News:

40,000th post goes to Gamp!  Happy birthday!

Main Menu

Superman Returns

Started by Beefy, November 17, 2005, 12:29:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Listener

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..."

swolt

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...
A clever man commits no minor blunders.

Jessie

Superman is Jesus?  I thought the Lion in that other movie was Jesus.

we should have kept the quote pyramid up to rape Jessie in the face.

Beefy

They really hammer the Superman/Jesus connection.  Really.

cnamon

Swolt, I can hear you in the voice of Comic Book Guy everytime you write a review.

eo000

i liked it. it was good.

Bishamonten

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.

Listener

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.

swolt

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*
A clever man commits no minor blunders.

swolt

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.
A clever man commits no minor blunders.

Beefy

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.

ReBurn

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.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

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.


ReBurn

11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Bennyhana

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.

Beefy

#66
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.

Bennyhana

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.

Jessie

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
we should have kept the quote pyramid up to rape Jessie in the face.

Beefy

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.

ReBurn

I read somewhere one time that these days, for the average release, the only money the studio actually makes is from DVD sales.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

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.

ReBurn

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.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!