Friday, January 05, 2007

More Year End Review Goodness

Now that we've finally awoke from our alcohol induced comas from New Year's Eve, and have taken a look around Al Gore's internet, it appears that a fair number of media outlets were a little "late" with some of their 2006 box office reviews. Go Figure. Here's a look at a little more of the talk going around entertainment circles in year end summaries about just how big of a turd Singerman really was.
  • The New Yorker (NY) - "But “Superman Returns,” with its underwritten script and its bland hero, was not just boring but superfluous: in the digital years since the 1978 “Superman”—which have also seen five “Batman”s, two “Spider-Man”s, and three “X-Men”s—the airborne crusader has lost his wonder. But Warner, in late October, announced that it would make yet another “Superman” film. Variety earlier summed up the situation as follows: “Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What’s more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries, and merchandising—even subsid DC Comics." So there you have it: the business model swallows the studio, which, obliged to supply its conglomerate outlets and subsidiaries, cannot prevent itself from repeating a failure."
  • Movieweb - "2006 will be talked about as a year that was great for the business side, but terrible for the artistic side, and, I've gotta tell you folks, it really wasn't that great in either aspect. Superman Returns, probably one of the most over-hyped and over-marketed flicks in recent history, was the 5th highest grossing movie of the year at just over $200 million... and it LOST $70 million."
  • Hollywood Reporter (CA) - "Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Pictures, which arguably had one of the most anticipated slates of the year, had difficulty delivering and dropped from a first-place market share in 2005 to fourth place because of such misfires as "Poseidon," M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" and a disappointing "Superman Returns," even though the superhero's long-awaited return did climb above the $200 million mark domestically."
  • Fort Collins Weekly (CO) - "It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s the biggest flying turkey of the year. As the Man of Steel, newcomer Brandon Routh did a super impression of balsa wood in tights. "
  • Wilmington Morning Star (NC) - Best wig of the year: Kevin Spacey's, playing Lex Luthor in the five-hour snoozathon called Superman Returns.
  • Austin Chronicle (TX) - Most Forgettable: Superman Returns. I can't remember anything about this picture. Can't remember faces, mise-en-scène, not one damn thing. Somebody flew, right? And I recall now that the remarkable Peta Wilson had a bit role she'd never be reduced to in a just world.
  • The Billings Outpost (MT) - It has its slow moments and gets a little too wrapped up in the psychology of its core characters... He pushes a small continent into orbit, for God’s sake!
  • Monsters and Critics - "The next award goes to ‘Superman Returns’ in the Needs More Action category. I was more psyched to see this movie than the Scarlett Johansson sex tape. On paper the film had everything working for it, an unknown as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Bryan Singer calling the shots. So where’s the action? He’s the Man of Steel, punch somebody already! It’s cool that bullets bounce off your eye, but knock somebody out with more than your kick ass breath!"
  • Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - "'Happy Feet' was a much-needed big hit for Warner, which had been less than overjoyed by the $200 million gross of "Superman Returns."
You noticing a trend here yet?

56 comments:

Jeff Alberecht said...

The fact that you spend so much time on this is really sad. You don't like the movie, that's you're perogative. However the fact that you can't get passed it needs serious addressing.
Of course, I liked the movie so maybe I'm just as sad. The fact that you are so cowardly that you don't even use your own name is the really pathetic part.

Anonymous said...

Actually I think you're the one who cant get past the fact that people dislike this tub of crap as you keep coming to a blog for people who dislike it which makes you the sad one.
As for SSS not using his "real name," Is this your first time on the internet "Jeff Alberecht?" Because as we all know, everyone always uses their real names on the internet....

Joe Friday said...

Nice to see yet another loser "apologist" coming on here and debating all of the points made in the articles that SSS posted as opposed to telling him he's got too much time on his hands or calling him a coward b/c he wont use his real name, because he has no retort to the points made.... oh wait

Jeff Alberecht said...

That's because unlike some people, i don't hide from the world under an assumed name. I could use my DCMB sreenname, phantomblot, but I decided touse my own. As far as a retort for every review that you posted on your little waste of time blog i can find a positive review to counter it from far more reputable sours such as:
The Superman who returns in "Superman Returns" is a different Man of Steel than we are used to seeing. In "Superman: The Movie," the film by director Richard Donner in 1978, the late Christopher Reeve rescued the iconic superhero from high camp with the sincerity and warmth of his acting. His Superman was a romantic charmer. Director Bryan Singer positions this new film as a sequel to Donner's film, and his Superman -- played with winning fortitude by newcomer Brandon Routh -- is less a Man of Steel than a Man of Heart.

kirk huneycutt, Hollywood reporter

The best Hollywood movies always knew how to sneak a beguiling subtext into a crowd-pleasing story. Superman Returns is in that grand tradition. That's why it's beyond Super. It's superb.
Richard Corliss, Time magazine

Next to Singer's champagne, most recent superhero adventure movies are barely sparkling cider.
David Ansen, Newsweek.

frankly we could go on about this till the cows come home. it doesn't change the fact that your an obbsesive loser who hides behind cowerdice.

Jeff Alberecht said...

oh and your little"retort" is neither amusing or ironic. it's actually a little sad to be honest.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Singer’s superhero champagne is so good that it’s getting a budget slash and the studio is trying to get Singer to change the taste of it by focusing less on the drawn out love story and more on the action.

If anything Singerman was more of a warning shot glass to other hero films to not follow in its flavor or they might end up with huge sunk cost hangovers when its all said and done.

S.S.S. said...

oh and your little"retort" is neither amusing or ironic. it's actually a little sad to be honest.

First off that wasn't my "retort." There are plenty of people who visit and post on this blog daily using the anonymous function, both those who agree with the blog and those who disagree with it. And I don't believe it makes either group "cowards." If you chose to use your real name, then that's great for you. If, as it seems from the frequency with which you mention it, it gives you some twisted feeling of superiority to the rest of them, then I truly pity you. No one is "hiding" behind anything here. Would knowing my real name or the names of the other 2 contributors here really make a difference for you? Would that somehow change your agenda in coming here and doing nothing but throwing insults around? Let's face facts, you really haven't brought much else, at least some others have tried to make a case for the film.
As for those "reviews" you posted, you do know those are from the Summer before Singerman was released to the public correct? Not sure what that has to do with countering a bunch of articles written in the past two weeks as "year in review" pieces after people have had time to digest the film. You should also probably do a better job finding sources, posting a shill piece from Time Magazine, who incidentally is the parent company of WB, from June wouldn't seem to have too much credibility due to it's inherent bias. That would be like me using a Fox News review that bashed the film.

S.S.S. said...

oh and if you're going to continue to throw words like "cowardice" around you may want to at least spell them correctly. It goes back to that "credibility" thing we were talking about earlier.

Anonymous said...

"And I recall now that the remarkable Peta Wilson had a bit role she'd never be reduced to in a just world."

Ok right then and there this asshole lost all credibility. That is like saying lets cast Christian Slater in our movie it will be a shoe in to make 100 mil at the BO.

Anonymous said...

"oh and if you're going to continue to throw words like "cowardice" around you may want to at least spell them correctly. It goes back to that "credibility" thing we were talking about earlier."

SSS for a guy who has made spelling errors in the past in his own posts that had to be pointed out to him by others I would not be making fun of someone for one little mistake.

Anonymous said...

when SSS starts going out of his way and attacking the commenters here then maybe we'll be a little more critical of his spelling.

Jeff Alberecht said...

No actually those reviews are post release, from people who say the movie, I pay attention as well. I wasn't driecting the retort comment directly to you but from a psychological stand point I find it quite fascinating that you felt the need to respond. A bit on the defensive, right?
Anyone can post anonimously, that's fine. However it's your blog, you should have some conviction and stand behind your words. You think you're the only person in the world with a blog? Most of the blogs I subscribe to and read regularly use their real names. Yet you spend all you're time attacking a movie that has done well, and was well recieved. You have this bug up your ass however and feel like shouting your righteous indignation to the world under a psuedonym. Where are your balls, man?
And calling people who like the film "Apologists?" it's a movie, not a nazi war crime, and this sure as hell isn't Nuremberg. if it doesn't bother you can keep blowing me off as a crack pot Singer fan but you'd be wrong.I don't even read Superman comics but I like Superman Returns. I stumbled onto this site by accident. I like the movie but I'm hardly obbsesed with it. I just hate hypocrites.
At least Bryan Singer put entertaining out.

Anonymous said...

"At least Bryan Singer put entertaining out" Huh??

He should've put "entertaining" into the bloody movie!!

jeff alberecht said...

Okay, after giving it some time to think about, I confess - the movie sucked BIG time.

No, seriously - it sucked.

jeff alberecht said...

I was just trying to prove that using my real name in my posts really made a difference and so I just used Superman Returns as a jumping off point.

Anonymous said...

SSS, why are you leaving out the review from "The Advocate"?

The Advocate (CA) - "Not since Brokeback Mountain, has a movie explored what it meant to be gay such as Superman Returns. Bryan Singer has made a wonderful movie for the gay community because it will bring more homosexuals out of the closet. Any male who says they like this version of Superman has to be gay."

Anonymous said...

And calling people who like the film "Apologists?" it's a movie, not a nazi war crime, and this sure as hell isn't Nuremberg.

Neither SSS nor this blog invented that terms. That's a common name for people who somehow try to defend films like Singerman, Catwoman, Daredevil, etc on internet forums. Your Nazi analogy is a bit strong, no?

Anonymous said...

SSS, I don't see how you come out of the woodwork for someone like Jeff and yet you have people that act like 5 yr old kids, calling people names and using some rather nasty insults because their opinions differ and you say nothing to them. Why?

What makes what Jeff said so bad that you just had to comment? Yet you completely let some of the really nasty things that are said on here go.

And finally, how immature is it to say something about someone's spelling when there is no way to spell check (at least from my comment screen)?

Anonymous said...

Anyone with an updated version of IE or Firefox has an automatic spellcheck in their browsers. That being said, dont you proofread what you've typed before you post it anyway?

As for your other point, I think the guy called out SSS specifically, hence the reason he answered him. I've seen him do that before. I also dont see why he has to get involved with all the other petty immature bickering that takes place in the comments between people in here. Its not like he's a forum moderator.

Anonymous said...

Anyone with an updated version of IE or Firefox has an automatic spellcheck in their browsers. That being said, dont you proofread what you've typed before you post it anyway?

As for your other point, I think the guy called out SSS specifically, hence the reason he answered him. I've seen him do that before. I also dont see why he has to get involved with all the other petty immature bickering that takes place in the comments between people in here. Its not like he's a forum moderator.

--------------------------------------


For some reason my spell check doesn't work in the comment box that pops up for this blog.

I know he shouldn't be a moderator, but SSS is in a position where he could actually be a voice for those disgruntled about Superman Returns. But by allowing the childish behaviour to continue in here, and the fact that it's basically an anonymous blog it degrades his credibility a bit. Someone from Warner Bros. would be more willing to check out his complaints and the complaints of some of the commentors if they weren't so immature at times.

Anonymous said...

"Someone from Warner Bros. would be more willing to check out his complaints and the complaints of some of the commentors if they weren't so immature at times."

I'd say it's obvious Warners (if they really care) will have their hands full "checking" complaints, immature ones notwithstanding

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jeff this movie was good. If you didnt like it you dont have the education to understand its adult themes. I also love some of the reference material SSS uses Austin Chronicle....Like who reads that paper anyway all of 2 people. What some dim wit hater will sling back I am an imbocile or stupid. I am right your wrong thats how it is.

Anonymous said...

The haters argument about the movie being too much of a chick flick is something that i really don't get. I thought at times there should have been a little more action here and there but Lois and romance are always going to be a part of a Superman movie. SR was not anymore a chick flick than STM was and not nearly the chick flick that Superman 2 was, Lester or Donner's version.

Anonymous said...

The "chick flick" isnt the "hater's argument" it came from the mouth of Singer himself. Superman having Lois as a romantic interest is one thing, but making the movie into a "chick flick" is a completely different story. Unfortunately for Singer the film failed in that aspect as well as Bosworth can't act all too well to begin with and was horribly miscast as an established Lois. She looks younger than the Lois on Smallville for christ's sake.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jeff this movie was good. If you didnt like it you dont have the education to understand its adult themes. I also love some of the reference material SSS uses Austin Chronicle....Like who reads that paper anyway all of 2 people. What some dim wit hater will sling back I am an imbocile or stupid. I am right your wrong thats how it is.

Great argument there. "I'm right and you're wrong, thats the way it is." Call us when you get to the 3rd grade.
As for the Austin Chronicle, Austin is the capital of Texas you jackass and one of it's biggest and most culturally diverse cities and it's also home to the University of Texas. You obviously have no clue making a comment that "2 people" read the Chronicle.

Anonymous said...

If anything Singerman was more of a warning shot glass to other hero films to not follow in its flavor or they might end up with huge sunk cost hangovers when its all said and done.

^^^
So true

Joel1245 said...

By the way guys, not that I wholly disagree with those accusing others of being "apologists" (because I wasn't too thrilled with the movie myself), but accusing others of being "apologists" just sounds stupid. That's like accusing a person of defending their viewpoint when what you're really doing is the exact same thing.

The word itself is Greek in origin (apologia), and is basically a systematic defense of a position having no real negative connotation which makes me wonder why some are accusing others using this word.

If you're going to accuse someone of being an apologist in that sense, make sure you know what that word really is. Also, ask yourself if that could also apply to you since you're making an argument and defending a position yourself, namely, that the movie sucked (which it did).

And to those who liked the movie, I have to wonder what keeps you coming to a site like this anyway. If it makes you upset then just don't read it and enjoy the movie.

voice_of_reason said...

because the "Singerites" (is that better than Apologists?) are like a cult hell bent on dominating the world with crappy, subpar entertainment and won't stop until everyone has been assimilated. The fact that people congregate here to express their dislike of the film and can't be touched drives them insane with rage.

Anonymous said...

As dissapointed as i was with SR i am just curious where do some of you guys rank it among the Superman movies? I have it

1) Superman the Movie
2) Superman 2
3 Superman 2 (Donner Cut)
4 Superman Returns
5) Superman 4
6) Superman 3

Anonymous said...

Superman the movie
Superman 2 (Donner Cut)
Superman 2
Superman Returns
Superman 3
Superman 4

S.S.S. said...

Supes
Supes II
Supes II (Donner)
Supes III
Singerman
Supes IV

Joel1245 said...

My list looks exactly like anonymous's.

Wait a sec. Doh! Hey guys, how about using a name, any name, to distinguish yourselves from each other. It doesn't have to be your real name....Jeff.

My list below:

Superman the movie
Superman 2 (Donner Cut)
Superman 2
Superman Returns
Superman 3
Superman 4

Jeff Alberecht said...

And the hits keep on coming. It just proves my point when someone clones a name and tries to put words in someone's mouth.It's the act of a coward.

Anonymous said...

You people bite. Superman Returns beats them all. It has a sequel greenlite, Singer is starting production this year, studio wants it, and so do the public thats why its the 6th or 7th top grossing movie last year. Give it time and you guys will be gushing over returns and buy the ultimate edition in a few years.

Anonymous said...

is someone paying you everytime you use the word "coward?"

voice_of_reason said...

You people bite. Superman Returns beats them all. It has a sequel greenlite, Singer is starting production this year, studio wants it, and so do the public thats why its the 6th or 7th top grossing movie last year. Give it time and you guys will be gushing over returns and buy the ultimate edition in a few years.

No you fool, there is no "greenlight" for a Singerman sequel yet. Singer has allegedley signed to write a script for it (unfortunately) but they dont greenlight films until there's script approval, get your facts straight. And youre also wrong in that production wont start this year. If a sequel happens it will come out in 2009, production wouldnt start at the earliest until sometime in 2008.
Congrats of the movie being the "6th or 7th" top grossing film of last year. You also forgot to mention that it was the most expensive to produce/market by a LONG shot. The only thing we'll be gushing over Simgerman, is the crap I take on it if I have the unfortunate luck of ever receiving a copy of it.

Jeff Alberecht said...

Actually, I take that back. I was wrong again. Just because the hits keep on coming have no connection to the fact that just because a name is "cloned" that it's the act of a coward.

Jeff Alberecht said...

Anonymous, in answer to your question, yes - someone is in fact paying me every time I use the word "coward."

Coward,
coward, and


Coward.
Coward!
COWARD!


Uh hem....did someone say
COWARD?!!!!

Damn, that's only 60 cents there. Someone say something crude to me so I can call them a coward. I'm not making enough as it is. Please?

Joel1245 said...

And the hits keep on coming. It just proves my point when someone clones a name and tries to put words in someone's mouth.It's the act of a coward.

Jeff, I think you lost us here. Or at least me.

Anonymous said...

"You people bite. Superman Returns beats them all. It has a sequel greenlite, Singer is starting production this year, studio wants it, and so do the public thats why its the 6th or 7th top grossing movie last year. Give it time and you guys will be gushing over returns and buy the ultimate edition in a few years."

There really should be an age-limit for posting here. Or at least an IQ-limit.

But if there was an IQ-limit, NONE of the "Apologists" would be allowed to post, ever. Then who could we mock??

devout coward said...

you cant call them "Apologists" or it makes you in to Hitler. You need to call them "Singerites"

Anonymous said...

"you cant call them "Apologists" or it makes you in to Hitler. You need to call them "Singerites""

No, I prefer "Apologist", It's the truth.

Here's a lesson for the poster "questioning" use of the term: These people are BRYAN SINGER APOLOGISTS. The negative connotation comes from the fact they "apologize" for his turd of a film by making "excuses" for what went and wrong, and why. They "Defend" what he did, and as the lame-brain poster a few replies above shows, proclaim it "the bestest most awesomest movie ever, ever, ever". They are out of touch with reality, and need to be labeled. Just as retarded people are labeled "mentally handicapped".

In the end, I don't give a shit what people think, I will continue to call them "Apologists" to my hearts-content.

Joel1245 said...

Didn't mean to make a bid deal out of it earlier. All I was saying is that the term wasn't exactly being used correctly as they (Singerites) could easily accuse you of being an apologists (defending your view of how bad the movie is)but with a term like Singerite (coined by someone else here) you can't do that, but if you want to coin a new definition for it then be my guest. I'm on your side.

Anonymous said...

Actually, read my post again.

They are "Apologists" for the simple fact they "apologize" for BS by making excuses for why his "film" failed. I have NOTHING to "apologize" for in stating my dislike of this turd. I make statements, they "defend".

Big difference.

Joel1245 said...

Okaaaaay, so they're apologizing and yet they're defending themselves too? Dude, just be honest and say, "Hey, your're right - the term apologist isn't the best word to use", instead of backtracking.

Besides, saying they're apologizing for BS by making excuses for why his film failed doesn't make sense. You don't apologize by making excuses for something. That's not apologizing! It's simply making excuses. If you apologize for something, you're saying you're sorry for something you did. In other words, they would be apologizing for saying the movie was good and acknowledging it wasn't, but that isn't what they're doing now, is it.

Now class, turn to page 145 in your books.

Anonymous said...

"Okaaaaay, so they're apologizing and yet they're defending themselves too? Dude, just be honest and say, "Hey, your're right - the term apologist isn't the best word to use", instead of backtracking."

How can you act like you are "educating" anyone, when you CLEARLY cannot grasp what I am saying?

I'm not going to attempt to explain it again. Call them what you want, don't worry about what I am calling them.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and for fun, here is FURTHER explanation as to why they ARE "Apologists":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

Read carefully, make sure you grasp the meaning.

Holmes245 said...

Okay, you just proved my point by giving a dictionary reference. Read closely:

"A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution."

All this means is that a person is defending what they believe to be true or right. There is no idea that a person is apologizing or something. If I said the earth rotates around the sun and argued that case regardless as to whether others believed it or not (or regardless of whether it was true or not), the fact still remains that I'm not apologizing for anything, just making a case for something I believe to be true. Those are two different things.

Case in point: I guess it makes me an apologist for defending the correct use of the word "apologist". However, note that I'm not apologizing (hence, sorry) for what I'm defending.

I'll just drop it though. I really didn't intend to make a big deal out of it. It's just that people who understand the classical sense of that word are going to understand that word differently than the way you've decided to use it. That's all.

Anonymous said...

You are CLEARLY ignorant. They ARE "Apologists" so just shut the fuck-up already.

Jesus, some people just CAN'T admit they are wrong...Are you BS??

Anonymous said...

You are CLEARLY ignorant. They ARE "Apologists" so just shut the fuck-up already.
-------------------------------------------------------

Typical of your responses...you get owned in an arguement and you attack the person.

Anonymous said...

"Typical of your responses...you get owned in an arguement and you attack the person."

Except I OWNED HIM.

Two fucking sad, STUPID assholes here.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, "You are CLEARLY ignorant. They ARE "Apologists" so just shut the fuck-up already" was a great, reasonable response.

Just because you call someone ignorant and say you owned someone sounds great, but doesn't necessarily make it so.

Anonymous said...

"Just because you call someone ignorant and say you owned someone sounds great, but doesn't necessarily make it so."

And the SAME "logic" applies to you, genius.

See, since you are too stupid to realize, he asked how they can be "Apologists" AND "Defending" at the same time. That is the DEFINITION of "Apologist". So I OWNED him like I did you.

Now, for the second time, shut the fuck-up.

Joel1245 said...

I wasn't asking how they could be "Apologists" AND "Defending" at the same time. You totally missed what I was saying.

I was saying that the term "Apologist" itself is not an insult or negative term. That is, unless you use it along with a term like "Singer apologists" or something like that, but you use the term itself as if it were a epithet as in, "You apologists always...etc., etc."

That just shows you didn't understand the argument at all. You're more concerned with winning it than listening to constructive criticism. You know, sometimes it wouldn't hurt to take down your pride level a little to see what is really being said instead of jumping the gun.

In other words, if you were using the word wrong or doing something incorrect and wasn't aware of it, how should a person approach you to correct you? Or can they if you're too proud? Are you above being corrected or something?

Anonymous said...

Here is the bottom line anyone who argues this is a fucking retard. Whether you hated or loved SR if at any point on this BLOG or anywhere else, you engage in a debate with someone who's views are different from your’s than you are an apologist plain and simple that is what the fucking word means and no childish insults are going to change that.

Anonymous said...

"In other words, if you were using the word wrong or doing something incorrect and wasn't aware of it, how should a person approach you to correct you? Or can they if you're too proud? Are you above being corrected or something?"

Want to know the SAD part about you? You basically described yourself, and your lack of understanding.

Hey genius, when I call them "Apologists", I use those little "quotation marks". See, I did it again. Those imply I am shortening the term down. Also, if you look carefully, and use some brain-power, you will see I CAPITALIZED THE FIRST LETTER. So, in essence, it's ALSO a "title". There are those pesky quotation marks again.

For the final time I will reiterate AGAIN, don't worry about what I call them. It's none of your fucking business.