on DVD among other things. They will have to try and recoup any money spent in those areas, not including the theatrical release. Basically, in order for SR not to be a total loss, it must make at least $200 million domestically, which all projections show now, isn't going to happen. Most industry analysts I've talked to and have read are expecting it to fizzle out at around $188 million. The Lord is also correct in stating that it is not doing well overseas because of the competition from Pirates.
If I don't sound disappointed, you're right. And I'm sorry if I anger or upset anyone out there, that is not my intention. I'm just glad that it's not doing well enough to warrant a sequel. I don't know what they would do, but I doubt that it would be very good. They have written themselves into a corner by introducing the kid and anything that would come next would be contrived, and maybe even painful to watch. I have also "heard" that heads are rolling at WB over this movie. No matter what they say, they were hoping that this movie would be their Spider-man, which it clearly is not.
This post has been edited by Jedi_Arco: 18 July 2006 - 11:33 AM
#45
Posted 18 July 2006 - 08:29 PM
and just how good is your queenie voice, pray tell?
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)