The first glimpse of the trailer is tonight during Smallville.
And, I believe, attached to HP4.
Then I will see it at 12:01am. And enjoy it.
The second John Williams score kicks in, I got a bad case of goosebumps.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
I'v3 w4+ch3d 1+ f1v3 +1m3Z 50 f4R. I+ 5+1ll 61v3Z m3 60053bUmp5. @l45, EyE h4v3 4l50 l34Rn3d m0R3 4b0U+ +h3 f1lm +h4+ d03Z 1ncR3453 mY h0p35. @l45, 4l4ck, 4nd 4ll +h4+.
Effy-bay, top-say hat-thay hit-shay ow-nay.
Quote from: Dots on November 18, 2005, 12:23:37 PM
Effy-bay, top-say hat-thay hit-shay on-nay.
Beffy, stop that shit non?
Quote from: Beefy on November 18, 2005, 07:07:31 AM
The second John Williams score kicks in, I got a bad case of goosebumps.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
As I've said in another thread, the Superman theme (John Williams) is the one song that consistently makes me say, "Fuck yeah! Superman!"
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: Beefy on November 18, 2005, 07:07:31 AM
The second John Williams score kicks in, I got a bad case of goosebumps.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
As I've said in another thread, the Superman theme (John Williams) is the one song that consistently makes me say, "Fuck yeah! Superman!"
I just realized how stupid that sounds.
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: Beefy on November 18, 2005, 07:07:31 AM
The second John Williams score kicks in, I got a bad case of goosebumps.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
As I've said in another thread, the Superman theme (John Williams) is the one song that consistently makes me say, "Fuck yeah! Superman!"
I just realized how stupid that sounds.
I don't think it's stupid. That how I felt when the music started and they showed the mailbox.
I've watched the trailer 6 times so far.
Quote from: Beefy on November 18, 2005, 05:49:36 PM
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: Beefy on November 18, 2005, 07:07:31 AM
The second John Williams score kicks in, I got a bad case of goosebumps.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
As I've said in another thread, the Superman theme (John Williams) is the one song that consistently makes me say, "Fuck yeah! Superman!"
I just realized how stupid that sounds.
I don't think it's stupid. That how I felt when the music started and they showed the mailbox.
I've watched the trailer 6 times so far.
What I had meant to say was, the Superman theme is the only one where I'm like, "yeah. Awesome." no matter WHAT it's playing under. Or when I hear it. I always get that fuzzy-nose-about-to-cry feeling because I'm like, "yeah. Superman. Awesome."
It's funny because Superman isn't even my favorite superhero.
Quote from: Beefy on November 17, 2005, 12:29:25 PM
The first glimpse of the trailer is tonight during Smallville.
And, I believe, attached to HP4.
it was part of HP4 and it wasnt even worth watching.
Quote from: Listener on November 18, 2005, 06:01:22 PM
It's funny because Superman isn't even my favorite superhero.
Nor mine.
I think maybe it has to do with what Superman is iconic of, what he represents.
I get weepy when I hear the Firefly theme.
I want to see the Superman movie. That's kind of weird because I have no desire whatsoever to see any other comic book based movies.
Quote from: Jessie on November 23, 2005, 02:25:46 PM
I want to see the Superman movie. That's kind of weird because I have no desire whatsoever to see any other comic book based movies.
Not even Batman?
Quote from: Jessie on November 23, 2005, 02:25:46 PM
I want to see the Superman movie. That's kind of weird because I have no desire whatsoever to see any other comic book based movies.
Too bad for you that Timothy's a geek-in-training.
Quote from: DownSouth on November 23, 2005, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: Jessie on November 23, 2005, 02:25:46 PM
I want to see the Superman movie. That's kind of weird because I have no desire whatsoever to see any other comic book based movies.
Not even Batman?
Nope. I slept through Batman Begins just the other day while the boys watched it.
Quote from: Beefy on November 23, 2005, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Jessie on November 23, 2005, 02:25:46 PM
I want to see the Superman movie. That's kind of weird because I have no desire whatsoever to see any other comic book based movies.
Too bad for you that Timothy's a geek-in-training.
I know, right?
Well, I bought the novelization of The Life and Death of Superman today. That'll have to tide me over.
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_1644219.html?menu=entertainment.film
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2249/supermanscan3jz.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2005/12/supermans_package_continues_to.html
whats the draw to this movie. the others were ok at best. is it that we're in the day and age of comic book movies because we can finally do the effects to a believable and fantastic level ?
http://www.aintitcool.com/downloads/Superman_Returns_Coke.mov
My quicktime appears to be broken.
Here is the full trailer, in all it's glory:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/trailer2/
I take back what I said, Spacey looks fun as Luthor.
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2685/supermanreturnsposter8xa.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I hope this is about Superman making returns at the mall the day after Christmas. He's the only person alive that could survive that.
Quote from: Beefy on May 17, 2006, 07:02:06 AM
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2685/supermanreturnsposter8xa.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I swear to God, Bryan Singer could bring the Archie comics to the movie screen and they'd look awesome.
The new trailer in front of X-Men was just awesome. It showed Routh acting as Superman and it didn't suck!
Interestingly, they just bumped the film up to June 28th from the 30th. Why? Profit, of course. But indirectly, it is supposedly because of X-Men. It seems the mammoth opening weekend gross of X-Men convinced Warner Bros. that the Superman opening will be even more monumental, as they have a really "excellent" movie where as X-Men was just "okay".
Oh, and everything on the Internet is true.
even better. Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor.
Jesus Christ! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigure.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
Quote from: Namaste on June 14, 2006, 11:56:40 AM
Jesus Christ! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigure.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
SUPERSTAR!
Quote from: cnamon on June 14, 2006, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Namaste on June 14, 2006, 11:56:40 AM
Jesus Christ! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigure.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
SUPERSTAR!
Do you think you're what they say you are?
(Is it wrong of me that I knew that lyric off the top of my head?)
I just watched an MSNBC debate on if Superman is gay and if he's the savior (Christian religion). They had on some dude in glasses and VH1's Bex Schwartz, dressed as Wonder Woman.
It was without a doubt the biggest waste of five minutes I've seen since... well, honestly, since MSNBC's previous package.
As SR comes out tonight, I remind you all:
http://www.myspace.com/generalzod
KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!
I was tempted to go to the 10 am showing, but this pesky "work" thing prevented it.
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:24:01 PM
I was tempted to go to the 10 am showing, but this pesky "work" thing prevented it.
I wasn't. Me, the wife, Yoshi (see "4000 miles" thread) and our friend Melody are going to see it on Saturday. It will be awesome.
Quote from: Listener on June 28, 2006, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:24:01 PM
I was tempted to go to the 10 am showing, but this pesky "work" thing prevented it.
I wasn't. Me, the wife, Yoshi (see "4000 miles" thread) and our friend Melody are going to see it on Saturday. It will be awesome.
Yoshi's going to drive 4000 miles and be back by Saturday? Is he stopping at all?
Quote from: Listener on June 21, 2006, 10:54:26 AM
I just watched an MSNBC debate on if Superman is gay and if he's the savior (Christian religion). They had on some dude in glasses and VH1's Bex Schwartz, dressed as Wonder Woman.
It was without a doubt the biggest waste of five minutes I've seen since... well, honestly, since MSNBC's previous package.
That was on Best Week Ever. That is the second best waste of 30 minutes. The best waste of time is The Soup. Oh how I love that show.
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: Listener on June 28, 2006, 01:25:44 PM
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:24:01 PM
I was tempted to go to the 10 am showing, but this pesky "work" thing prevented it.
I wasn't. Me, the wife, Yoshi (see "4000 miles" thread) and our friend Melody are going to see it on Saturday. It will be awesome.
Yoshi's going to drive 4000 miles and be back by Saturday? Is he stopping at all?
Friday: Ft Lauderdale FL to Marietta GA. Sleep at my house.
Saturday: Marietta GA to Guthrie (outside Oklahoma City) OK. Stay with Vanessa & her family.
Tuesday: Guthrie OK to LaGrange (outside Louisville) KY. Stay with Meg & her family.
Friday: LaGrange KY to Marietta GA. Stay with me & my family.
Monday: Marietta GA to Ft Lauderdale FL.
It's 2000 miles from Ft. Lauderdale to Kentucky?
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:32:33 PM
It's 2000 miles from Ft. Lauderdale to Kentucky?
700 miles from Ft Lauderdale to Marietta
900 miles from Marietta to Guthrie
800 miles from Guthrie to LaGrange
450 miles from LaGrange to Marietta
700 miles from Marietta to Ft Lauderdale
So, really, 3550 miles or so, but if you add in driving around the various cities, it pushes it pretty close to 4000.
Ft Laud to LaGrange is only 1200 miles or so.
Talk about going around your rear-end to get to your elbow...
Quote from: Maximilian Scheffield on June 28, 2006, 01:51:09 PM
Talk about going around your rear-end to get to your elbow...
Well, yeah, but as I said in previous posts, he has other people to visit and enjoys driving. *shrug* If it were me, I'd fly.
Gas cost: about $504, assuming 250 miles per tank and $35 per tank at 13 gallons per tank.
Flight cost: about $617, if you plan the trip from July 21 through 31, with one-way flights, prices from Kayak.com.
Quote from: Crom! on April 30, 2006, 07:27:56 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/downloads/Superman_Returns_Coke.mov
And?
It got enough right to recommend seeing on the big screen, but for the money and 10+ years that went into getting Supes back on screen it was sloppy as hell. And some of the CG was downright insulting. Pace yourself with your beverage or you'll have to hit the lavatory during the 2 hour 40 minute running time.
Worth noting: Brandon Routh nailed it.
Quote from: Crom! on June 28, 2006, 05:49:13 PM
It got enough right to recommend seeing on the big screen, but for the money and 10+ years that went into getting Supes back on screen it was sloppy as hell. And some of the CG was downright insulting. Pace yourself with your beverage or you'll have to hit the lavatory during the 2 hour 40 minute running time.
Worth noting: Brandon Routh nailed it.
I really like the fact that they made it long enough. I hate when a movie gets a lot of buzz and then turns out to be 80 minutes. I feel cheated paying $8.50 (or $6 for a matinee) for that.
Quote from: Listener on June 29, 2006, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: Crom! on June 28, 2006, 05:49:13 PM
It got enough right to recommend seeing on the big screen, but for the money and 10+ years that went into getting Supes back on screen it was sloppy as hell. And some of the CG was downright insulting. Pace yourself with your beverage or you'll have to hit the lavatory during the 2 hour 40 minute running time.
Worth noting: Brandon Routh nailed it.
I really like the fact that they made it long enough. I hate when a movie gets a lot of buzz and then turns out to be 80 minutes. I feel cheated paying $8.50 (or $6 for a matinee) for that.
I don't disagree, as long as the film can maintain interest. S.R. climaxed and then kept going for almost another 1/2 hour, during which I needed to use the lavatory, so I wasn't happy.
Quote from: Crom! on June 29, 2006, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Listener on June 29, 2006, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: Crom! on June 28, 2006, 05:49:13 PM
It got enough right to recommend seeing on the big screen, but for the money and 10+ years that went into getting Supes back on screen it was sloppy as hell. And some of the CG was downright insulting. Pace yourself with your beverage or you'll have to hit the lavatory during the 2 hour 40 minute running time.
Worth noting: Brandon Routh nailed it.
I really like the fact that they made it long enough. I hate when a movie gets a lot of buzz and then turns out to be 80 minutes. I feel cheated paying $8.50 (or $6 for a matinee) for that.
I don't disagree, as long as the film can maintain interest. S.R. climaxed and then kept going for almost another 1/2 hour, during which I needed to use the lavatory, so I wasn't happy.
It needed time to cuddle... :)
I felt the same way during LOTR:ROTK... the climax came, and then my wife and I kept whispering to each other "is this movie ever going to end? it keeps fading out and then coming back..."
SPOILERS BELOW
Special effects: amazing.
Acting: amazing.
story: sucked major ass.
seriously. the Luther plot was almost as lame as the first movie. So where the eff was he the whole time? in space? LAME. The movie was 2 hours and 40 minutes. it's not like they didn't have time to tell us.
oh but I forgot, they were so busy being heavy handed about how superman is jesus that they had to leave important stuff out.
I was a fan of the comics. I got the impression with this movie that the writers saw the first movies, but never read the comics.
I did really like Parker Posey. I enjoyed her every time she was on screen.
overall, I was disapointed. I think they could have made a killer movie, but they failed. the eye candy was amazing, sure, but it really lacked that movie magic. it was like watching episode 2. singer pulled a lucas...
Superman is Jesus? I thought the Lion in that other movie was Jesus.
They really hammer the Superman/Jesus connection. Really.
Swolt, I can hear you in the voice of Comic Book Guy everytime you write a review.
i liked it. it was good.
Quote from: Atreyu on June 30, 2006, 09:05:45 AM
They really hammer the Superman/Jesus connection. Really.
Well it's pretty hard not to. The story was never "look he's an allegory for the big J" - it's simply a theme that gets explored in any story where you have something greater than humans. Spiderman did it, Supes does it. Even X-Men, to a degree, did it.
Swolt, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your "lucas" bit. If you went in expecting something and not getting it - that's not the directors fault. Singer did a fanfuckingtastic job. I'm not fully convinced that Brandon Routh isn't actually superman.
I enjoyed it greatly as well. I think they did go a tad overboard on Superman = Savior, but I could ignore that. I also agree that some of the denouement went on a tad too long.
In the beginning, the length of some of the scenes made me think, "great, they're not going to cut stuff in favor of time, so we can see the scenes as they were intended", but some of the scene lengths in the middle were a little long.
My wife got a great kick out of the fact that Bryan Singer's production company (Bad Hat Harry Productions) showed up in HUGH JASS letters in the beginning. (She gets a kick out of their logo in House as well.)
The FX were nice.
And as has been said, I'd swear that Brandon Routh was the second coming of Christopher Reeve... he had the mannerisms and the voice down perfectly -- not the exact same voice, since they're two different people, but the same qualities that differentiated Clark from Superman.
I had trouble believing that while Superman was in the hospital bed at the end, without his outfit, Lois couldn't tell that he was also Clark Kent, even though her kid figured it out right away early-on.
And while Parker Posey was a decent follow-up to Miss Teschmacher, the whole "oh crap Lex is going to kill millions of people what did I get myself into I have to stand up to him and do something" angle was already played in Superman I.
Kal Penn (Kumar) was underused, although he did have some humorous moments that he played well even though he had very, very few lines.
I loved how they paid homage to several incarnations of Superman and the Superman characters, especially Singer's shot duplications from previous films and the little quotes here and there (and the physical composition of Kryptonite in the museum, which I believe was from either S-I or S-III).
There were a few too many shots of just the super-suit with its rubberizedness, also. It's like, okay, we see, the S looks slightly different, but do we really need to see it that close-up?
Overall, I enjoyed it.
Quote from: Dottie Lou on June 30, 2006, 09:13:38 AM
Swolt, I can hear you in the voice of Comic Book Guy everytime you write a review.
I actaully wrote that review with a Comic Book Guy voice in my head.
*slinks away to his comics*
Quote from: Bishamonten on June 30, 2006, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: Atreyu on June 30, 2006, 09:05:45 AM
They really hammer the Superman/Jesus connection. Really.
Well it's pretty hard not to. The story was never "look he's an allegory for the big J" - it's simply a theme that gets explored in any story where you have something greater than humans. Spiderman did it, Supes does it. Even X-Men, to a degree, did it.
Swolt, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your "lucas" bit. If you went in expecting something and not getting it - that's not the directors fault. Singer did a fanfuckingtastic job. I'm not fully convinced that Brandon Routh isn't actually superman.
lucas sacrificed a good story for special effects. I felt Singer did the same thing. X-Men and X2 had great stories and great effects. Superman lacked the story.
Routh was amazing as superman, and as Clark. He made the two different enough so you could see why Lois never figured it out. McGregor did a great job as Obi-Wan too.
I have to agree - the screenplay wasn't there. It wasn't awful, it just wasn't very good. Part retread, part underwhelming catastrophy, the script failed to validate Lex's plan as being anything other than ridiculous, nor did it really manage to make him a Superman caliber villain. I think Singer spent so much time trying pay homage to what came before he apparently lost sight of what he was doing now, like he had no objectivity. Neither X-Men nor X2 were as sloppy as this. I want to throw most of the blame on the writers, but Singer is the director and the buck stops with him. At any rate, there were several scenes of significance that were edited in such a way that it sucked the power out of them (like Supes return to Earth, which should have been powerful); seeing as Singer likes to sit in on the editing of his films, this fault falls on his shoulders.
I thought it was pretty good. It went on a bit long, but it was pretty good. There was a lot of rehashing of the original movie. But there were a couple of surprises as well. I hope they make another one that is more worthy than this one.
It's Friday to Sunday take was somewhere around 52 million.
X3 did double that in the same time span.
Supes cost around 250 million dollars. It has to earn at least that much globally to turn a profit, and significantly more than that to financially justify a sequel. With back end deals and percentages, it was taught to be in school that the majority of Hollywood films have to earn three times what they cost to turn a profit. I doubt that paradigm is still valid due to the prolific DVD market, but I think it still goes to show that movie still needs to sell well in theaters.
Pretty funny.
http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
Quote from: SpaceBeefy on July 04, 2006, 10:58:38 AM
Pretty funny.
http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
Someone has spent entirely too much time thinking about this.
QuoteWith back end deals and percentages, it was taught to be in school that the majority of Hollywood films have to earn three times what they cost to turn a profit.
I may be drunk, but it seems to me that your teachers need to go back and learn what "Cost" and "profit" mean.
Quote from: Bennyhana on July 05, 2006, 11:53:57 PM
QuoteWith back end deals and percentages, it was taught to be in school that the majority of Hollywood films have to earn three times what they cost to turn a profit.
I may be drunk, but it seems to me that your teachers need to go back and learn what "Cost" and "profit" mean.
I think they understood it pretty well. Better than me.
Quote from: SpaceBeefy on July 06, 2006, 07:12:00 AM
Quote from: Bennyhana on July 05, 2006, 11:53:57 PM
QuoteWith back end deals and percentages, it was taught to be in school that the majority of Hollywood films have to earn three times what they cost to turn a profit.
I may be drunk, but it seems to me that your teachers need to go back and learn what "Cost" and "profit" mean.
I think they understood it pretty well. Better than me.
prof·it Audio pronunciation of "profit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prft)
n.
1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
2. The return received on a business undertaking after
all operating expenses have been met.
3.
1. The return received on an investment after
all charges have been paid. Often used in the plural.
2. The rate of increase in the
net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period.
3. Income received from investments or property.
4. The amount received for a commodity or service
in excess of the original cost.
I think that, what your teachers meant to say was that Hollywood films actually cost three times what they tell you they cost. Or perhaps they meant that a profit of 300% is what studios consider a success.
SYLLABICATION: nit·pick
PRONUNCIATION: ntpk
INTRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: nit·picked, nit·pick·ing, nit·picks
To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details. See synonyms at quibble.
OTHER FORMS: nitpicker —NOUN
Quote from: Bennyhana on July 06, 2006, 07:25:40 AM
Quote from: SpaceBeefy on July 06, 2006, 07:12:00 AM
Quote from: Bennyhana on July 05, 2006, 11:53:57 PM
QuoteWith back end deals and percentages, it was taught to be in school that the majority of Hollywood films have to earn three times what they cost to turn a profit.
I may be drunk, but it seems to me that your teachers need to go back and learn what "Cost" and "profit" mean.
I think they understood it pretty well. Better than me.
prof·it Audio pronunciation of "profit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prft)
n.
1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
2. The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
3.
1. The return received on an investment after all charges have been paid. Often used in the plural.
2. The rate of increase in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period.
3. Income received from investments or property.
4. The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the original cost.
I think that, what your teachers meant to say was that Hollywood films actually cost three times what they tell you they cost. Or perhaps they meant that a profit of 300% is what studios consider a success.
No, because the percentages that the talent take are not considered part of the cost of making the feature film. Those are indefinite numbers dependent upon the actual grosses. The more money a film earns, the more money the talent earns, and so a smaller amount of money is going back to the studio that funded the production. Which means it has to earn significantly more for the studio itself to break even.
The paradigm will have improved for the studio in recent years with the popularity of the DVD consumer market.
I read somewhere one time that these days, for the average release, the only money the studio actually makes is from DVD sales.
Quote from: ReBurn on July 06, 2006, 08:43:06 AM
I read somewhere one time that these days, for the average release, the only money the studio actually makes is from DVD sales.
I've read that as well. Considering how repugnantly enormous budgets have been allowed to become, that's no surprise. The studios would save a great deal of money by revamping the production process, which is needlessly complicated. Granted, that would put a bunch of suits and artisans out of work.
One thing I failed to recognize earlier is the ancilliary profits that Superman will bring in - toys and clothes and such. That's going to help, too.
Still, I haven't really met anyone who was really enthused with the new Superman, unlike when people walked out of Spidey 1 or 2 and were just thrilled and eager to see it again and ready for a sequel.
You know, I wasn't overly enthused when I walked out of Superman. I would like for them to make a sequel, but that's about it. I am eagerly anticipating the next Spider-Man movie.