[Stu]

www.deadline.com/2010/10/zack-snyder-directing-superman/
I'm cautiously optimistic. I enjoyed the action of 300 and I thought Watchmen was as good an adaptation as we're going to get. Some people will deride the choice as all style and no substance, but they're forgetting Nolan's producing and he and Goyer are involved in the story/script, so we can hopefully strike a nice balance between Superman punches stuff in fast-slow-fast motion(Snyder's style makes a lot of sense dealing with a character who can move at Superspeed), and a good story.

[BFG]

Watchmen and 300 both had the right look, the right pacing, and the over all style the fit the content. If he can do the same with Superman, it will be a huge success as the last move did OK at the box office despite sucking balls.

That being said, I'm not sure you can do a good Superman story unless it's an origin story, his death, or it involves Batman.

[OpTard]

i love that we live in a world where 200m domestic and 390 worldwide is only "ok"

[Stu]

Well it was considered disappointing by WB who expected 500 Million worldwide. Compare it to how well The Dark Knight did with over a billion dollars. Also, was that earning for AFTER it made it's $209 Million budget back?

[OpTard]

expectations and overspending don't change almost 400 mil worldwide being a nice haul. there are movies with a lot more effects that cost a lot less.

simply put, regardless WBs hopes and actions, at 390m worldwide, superman returns had a sizeable theater audience. and in today's world of TV and DVD it was a very profitable venture for warner brothers.

and you know what, while they made some fatal errors in that movie, it is overall really not that bad. get rid of superbaby, cut the creepy x-ray vision stalking of lois. it wasn't the best superman movie they coulda made. woulda loved if he had someone to punch. but it far from "sucked balls."

[Habs]

Oct 6, 2010 12:22:08 GMT -5 OpTard said:

but it far from "sucked balls."

And Ziggy knows all about sucking balls so if he says so, it has to be so.

[BFG]

So what was good about Superman Returns?

I felt that it was a boring movie. If the plot interested you, I'd be interested to know why. I felt the chemistry between Routh and Bosworth was lacking, which considering Superman relies on that relationship is a big deal. And Spacey performance was more inline with what Tommy Lee Jones did in Batman Forever, then any of the newer Batman villains. Heck, I'd say most of the post X-Men superhero flicks have had better performances from the lead baddie. Which would be fine if the rest of the movie had the live cartoon feel.

And if you want to look at it from the money side...the budget for the movie was $270 million. How the fuck was I being anything but kind is saying a $391,081,192 world wide take was "OK". Honestly, that's just horrible when you consider the hype around the movie. The movie did less business the freaking Despicable Me, and barely out did the new Karate Kid movie. Saying it was profitable considering how big the marketing machine behind the movie was just doesn't hold up.

When you look at the amount of screens it was on, and the amount of effort it took to make that, it's not a good thing. Heck, didn't Iron Man 2 make that much in 10 days?

[OpTard]

and you ignore my point that overspending does not make 390 million a bad haul. 390 million is a lot of money. MOST movies would kill to make that much, but most movies don't cost over 200 million to make. which was basically the point of my original post where i said "i love that we live in a world where 200m domestic and 390 worldwide is only ok." meaning that they spend too much making these movies. transformers had more, and better, effects than superman returns and it cost 150m. iron man had more, and better, effects than superman returns and it was made for 140m. and they spent 210m, possibly more, on that movie. beats me where this money goes.

i also find it kinda funny that you list out the exact gross listed from wikipedia but added a random 61 million to the budget from what both wiki and imdb posts to help prove your point.

as far as spacey's take on luthor goes, i don't think it was at all like tommy lee jones' two face. i think he was doing hackman's luthor, which whether you agree with the choice or not seems right in line with their goals for the movie.

in regards to what's enjoyable and what isn't, whatever. that's subjective. i'm not trying to convince you of anything. i thought it was a decent movie that made a few really really really bad choices. you're welcome to have your own opinion.

[Stu]

Your new Superman:
www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73652
If you've seen the movie Stardust, he was the village douchebag who was rivalling the main character for Sienna Miller's interest.

[Stu]

It's officially called Man of Steel, and Zod's the villain
blog.newsarama.com/2011/04/10/snyders-superman-has-a-foe-and-official-title/
So he should definitely be shown punching someone in the face in it.