logo Sign In

Superman Movie — Page 9

Author
Time
Yep, I agree that Signs and The Village both sucked, but Unbreakable - I just can't speak a bad word against it. Conceptually, it is very rich, and even after having seen it once before, it had me on the edge of my seat as the main character unravelled more and more about himself (no sick days, sensing the gun, the weights, the drowning, the train wreck, the car crash). The criticism that his movie only revolved around one idea could also be praise - the movie had focus, and it wasn't trying to run all over the place - something perhaps the Hulk was guilty of. The idea of a real-life superhero; the true 'everyman', was presented in a fresh, believeable way.

I thought The Sixth Sense was good also, but I haven't seen it since I saw it at the cinema.

I also neglected to include Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles among the great comic book movies - I guess that's because I associate TMNT more with the cartoons. The first installment was 1hr 20mins of cinematic gold, but I watched TMNT II: Secret of the Ooze this morning, and I must say, my nostalgia was the only thing that kept me going. II is absolutely horrid (for my part, I'm glad I recorded over the VHS and only borrowed the DVD from a friend). I can only imagine III: Turtles in Time sucked worse than I thought it did when I first saw it (the lack of any real villain killed it for me).

I'm trying to be optimistic about Superman Returns, but I honestly can't see how I and II can be topped. I couldn't see how Burton's Batman was going to be topped either, but the approach meant that it didn't have to - to my mind, Begins joins the triumvirate of great Batman movies - it wasn't better or worse, it was just different, in a good way. But this Superman movie is supposed to be a sequel...mistake number one.

II was a great sequel because it was always intended, woven into the storyline, and filmed simultaneously. III and IV were just irredeemable crap.

What's more, I watched the screen tests for Superman a few days ago - who's going to have better on-screen chemistry than Reeve and Kidder? Who's going to be a better Clark Kent than Reeve? Who's going to be a better Lois Lane than Kidder? Not to mention Hackman as Luthor - brilliant - what a loveable villain!

I think I just killed my own optimism. The only way this movie was going to win was if it took a different approach. At least it's not based on Smallville, though, right?
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
And am I the *only* person who can only think of Kevin Spacey as 'Dr. Evil' whenever I see shots of him as Luthor?

http://mlans.dynip.com/blogpics/2002-08/2002-08-06-spacey-thumb.jpg
Author
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
SIGNS WAS SO OVER HYPED AS A "SCARY" MOVIE. IT WAS ANYTHING BUT THAT. IMO, IT WAS M. NIGHT'S NEXT WORST MOVIE WITH THAT CREDIT GOING TO THE VILLAGE. I LOVED UNBREAKABLE. THIS WAS A REALISTIC (AS ONE COULD GET WITHOUT GOING OVER-THE-TOP) TAKE ON SUPER HEROES.


Here's the problem I have with Signs: The aliens have the technology to travel billions of lightyears across the galaxy. They have the strength to jump right up on Mel Gibson's roof. And yet they can't even bust down Mel's f*ckin' basement door?! I don't think so!

Not to mention the fact that I don't buy Mel Gibson as such a pansy after watching movies like Braveheart, Mad Max, and The Patriot.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: greencapt
And am I the *only* person who can only think of Kevin Spacey as 'Dr. Evil' whenever I see shots of him as Luthor?

http://mlans.dynip.com/blogpics/2002-08/2002-08-06-spacey-thumb.jpg


No. No you aren't, Greencapt. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who has had this on the brain. I keep hearing "You'd better watch your frickin' self, Kal-El."
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
SIGNS WAS SO OVER HYPED AS A "SCARY" MOVIE. IT WAS ANYTHING BUT THAT. IMO, IT WAS M. NIGHT'S NEXT WORST MOVIE WITH THAT CREDIT GOING TO THE VILLAGE. I LOVED UNBREAKABLE. THIS WAS A REALISTIC (AS ONE COULD GET WITHOUT GOING OVER-THE-TOP) TAKE ON SUPER HEROES.


Here's the problem I have with Signs: The aliens have the technology to travel billions of lightyears across the galaxy. They have the strength to jump right up on Mel Gibson's roof. And yet they can't even bust down Mel's f*ckin' basement door?! I don't think so!

Not to mention the fact that I don't buy Mel Gibson as such a pansy after watching movies like Braveheart, Mad Max, and The Patriot.


And let's not forget that despite the fact water kills them, they can walk around in our H2O-based atmosphere without harm! What sort of retarded alien force would attempt to invade a planet that is two-thirds lethal to them?!

As for this Kevin Spacey picture - is that for real?! Surely it's a conscious tip-of-the-hat to Austin Powers.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
That picture is taken from the pre-credits sequence of Austin Powers 3 (which was the best part of the movie, IMO).

OK, This is going way off-topic, but someone mentioned Mel Gibson, so I gotta ask - Does anyone know if that story about Mel Gibson getting horribly disfigured then a priest paying for his cosmetic surgery and Mel becoming a devout christian is true? Sounds far-fetched to me. I mean, Mel Gibson has always been a pretty good looking guy, so facial disfigurement seems unlikely.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
That picture is taken from the pre-credits sequence of Austin Powers 3 (which was the best part of the movie, IMO).

OK, This is going way off-topic, but someone mentioned Mel Gibson, so I gotta ask - Does anyone know if that story about Mel Gibson getting horribly disfigured then a priest paying for his cosmetic surgery and Mel becoming a devout christian is true? Sounds far-fetched to me. I mean, Mel Gibson has always been a pretty good looking guy, so facial disfigurement seems unlikely.


Nope... Urban Legend Though he is of course very devout but that's from upbringing and not scarring.

I'll post a better screencap of Spacey as 'Evil' when I make one. The above was the first one I could find online.
Author
Time
I hate to get off the topic of bashing the M. Night movies, but let me just say this -

Kate Bosworth is too young to be playing Lois Lane. Period. I'm sorry but Lois Lane needs to be at least 30.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Not being a watcher of 'Smallville' I just generally hate the '90120-ification' of the whole affair.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron

I'm trying to be optimistic about Superman Returns, but I honestly can't see how I and II can be topped. I couldn't see how Burton's Batman was going to be topped either, but the approach meant that it didn't have to - to my mind, Begins joins the triumvirate of great Batman movies - it wasn't better or worse, it was just different, in a good way. But this Superman movie is supposed to be a sequel...mistake number one.

II was a great sequel because it was always intended, woven into the storyline, and filmed simultaneously. III and IV were just irredeemable crap.

What's more, I watched the screen tests for Superman a few days ago - who's going to have better on-screen chemistry than Reeve and Kidder? Who's going to be a better Clark Kent than Reeve? Who's going to be a better Lois Lane than Kidder? Not to mention Hackman as Luthor - brilliant - what a loveable villain!

I think I just killed my own optimism. The only way this movie was going to win was if it took a different approach. At least it's not based on Smallville, though, right?


I think Anne Archer would have been a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. To be honest, I never liked Margot Kidder's Lois Lane, she always struck me as being too scatter-brained to be a reporter, not to mention that obnoxious voice. I never liked "lovable villain" Lex all that much either, nor was I a big fan of the bumbling nerd Clark Kent, but despite those quibbles I still enjoy the first two films.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Lois Lane was only scatterbrained around Superman - the whole vulnerability thing - and then she was strong and assertive around Kent. At least, that's the way I saw it, and that's why I liked Kidder's portrayal. I thought she had the dual personalities going pretty well.

As for Hackman, what he (IMHO) highlighted about Luthor was this - his genius; his clever schemes; his pragmatism; and his cockiness. Whenever he unveiled a plot in the movie, I chuckled, and thought, what genius! Of course, the logical leaps that he makes in determining Superman's weakness to Kryptonite are rather dubious, but still...

And then when he revealed his motives, I'd laugh, but I'd also be amazed at how much sense they make!
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Lois Lane was only scatterbrained around Superman - the whole vulnerability thing - and then she was strong and assertive around Kent. At least, that's the way I saw it, and that's why I liked Kidder's portrayal. I thought she had the dual personalities going pretty well.

As for Hackman, what he (IMHO) highlighted about Luthor was this - his genius; his clever schemes; his pragmatism; and his cockiness. Whenever he unveiled a plot in the movie, I chuckled, and thought, what genius! Of course, the logical leaps that he makes in determining Superman's weakness to Kryptonite are rather dubious, but still...

And then when he revealed his motives, I'd laugh, but I'd also be amazed at how much sense they make!

Hackman's Luthor never struck me as particularly clever. Kidder's Lois Lane seemed dumb even around Clark Kent. She couldn't even spell.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Peterson still wants Batman Vs.Superman

Posted by Clint Morris on March 20, 2006

It was all set to go a couple of years ago, it just never, excuse the pun, took off. Talking of course about the much talked-about “Batman vs. Superman” – the script of which, has been widely available on the internet longer than Frank Castle’s been The Punisher – which director Wolfgang Peterson was set to steer into production, before he got a woody for swords and swords and went and done “Troy” instead.
You remember the one? In it, Batman and Superman have a bit of a skirmish. Capes fly, as they say. Everyone from Jude Law to John Travolta (priceless!) to Colin Farrell was apparently in talks to take part in the production. At the end of the day, Warner decided to ditch the idea – for the meantime anyway – and relaunch the solo adventures of Clark and Brucie, respectively.
There are rumblings that the Superhero teaming will happen at one stage, but not until after a couple of solo efforts for the new “Batman” and “Superman”, which would make sense. Having said that, it’s a shoe-in that both Brandon ‘Superman’ Routh and Christian ‘Batman’ Bale will reprise their roles for the two-hander.
IESB caught up with Peterson and asked him whether he was still interested in bringing “Batman Vs.Superman” to the big screen still – even if it is in twenty years time – and though he reminds that it’s “on the shelf right now”, he did confirm that “at one point” he might do it.
The script for "Batman Vs.Superman", by "Se7en" writer Andrew Kevin Walker, sees an aged Bruce Wayne - who lost Robin, the boy wonder, some five years before - retired from Batman duties and retiring with new fiancee Elizabeth. Unfortunately, Batman's old foes return just after their wedding - namely, The Joker - and Elizabeth is murdered. Hell-bent on getting revenge, Bruce dons the cape again in a mission to destroy the clown prince of crime. Superman, fearing Batman is about to cross the line and become a murderer like the criminals he chases, ends up clashing with the Caped Crusader over his motives - and the heroes are set on a violent collission against each other. Unbeknownst to the heroes, their actions are falling in line with a villainous plot by Lex Luthor, who is responsible for the resurrection of the Joker.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Yeah, that actually sounds pretty cool. I think it's one for the 'movies that should be comics' thread though, rather than a movie.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Yeah, that actually sounds pretty cool. I think it's one for the 'movies that should be comics' thread though, rather than a movie.


Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm sure Batman and Superman have gone toe to toe like this before...and if I recall correctly, Batman won somehow - any comic book nerds wanna back me up on this?
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
You know, as much as it is to imagine Superman ripping apart the Batmobile or Bat-Wing or any given Bat-vehicle, I'm afraid I can't go along with this Batman VS. Superman thing. It's just too... Freddy VS. Jason.

Now, on to the new thing from Variety.

Tights in a twist
Rival tentpoles test limits of studios' franchise factory

By TED JOHNSON

A year or so ago, Bryan Singer was working feverishly on a third edition of the "X-Men""X-Men" franchise when he suddenly jumped from Fox to Warner Bros. to take over "Superman." Shortly thereafter, Brett Ratner, who'd been working on "Superman," jumped over to Fox to take on "X-Men 3: The Last Stand."

This summer's battle of the comicbook blockbusters comes down to the Bryan-and-Brett show, with roughly half a billion dollars in production and print and ad costs on the line.

The switcheroo may be less a coincidence than a symptom of the uphill battle that any studio faces in trying to revive a lucrative and pricey franchises whose pricetag can run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

The value of these tentpoles can't be measured just in terms of B.O. and DVD sales -- or in their cultural cachet as prime movers of the dueling D.C. and Marvel comic-book dynasties.

The hope is that each will lead to a legacy of projects. "Last Stand" is the final "X-Men" film and Fox hopes to spin off characters into their own pics; Warner Bros., as it returns an important major franchise, is making plans for Singer to direct a "Superman" sequel.

Both projects will test the limits of the tentpole strategy in an era of ever heightened expectations for storylines and special effects; more sophisticated techniques of marketing and even a wider network of licensing and promotion.

By the time "Superman Returns' comes out June 30, the "S" logo will be used to sell everything from soft drinks to motor oil. And toy manufacturers hope that products like the Superman InflatoSuit will help revive a sluggish licensing industry.

In style and substance, each director has unique capabilities. Singer, 40, and Ratner, 37, both come with oversized, charismatic personalities (Singer speaks to the set via a voice-of-God like microphone; Ratner is notorious for juggling as many as three cell phones simultaneously); an affinity for the nightlife; a special skill at working within the system; and, perhaps most importantly, a knack for showmanship.

Singer chronicled his experience making "Superman" in an antic-filled video blog on bluetights.net. Ratner sent out holiday cards with him dressed as X-Men's Wolverine, surrounded by the other mutants.

The projects still generate almost a daily noise and speculation, such as "Superman's" long and occasionally disorganized shoot. (Warners execs say they're more than pleased with the results). Fan sites, meanwhile, have mused on such things as the size of Halle Berry's role (small in the first two, bigger in No. 3) and the size of Superman's bulge.

And, as with all high-profile projects, there is speculation on the budget. Sources say the budget of "X-Men" hovers near $150 million. WB says "Superman" cost $184 million. But as any studio vet can tell you, quoted figures have a way of being much different than actual costs.

Singer's stamp is all over the first two "X-Men" pics, and when he ankled the "X-Men 3," Fox turned to "Layer Cake" director Matthew Vaughn. But Vaughn backed out, reportedly because he didn't want to relocate his family to Vancouver for the length of the shoot.

Ratner was hired when the film was in pre-productionpre-production. He was an unknown factor to the actors who'd been in the first two. "It's always a test with great acting talent," says Marvel CEO Avi Arad, a producer on the pic. "But the talent got to meet and know him. If they had gotten uncomfortable we would have had a problem. But Brett is a real actor's director."

is straying from the usual marketing conventions. It is trying to brand the tentpole as a "thinking person's action film," in the words of studio co-chairman Tom Rothman.

Downplaying doubts expressed on a few noisy Internet sites, Fox notes that the franchise has been embraced by geeks and fans; a recently unveiled trailer, studio execs say, has been well received. And the pic has the brand recognition after the first two, which grossed $700 million worldwide

The marketing pitch is darker and more ambiguous than those of its predecessors. The plot, which hinges on what happens when a "cure""Cure" for mutantcy is developed, explores big ideas about identity and race. The posters and billboards are as moody as a fashion shoot. They show isolated X-Men characters posed against the somewhat cryptic copyline, "Take a Stand." The trailer, which debuted in March during "24," is similarly somber.

"We wanted this film to be different from all of the other movies in the summer," Rothman says. "We wanted people to stop and not have it be so immediately apparent that we're selling a movie. We're interested in selling an emotion and an idea."

Warner Bros. has taken its lumps in the press after laboring for some 13 years through different Superman ideas and reinventions (see timeline). The studio at one point abandoned it altogether after spending almost $20 million in production and development costs.

Singer's approach was to create a much more traditional story that is a loose continuation of 1978's "Superman: The Movie" and 1981's "Superman II," using parts of John Williams' score and even old footage of Marlon Brando, while at the same time injecting new twists and turns. In the new pic, Superman returns to Earth after a long absence, only to find that Lois Lane has moved on with her life. The big question is whether she or anyone else still needs a superhero.

"The best thing we did was to engage Bryan Singer," says Jeff Robinov, president of production at Warner Bros. "From the second he came on, a lot of the energy -- both positive and negative floating around the movie before that -- dissipated and shifted. It became about what Bryan was going to do. He had a very specific story in mind, and it is very different from any story we've had before."

There will be subtle deviations from tradition. The slogan "Truth, Justice and the American Way" won't be heard; instead, newspaper editor Perry White says "Truth, justice, all that stuff." It's a nuance that could help bolster international appeal, at a time when the image of the United States is not exactly at its zenith.

The studio also sees even greater marketability in the character than, for example, Batman, a franchise that was itself revived last year with "Batman Begins." That character's dark persona is harder to translate into toys and promotional partnerships.

"Superman isn't caught up in the same angst that other characters like Spider-Man or Batman are," says Gaetano Mastropasqua, Warners' corporate senior VP of global promotions and partner relations. "Superman stands for truth, justice and a positive way of life."

The studio is undertaking what it calls an unprecedented campaign to promote "Superman Returns" with corporate partners that include Pepsi, Perfect Match.com, Burger King, Duracell and Quaker State Motor Oil. The "S" Superman logo will on Quaker State's Q Line, used for high-performance cars like Ferraris.

The idea is to get across Superman's "power, strength and durability," Mastropasqua says.

Promotional partners for "X-Men 3" have not yet been revealed.

All of this stands in sharp contrast to the way the previous "Superman" feature franchise was launched in the 1970s, when few people took the idea of a big-budget comicbook picture seriously. Back then, Warner Bros. execs were indifferent when producers Ilya and Alexandre Salkind wrangled movie rights to Superman from the studio's sister division National Periodical Publications, forerunner to DC ComicsDC Comics. In fact, only when Marlon Brando signed on to play Jor-El did the studio take interest, and only then as distributor.

By the time "Superman: The Movie" was released in 1978, the budget had swelled to $110 million, and "we owed about $60 million," Ilya Salkind recalls. Only when two sequels were released in 1981 and 1983, respectively, did they begin to recoup their investment.

The franchise died out after the failure of 1987's "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," which was farmed out to Golan Globus' Cannon Films. Although distributed and co-produced by Warner Bros., Cannon skimped on the budget, forgoing elaborate sets of Metropolis for a London industrial park.

After the success of "Batman""Batman" in 1989, Warner Bros. re-acquired the rights to "Superman" from the Salkinds, intent on reviving the franchise, but it struggled with how to reinvent the character as a feature film. Through four different directors (including Tim Burton) and about a dozen screenwriters, different scenarios were broached in which Superman is darker and more neurotic, and one in which Superman battles Batman.

Commercial prospects sometimes ran up against artistic efforts. When Burton was attached to the film, some screenwriters complained of demands to put in such things as spaceships that could be spun off as toys. And senior execs seemed reluctant to redo Superman as an existentialist hero, which conflicted with what enthusiasts have come to expect from the character. In fact, before they left their posts as studio chairmen, Robert Daly and Terry Semel shelved the project, which was later revived under Barry Meyer and Alan HornAlan Horn.

In marketing Singer's version, Warner Bros. has paid particular attention to the comicbook's fan base, some of whom were wary of previous incarnations and expressed their opinions so on high-trafficked Internet sites. Last summer, in the midst of shooting, the studio flew Singer via private jet from the film's Australian location to San Diego, where he screened footage at the annual Comic-Con comic book convention. The response was enthusiastic.

"You are never going to satisfy everybody," says producer Michael E. Uslan ("Batman," "Batman Begins"), who has started a new company called Comic Book Movies with financier M. Jonathan Roberts. "But if you can't satisfy the main part of the fan base, you are going to have problems. These are people who are not only schooled in the characters, the mythology and the history but also in the creators over the years. They know what they like."

(Additional reporting by Nicole LaPorte and Pamela McClintock in Los Angeles and Michaela Boland in Sydney.)
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Anybody else feel dirty after reading that article? Or that the ad industry thinks we're all suckers?
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Unfortunately, it's true for a large majority of the population.

"II was a great sequel because it was always intended, woven into the storyline, and filmed simultaneously."

Interestingly enough, the "Turning back time" plot point was originally set to be the ending for the second part.

And for the record, I thought the effects and acting in part two weren't up to par with part one.

"Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm sure Batman and Superman have gone toe to toe like this before...and if I recall correctly, Batman won somehow - any comic book nerds wanna back me up on this?"

Batman claimed he had placed a bomb on a citizen of Gotham, and would detonate it if Superman tried to take him.

As it turned out, Batman was technically correct: he had placed the bomb on himself - he would never take the innocent life of another.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
There will be subtle deviations from tradition. The slogan "Truth, Justice and the American Way" won't be heard; instead, newspaper editor Perry White says "Truth, justice, all that stuff." It's a nuance that could help bolster international appeal, at a time when the image of the United States is not exactly at its zenith.


You gotta be kidding me......

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
There will be subtle deviations from tradition. The slogan "Truth, Justice and the American Way" won't be heard; instead, newspaper editor Perry White says "Truth, justice, all that stuff." It's a nuance that could help bolster international appeal, at a time when the image of the United States is not exactly at its zenith.


You gotta be kidding me......


Well, Americans are the only ones that take that cheesy crap seriously, and not even all of them do...
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
It's not that, it's the fact that they're taking the tagline that's been with Superman since day one, and altering it. That's like GL changing "May the force be with you!" to "May the midichlorians be with you!", just to fit in with the newer crowd better.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg