Friday, April 13, 2007

Future of the Singerman Sequel Beginning to Look a Bit "Milky."

Today's Daily Variety is reporting that your friend and mine, Bryan Singer is trying to be first in production with a film about Harvey Milk, the San Francisco supervisor and first openly gay elected official in the U.S., who was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone by Supervisor Daniel White. The article goes on to say that:

After 15 years in development, "The Mayor of Castro Street," the movie based on the book by Randy Shilts, is moving toward the starting gate. Warner Independent Prods., which brought in Singer two years ago, is near a deal with Participant Prods. to co-finance and with Chris McQuarrie to write the final draft.

Craig Zadan, who is producing "The Mayor of Castro Street" with Neil
Meron, liked their chances to get into production quickly.
This despite Singer's commitment to the Cruise movie, "Valkyrie," which has a July 8 start date, and a "Superman Returns" sequel which Warner Bros. hopes to have ready for release in 2009.

"We're seeing the light at the end of a long tunnel," he said. "Warner Independent is pushing us to get the film made right away. Some of it might have to do with the enormous success of 'Brokeback Mountain,' and some of it is passion for the right tone and the story we are telling. Chris has nailed the take, and the goal is to have the script ready so that we can make the movie as soon as Bryan finishes his UA film. We've had tremendous response from
actors."


A lot of us doubted Singer's ability to make 1 film before the production of a potential Singerman II film began but thought maybe there was a chance it was possible. Now do you really think he's going to be able make 2?? All before next March when Singerman Ii was allegedley supposed to begin production? Also could this have been the film that Singer was seen talking to Orlando Bloom about with WB producer Jon Peters? And if you're WB wouldnt you want to make some kind of announcement about the future of the Singerman franchise? Round and round we go..

111 comments:

ApologistPuncher said...

Hey, REtard, looks like "proof" NO BS sequel in 2009!

Can't have it both ways, ladyboy.

Anonymous said...

AP just rumors. On top of which Bret Ratner got out X3 in like 6 months. Bryan is still attached to Returns sequel. Byran is so far CONFIRMED for only one movie. And no way signed for this project. If you preach him not being "greenlite" for superman the preach that this doesnt mean he is "greenlite" for this. Idiot

Restart

Still on for 2009!

Anonymous said...

I hope if Singer walks away that another director comes on and continues. A restart is very unlikely at least not anytime in the near future. I really don't want to wait another 20 years to see another Superman movie. I did not love SR but i liked it enough that i thought the sequel could be good.

swright said...

RESTART FOR THE LOVE THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY PLEASE SPELL "GREENLIT" CORRECTLY!!!!

It's not GREENLITE...It's GREENLIT..I swear it seems like you are just beggin to be ridiculed on here sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Singerman II is the Titanic and poor Brandon Routh and company are stuck on the lower decks.

Thank you Jesus.

Restart this thing with a better directors, far better writers, and a cast that actually has talent.

Anonymous said...

"Restart this thing with a better directors, far better writers, and a cast that actually has talent."

You are not getting a restart anytime in the near future. Why would WB have any confidence that a reboot in a few years would make a lot more money than SR? SR got really good reviews and they promoted the shit out of it. It is easy to say just start fresh and a great Superman movie will make a ton of money. It is a lot harder to convince WB of that, given all the money they spent on SR and it did not meet their expectations.

Sepharih said...

Still not going to hold my breath, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't starting to get a little hopeful.

I agree that a complete restart in 2 years is pretty much out of the question, BUT the rumored Justice League film is not.
As I said before, the beauty about that concept is that it wouldn't necessarily have to be in continuity with "Singerman" for it to work, but it wouldn't have to contradict it either.
You could very easily shift the films entire focus onto the interaction between the Leaguers and never even mention Jason, Richard, or even Lois.

Anonymous said...

doesn't look very good now for that superboy film does it... thank God. Singer's better off doing his pretentious shit in another movie more suited for his tastes than adding baby daddy drama to superman. thank GOD THANK GOD wb YOU ARE WISE TO DROP THE SUPERBOY SHIT.

Anonymous said...

So does this mean the next director will read the comic book before shooting the film?

Anonymous said...

M. Night's Superman Begins 2009!

voice_of_reason said...

amazing how thew evidence mounts against Singerman II, yet Retard still continues to deny it.

Here's the facts we have in place Retard:

1. Singer is signed on to a development deal for a Singerman sequel that is allegedley coming out in 2009, although no script is finished and no GREENLIGHT has been given to the project yet.

2. Singer is signed to direct "Valkyrie" for United Artists, a film that is GREENLIT and ready to start shooting this summer.

3. Singer, a few years back, signed a deal with WB to develop the "Mayor of Castro Street". They now have a script that WB is going forward with Singer slated to direct per that contract and he will begin working on that one after he's done with "Valkyrie."

The facts arent aligning in your favor my friend.

Anonymous said...

COME ON, APOLOGISTS. Spin this! do it.

Spin this around! Explain to the internet why Singer isn't getting to work on his superboy movie right away! Go ahead and find an excuse.

Here's the truth though. He's leaving superman. He left x-men without a thought. So do you really think he gives much of a damn about superman either?

He only wanted to do his boyhood dream of a sequel to donner's film. He's done now. He's screwed us all and now he's gone to go do other things. You loyal Singer suckers got... SUCKERED. Feel like apologizing for this hack's movie now?

Anonymous said...

"He only wanted to do his boyhood dream of a sequel to donner's film. He's done now. He's screwed us all and now he's gone to go do other things. You loyal Singer suckers got... SUCKERED. Feel like apologizing for this hack's movie now?"

If that were true when WB approached him about the sequel he would have said no right then and there. There is nothing to spin because nothing factual has come out in regards to Singer leaving. As of right now he is STILL on the project.

Anonymous said...

And Ang Lee's still on Hulk 2.

voice_of_reason said...

If that were true when WB approached him about the sequel he would have said no right then and there. There is nothing to spin because nothing factual has come out in regards to Singer leaving. As of right now he is STILL on the project.

yeah sort of like he was gonna do X3 too right? It's not fact yet, but it's looking more and more like Singer wanted to hold the Singerman franchise in his back pocket if nothing else panned out, and now he's got 2 big projects that he likes that are coming to fruition for him.

Anonymous said...

All

If you read below article it says that Orlando may be attached to the returns sequel. Now your telling me that this website lied and now be attached to another movie. Like i said before IMDB, Wiki, WB, Superherohype, the list goes on and on, they all agree the sequel is on. It even has a title "the man of steel"

give me one other website save for this one that proves me wrong. I gave you a sampling above. So he is attached to other projects all the sources say he is still on for the sequel.

Restart

The man is back in 2009!

Anonymous said...

HOORAH! HOORAH! HOORAH! HOORAH! HOORAH! HOORAH!

WE WON, GUYS! SINGER'S GOING BACK TO HIS PRETENTIOUS ARTHOUSE MOVIES! WE WON! HOORAH! HOORAH!

NOW BRING ON SOMEONE WHO'S READ A COMIC, WB! BRUCE TIMM PERHAPS!

voice_of_reason said...

Restart you're an idiot. SSS clearly prefaced the Orlando Bloom story as "yet another rumor". There was no lying about anything. If anything the Bloom meeting could've been about the Harvey Milk film now that we know WB is in a hot rush to get that out.
The Singerman sequel is not "on." It's not "on" until they have a script that gets approved and they get a greenlight. Seeing as how they may not even have a director soon, I'd say its far from a foregone conclusion. The only thing sites like SHH have ever reported was that Singer has a deal to develop a sequel.

Anonymous said...

"Restart you're an idiot."

That's putting it mildly and is insulting to actual idiots living or dead

swright said...

Well until the announce that BS is doing this other movie, I'm going to hold my judgement. That being said, I've stated before I don't care if BS doesn't do the sequel. But if someone else does do the sequel, you can bet your mortgage it will be a sequel and not a reboot right away.

Why not see if a new director can deliver the goods with this cast (minus KB hopefully).

Anonymous said...

because the storyline is shit.The storyline from Singerman pisses on the character of Superman. Why do I want someone else to jump on Singer's grenade?

I'm not sure how much more official you want it than Variety. Then again you might be one of those Superman Homepage fools who dont believe anything unless it comes out of the mouth of their lord and savior, Younis.

Sepharih said...

“because the storyline is shit.The storyline from Singerman pisses on the character of Superman. Why do I want someone else to jump on Singer's grenade?”

But ask yourself; isn’t that exactly how things play out in the comics? Some writer will make a catastrophic error in judgment, we’ll get a terrible story arch that qualifies as a travesty, but then a new creative team will take over and things will get better. Obviously movies aren’t like comics, but the principle is still the same. Most people thought Episodes I and II of the Star Wars prequels were shit, but many place Episode III alongside the original trilogy. Just like sequels can cause a franchise to tank, they can have the opposite effect as well.
Getting rid of Kate Bosworth is nonnegotiable as far as I’m concerned, and there are a number of ways to get Jason out of the story. Kill him off, have a villain transport him halfway across the galaxy, etc. I really don’t think this franchise is unsalvageable...yet.

swright said...

How do you get more official than Variety?

When they run an article announcing that Singer has left SR's sequel or is off the project. Until then nothing is set in stone.

Anonymous said...

Singer's moving on to other projects. The apologists like to call LOYAL SUPERMAN COMIC FANS, 'denaialists' because we don't like their shitty Superboy film, now they're the ones in DENIAL.

WAKE the fuck up already, apologists. Singer's planning his exit after he's droppped from superman. AND DO YOU REALLY THINK HE'LL MIRACULOUSLY CHANGE HIS BORING PRETENTIOUS STYLE TO AN ACTUALLY GOOD FUN ACTION STYLE for the next movie? Stop living in denial. The movie we got after the superman movie development hell was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below what we should have recieved, which was something that would make Spider-man Jealous, not the other way around. Get over it.

WB's trying to get itself back on track, hopefully to avoid another batman and robin fiasco. Don't encourage them to set superman back another 30 or so years you apologists. just watch your returns dvd and continue to not have any idea who superman's supposed to be.

The real superman fans will hope for great things in the reboot. :)

Anonymous said...

There's been a lot written about the financial failure of Superman Returns, Bryan Singer's latest, an epic canonization of garbage from his own adolescence. There are lessons in any big flop, and the lesson of Superman Returns may not be much more complicated than ''Don't make a three-hour homage to something that wasn't very good the first time and expect everyone to come running.'' When the only purpose of making a movie is to flaunt your immense skill at replicating something dumb and outdated, you're probably limiting your audience to connoisseurs of the ironic (not a huge demographic) and fanboys (who didn't show up — turns out they like their bloody comic-book action mainlined, X3 stlye, without any winking). Treat your audience as if both you and they are cooler than the film you're cranking out — as Snakes on a Plane did last summer, and as Superman Returns does — and your movie's doomed.

Anonymous said...

I think an announcement from the suits at Warners might be forthcoming once Spiderman 3 opens.

"Hey? A fun, action packed superhero movie? Who'd have thought that would work?"

Anonymous said...

''Don't make a three-hour homage to something that wasn't very good the first time and expect everyone to come running.'

Huh? You realise that many folk consider "Superman the Movie" to be the best superhero comic adaption for the big screen, and Christopher Reeve is for many a perfect Superman.

Singer claimed it was a "homage", and if it was it was a hamfisted one that pissed all over Reeve's legacy.

Anonymous said...

What that commmenter meant was that STM is outdated. And it is. It's undeniably the first great superhero movie. It's also undeniably a 70s superhero movie.

It is now the year 2007, Bryan Singer. We've moved on from STM. You can too.

Anonymous said...

Oh and can you read my mind? Do you know what I'm dreaming?

Spot ON! about pissing on reeve's legacy. I find it utterly egregious and poor taste to merely copy someone elses work, especially if it's reeve. The apologists call it homage. Everyone on earth calls it for what it is, cheating. Singer's taking a test and looking at someone elses answers.

Anyway, what's done is done. Moving on.

Anonymous said...

Thank Jesus for Nolan.

The Dark Knight is our only hope for great superhero movies from WB.

Anonymous said...

I'm putting money on some of the Smallville folk (infront and behind the camera)somehow becoming involved in the proposed Justice League film

Anonymous said...

Singer’s SR was as bad as Superman 3 and 4 and also a reminder that even though Reeve’s performance is immortalized in nostalgia; The Donner continuity defiantly does not stand the test of time in terms of freshness and belongs left back in the late 70's & 80’s.

Anonymous said...

Once all the nostalgia wears off, I think SR is easier to see as the piss poor attempt at copying better talented artist's work that it is.

I have to say, though otis brings stm down a few notches, it's still to this day a brilliant example of the best talent from that time coming together to do something beyond the expected norm for the superhero genre of the time.

Singer of course tried, but couldn't get away with basing his film on stm's template in order to sell nostalgia over comic accuracy. Hopefully wb's realized us comic fans aren't messing around. We want superman done right.

Anonymous said...

"Singer’s SR was as bad as Superman 3 and 4"

LOL holy shit both BO and reviews tell a different story on that one jackass.

Anonymous said...

As always Box office and reviews only matter when they agree with your views.

If you go anywhere on the net discussing movies, trust me, you'll see these arguments pop up all the time because they're so over-used.

"box office doesn't equal quality." or if the box office is good "box office equals quality."

"Critics don't matter" or if the critics give good reviews "Critics liked it, it must be good."

This hypocracy is evident in all forums, no matter where you go, so keep an eye out for it.

Anonymous said...

Oh and you stinking piece of shit apologist, Returns is like 3 and IV in that it's a shitty sequel. Scramble around trying to deny that like i know you will. but it'll always be a Home Alone 3, or better yet, a Home alone 4. A sequel to better films. LOL.

Read the comics, wb. Don't listen to Apologists. They don't know superman like real fans.

Anonymous said...

it was announced today that edward norton will play the hulk. big star in a big role and a restart to boot. it can and will be done again with singerman.

Sepharih said...

"it was announced today that edward norton will play the hulk."

Oh...MY...SCIENCE!!! HELL YES!!! I know this is a Superman board and all, but I've been rooting for him to get the part ever since the first Hulk film! He is going to own that role so much it is not funny.
Come on DC! Marvel is kicking your ASS here!

Brandon Routh Fucking Sucks said...

It must be nice to be excited about the casting of a comic film. The news of Norton playing Bruce Banner is probably the best casting since they picked Bale for Bruce Wayne. If only Superman got treated similarly well instead of getting portrayed by Routh, a lanky, milktoast soap opera reject who has all the screen presence of balsa wood.

swright said...

big star in a big role and a restart to boot.

Actually it's not really a reboot or a restart...It's continuing the story with BB on the run after the first film.

The only thing they did that was a restart was recasts the role. But they are following the first film in much the same way SR followed the first Superman movie.

Anonymous said...

theyr'e not following Ang Lee's Hulk film at all, other than starting off at a point that somewhat sinks up with how Lee's film ended so they dont have to redo the origin all over again. The film wont be anything at all like Lee's film in tone or pacing or story, and it sure as heck wont be a love letter to the first film like SR was to S:TM.

get a clue and stop making excuses for Singer's shit you sycophant.

Anonymous said...

SINGER = JOHN HAMMOND.

Go watch Jurrasic Park to fully understand what I'm saying

Anonymous said...

The 20 year hiatus, is precisely the reason that it did earn it's 200 million. People were going to see anything with that Superman logo on it. But, people weren't fooled. And that's why SR took such a nose dive and got outlasted by The Devil Wears Prada.

swright said...

And that's why SR took such a nose dive and got outlasted by The Devil Wears Prada.


Really? I could have sworn that SR made more money than TDWP...Yep, it did.

"The film wont be anything at all like Lee's film in tone or pacing or story"

No shit sherlock. That wasn't my point..My point was that it's not a reboot. They are continuing from where the last film left off. Using what happened in the first as a backstory. Which is exactly what SR did. And if there is a sequel to SR, it will most likely follow the Hulks lead(with the exception of recasting the lead) and use SR as a starting point, but ramp up the action and pacing.

Anonymous said...

Hey dumbfuck read between the lines! God damn you Singer ass fuckers are stupid!

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA cost $35 million to produce and took in 124,740,460 domestically, thus covering its cost of production times over and also made more in the foreign market than your Singer of Steel, while SR resulted in huge sunk costs for Time Warner and made no net in its theatrical run.

Anonymous said...

All yeah in terms of raw numbers SR did do better then Prada but from a business standpoint it was a complete financial failure, unable to cover its own spread.

LOL at Singer nut riders using The Hulk situation as reason why a second Singerman will come to past.

Welcome to the B-list Superman, hope you enjoy your stay with The Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, and DareDevil. Although to be fair all those films actually made good on their production budgets; a league that Singerman does not belong in.


Superman Returns=Batman Forever
The Man of Steel=Batman and Robin
Bryan Singer= Joel Schumacher

The trilogy ends summer 09.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully the second Superman film will pull a Hulk and recast their lead and get a new director and also pull a Batman Begins and recast its leading lady. But that still leaves the problem of Donner/Singer’s 80’s pre crisis continuity to contend with.

swright said...

Hey dumbfuck read between the lines! God damn you Singer ass fuckers are stupid!

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA cost $35 million to produce and took in 124,740,460 domestically, thus covering its cost of production times over and also made more in the foreign market than your Singer of Steel, while SR resulted in huge sunk costs for Time Warner and made no net in its theatrical run.


Hey fucknut, way to change your argument....Here's what you originally posted.......

"And that's why SR took such a nose dive and got outlasted by The Devil Wears Prada. "

You didn't mean profitability. But since countered your dumbass statement you come back with "Hey fucknut read between the lines." Well I did read between the lines, and it read that you are an idiot who will change his argument when it suits himself.

sepharih said...

"Using what happened in the first as a backstory. Which is exactly what SR did."

I'm going to argue this because I find it unfair to put the filmmakers working on the Incredible Hulk in the same boat as the creators of "Singerman".

"Singerman" is less of a film which used the previous installments as backstory and more of a three hour homage (read: cut and paste job) to them.
You could technically classify both films as "loose sequels", but the reasons behind both are night and day. Hulk seems to be more of a loose sequel in the sense of a James Bond film, or in the sense of how Batman Forever was a sequel to Tim Burton's Batman. Too early to do a complete restart and rehash the origin story again, so they're simply changing gears. I'm willing to bet that the film will also be able to stand on its own though, even though it won't be an origin story.

Also, in the small chance that Singer does get the boot I'm expecting a similar treatment to the Superman franchise.

Anonymous said...

Hey fucknut, way to change your argument....Here's what you originally posted.......

"And that's why SR took such a nose dive and got outlasted by The Devil Wears Prada. "

^^^
The Devils Wears Prada is a film that actually had legs while SR aside from its big opening week (Which wasn’t even that great considering how much Time Warner spent on advertisings for the film) started a very fast decline soon after. Also it should be noted that when Prada was grossing a little less then Returns in the coming weeks, it was playing on far fewer screens but still able to keep it close before finally toping SR on the charts.

Long story short and back to the original argument---The Devil Wears Prada actually “outlasted” Superman Returns in terms of both films opening on the same weekend.

In conclusion, Prada was a much more profitable film then SR and also had had stronger legs then Singerman.

Say what the fuck you went you Singer apologist cock sucker but how ever you spin it the argument still comes up in my favor. Your Man of Queer couldn’t even handle a low budget major release staring Ann Hathaway, let alone Pirates.

But you can take solace in the fact that SingerMan in terms of raw numbers looks halfway decent. Too bad that doesn’t jack to the studio because the next Superman regardless of if Singer is directing or not is getting a budget slash while his contemporaries like Spiderman, X-Men and Batman have all seen their budgets raised or retained.

GO SUCK SINGER OFF BITCH, I’m tired of reality bitch slapping you.

Anonymous said...

All this talk about Superman Returns being the second coming of Batman Forever is absurd. If anything Superman Returns is the equivalent of Dumb and Dumberer.

Allow me to explain, both films were uninspired knockoffs and second helpings to previous films that were classics in their own rights (STM-superhero genre, Dumb and dumber-slapstick comedy).

Both featured second rates look-alikes that tried to ape the performances of the stars they were hired to replace mannerism after mannerism with none of the charm and timing the originators bought to the table and both films were flops.

Brandon Routh is like the guy who the producers hired to replace Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumberer, what’s his name? That’s right, no one remembers who he is at this point or has ever seen him on screen again. Just like no one has seen Routh since SR.

Compare this to someone like Hugh Jackman who has pretty been much a mainstay since X-Men on screen and stage. What’s the difference between Hugh Jackman and Brandon Routh you say? The list is endless but Jackman for one can actually act and has charisma while Routh is about as lifelike as the wax statue of him that SSS posted on one of his pervious post.

Anonymous said...

HEY SINGER'S BETTER THAN SPIELBERG!!! TAKE THAT, DENIALISTS!!11111111111111

Anonymous said...

Fearless prediction
Hugh Jackman/ Wolverine for best superhero at this summer’s MTV Movie Awards! Sorry Routh/Singerman you lose again.

Anonymous said...

hey the film 300 on it's 38th day in theaters has already passed Singerman's BO numbers. Mind you Singerman was released in the summer blockbuster season, and 300 came out in mid March.

fucking pathetic Singer, pathetic.

Anonymous said...

"hey the film 300 on it's 38th day in theaters has already passed Singerman's BO numbers. Mind you Singerman was released in the summer blockbuster season, and 300 came out in mid March.

fucking pathetic Singer, pathetic."

Yeah which means SR had to deal with twice the competition at the BO. 300 has also crushed Batman Begins totals. So i guess that means 300 is a better movie than Batman Begins right.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Yeah which means SR had to deal with twice the competition at the BO. 300 has also crushed Batman Begins totals. So i guess that means 300 is a better movie than Batman Begins right."

Wow, leave it up to an "Apologist" to pull some dumb shit like this out of their ass.

Is this "Nolan's Batman Sucks"? NO, you fucking inbred REtard, it is "Singer's Superman Sucks". 300 WILL trounce Singerman Peeps totals, PERIOD. No whining or bitch-spinning will change that FACT.

Anonymous said...

"Is this "Nolan's Batman Sucks"? NO, you fucking inbred REtard, it is "Singer's Superman Sucks". 300 WILL trounce Singerman Peeps totals, PERIOD. No whining or bitch-spinning will change that FACT."

It already has trounced BB totals you fucknut. SR made more money than BB and 300 has made more than both of them so i guess that means 300 is the best of the 3 if BO equals quality.

ApologistPuncher said...

"It already has trounced BB totals you fucknut. SR made more money than BB and 300 has made more than both of them so i guess that means 300 is the best of the 3 if BO equals quality."

How fucking stupid ARE YOU, you piece of shit?

What the FUCK does Batman Begins total have to do with 300 beating Singerman Peeps? NOTHING, you asshole. In your feeble mind, does the fact 300 did better than BB make it's KILLING of Singerman "not as bad"? Because if it does, fuck off imbecile.

Anonymous said...

"What the FUCK does Batman Begins total have to do with 300 beating Singerman Peeps? NOTHING, you asshole."

What the fuck does 300 beating Superman Returns have to do with anything? The poster brought that up as a means of slamming SR. If BO does not equal quality why is that a point worth mentioning? I sure as shit don't think Titanic is the best fucking movie ever made.

ApologistPuncher said...

"What the fuck does 300 beating Superman Returns have to do with anything? The poster brought that up as a means of slamming SR. If BO does not equal quality why is that a point worth mentioning? I sure as shit don't think Titanic is the best fucking movie ever made."

Because IT DID, REtard.

He was saying 300 is kicking Singerman's ass. Guess what? IT IS. As this is a site about that piece of shit Singerman Peeps, that is a fine comparison. Pulling Batman Begins out of your gaping asshole as a "deflection" is not only amateurish, but STUPID to boot.

Anonymous said...

"He was saying 300 is kicking Singerman's ass. Guess what? IT IS. As this is a site about that piece of shit Singerman Peeps, that is a fine comparison. Pulling Batman Begins out of your gaping asshole as a "deflection" is not only amateurish, but STUPID to boot."

I am simply trying to understand the context of his point. Why did it beat SR BO? If you are telling me it did because it is a better film then that would mean any film that 300 outgrossed is inferior to it. Which would make Titanic the greatest movie in history and BB worse than SR and i know you disagree on that one.

ApologistPuncher said...

"I am simply trying to understand the context of his point. Why did it beat SR BO? If you are telling me it did because it is a better film then that would mean any film that 300 outgrossed is inferior to it. Which would make Titanic the greatest movie in history and BB worse than SR and i know you disagree on that one."

No, you are trying to be argumentative because you know YOU have NO POINT.

And I'm done playing your little game, shit for brain. Go fuck yourself, "Apologist" twat.

Anonymous said...

Not that it has anything to do with this blog, but 300 HASNT passed Begins domestically. 300 is sitting at about $201 million whereas Begins made $205 million.
And before you bring it up, I like the studios, could give a fuck about the WW B.O. since the domestic box office for American films is usually what determines something a success or not. Why do you think WB had such a hard-on to hit $200 million with Singerman to save some face.
As for the apologist deuche, who brought up the point about Singerman having more competition in the summer, you've conveniently left out the fact that movies studios can make like 40% percent of their revenue for an entire year in the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, so the fact that the competition is stiffer is meaningless when you have about 250% higher attendance at theaters in those months.
Seriously, it's been almost a year already. Own up to the fact that Singerman was a monstrous disappointment at the US Box Office. I'm sure come the weekend of May 4th, this will be made readily apparent yet again.

Anonymous said...

"And before you bring it up, I like the studios, could give a fuck about the WW B.O."

This alone says you know jack shit about how the BO works. What did Horn say about SR BO? He said he wanted it to make 500 mil WW jackass not 200 mil domestic that was a rumor that was confrimed by nobody at WB. In regards to your precious domestic totals. SR opened last Summer quite well making 108 mil in it's first week of release. Then Pirates came in which made more fucking money than all 3 Star Wars prequels. How do you like 300 and BB chances against that competition. You can go on and on about 300 making more money than SR all you want. I say again clarify why you feel that is? Because if you are telling me it is because 300 is a better film than by that logic 300 is better than BB and every movie that has ever made less than it at the BO. Care to debate me yourself or do you need that PUSSY apologist puncher to do it for you BITCH!!

Anonymous said...

Can someone make some sense of all this "don't doubt the rough" stuff Im reading? Who said routh was being doubted? he was actually one of the few decent parts of Returns. He was stiff as hell at first, but I can tell that if he was given more to do than stand around spouting reeve's lines, he'd have probably made his own stamp on the superman name a little bit at least... doubt? When did we start doubting him? '

A BETTER CAMPAIGN WOULD BE

DON'T

RID

THE

KID!

Anonymous said...

LOL @ Superman being outgrossed by 300, a 65 million dollar film. Ha ha ha ha. It's R rated too.

ha ha ha ha

Anonymous said...

"When did we start doubting him(Routh)?"

When he stood around like a plank quoting Reeve's lines with all the screen prescence of a wet tissue whilst struggling to fill his "costume" in the right spots.

That's when we really starting to doubt him. He's already reduced to selling autographs at UK comic fairs.

Anonymous said...

True. Though I'd doubt everyone since everyone was really phoning their performances in with as much enthusiasm as a dead fish. The super kid probably wasn't even acting. Damn you Bryan Singer, you're such a lifeless, boring, director. Bring donner back.

Anonymous said...

This alone says you know jack shit about how the BO works. What did Horn say about SR BO? He said he wanted it to make 500 mil WW jackass not 200 mil domestic that was a rumor that was confrimed by nobody at WB.

Oh that's rich. I know nothing about how the box office works, yet you dont prove that you do and then go and quote Horn's expectations for the film's WW as a reason why the WW gross is significant?
WW B.O. doesnt mean jack shit, the studios dont see a high percentage of that foreign money. That's why the domestic take is so crucial, and why American movies make or break on their domestic take. Can you name one film that tanked in the US and had a sequel come about solely due to it's foreign BO? It's Ok I'll wait while you look for it. Dont you think it was just a little bit convenient how WB kept Singerman floating around the $1 theaters just long enough so it could hit $200 million? And then the day after it did, it disappeared from existence. If the $200 million didnt matter, that film would've disappeared 2 weeks beforehand and not gotten the infamous designation as the slowest film EVER to reach $200 million.
And SR opening with $108 million in it's first WEEK last summer (part of which was the 4th of July holiday) is embarrassing. Spider-man 3 will beat that in it's opening weekend. But go ahead and blame Pirates for the fact that it made barley another $90 million after it's first week. It's not like any other movies did well this summer once Pirates hit, nothing like Devil Wears Prada...oh wait, that's right, that opened the same weekend as Singerman and was outgrossing it daily by August.....pathetic, your posting and Singerman.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Care to debate me yourself or do you need that PUSSY apologist puncher to do it for you BITCH"

This, from the little piece of monkey shit who got SCHOOLED by yours truly.

And him typing the word "pussy" is as CLOSE to it as he'll EVER get.

ApologistPuncher said...

Hey, is it just me, or are these "Apologists" getting more and more DESPERATE as time goes on?

You can almost SEE the look of panic and frustration on their pimpled faces and brown noses. Tears squeezing out, copies of Singerman Peeps and Apt Pupil clutched to their chests pleading:

"Make it all not true Bryan! Make it all not true!"

Anonymous said...

yeah the Apologists are really scrambling lately. The dopes at Superman Homepage are SO desperate from some semblance of positive news that they posts a news bit about Eva Marie Saint being "signed for a sequel." All of the actors were signed for a friggen trilogy before the first movie was even filmed, so why is that "news?"

Anonymous said...

Apologists fools will have to forget about their little superboy film... what a shame... ah. well.

Hey you guys see the new spidey clips? Spidey fights a couple super villains, imagine that.

Anonymous said...

Spiderman has nothing on returns. Its an emo piece of trash not the mature piece Superman Returns was. We have an alien trying to be human or a moppy guy who cant get a hard on.

Superman will return in 2009!

Restart

voice_of_reason said...

yeah Spider-man has nothing on Returns... nothing like critical acclaim, the attention of the general public, about a half billion dollar more in box office, an Academy Award, and at least 2 sequels...no nothing at all...

Hopefully Superman will return in 2009, without Singer, Routh, and the cast of other knuckleheads that blew it last summer.

Sepharih said...

“Spiderman has nothing on returns. Its an emo piece of trash not the mature piece Superman Returns was.”

...so let me get this straight. Despite supporting a movie where Superman: takes off for five years on a wild goose chase without telling anyone like a little brat, spies on the girl he “loves”, and spends at least half the film mopping around feeling sorry for himself and how difficult his life is, you have the audacity to characterize SPIDER-MAN as emo?!? Dude...I didn’t much care for the first Spider-man movie myself, but your attempt at criticism is outright hysterical.

ApologistPuncher said...

"...so let me get this straight. Despite supporting a movie where Superman: takes off for five years on a wild goose chase without telling anyone like a little brat, spies on the girl he “loves”, and spends at least half the film mopping around feeling sorry for himself and how difficult his life is, you have the audacity to characterize SPIDER-MAN as emo?!? Dude...I didn’t much care for the first Spider-man movie myself, but your attempt at criticism is outright hysterical."

His name isn't "REtard" for nothing, ya know....

Anonymous said...

You "denailist" are hopeless. You have yet to post one article saying the project is canceled. Not One. All you have is conjecture and here say. I said it once and i said it again if you were the prosecuters in a trial the defendent would walk within 30secs.

Not one......so you know what that means.............lets all chant it together.........

Man of Steel is on for 2009!

Restart

And if all you can come up with to respond is insults and not proof save yourself the energy your just looking like a fool.

ApologistPuncher said...

"You "denailist" are hopeless. You have yet to post one article saying the project is canceled. Not One. All you have is conjecture and here say. I said it once and i said it again if you were the prosecuters in a trial the defendent would walk within 30secs.

Not one......so you know what that means.............lets all chant it together.........

Man of Steel is on for 2009!

Restart

And if all you can come up with to respond is insults and not proof save yourself the energy your just looking like a fool."

This ladyboy 'tard is posting ignorant PRO-BS BULLSHIT on a site AGAINST Singerman Peeps, and he is telling OTHERS they will look "foolish"?? The same asshole who has no idea the term is GREENLIT and not "greenlite"?

How fucked in the head do you have to be to repeatedly DEMAND "proof", yet only posts conjecture and fluff-pieces of his own? I mean seriously, this is one delusional, dangerous individual walking the streets unchecked.

I feel sorry for anyone who has contact with him on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

PROOF:

IMDB, WIKIPEDIA, SUPERHEROHYPE

DENIALIST PROOF:

0

I WIN

REStart

sINGER VISION IS BACK IN 2009!

Anonymous said...

I think when the sequel get greenlit SSS and many of his cronies will probably kill themselves. I mean if they live on they will have to move out of their parent basements and stop wacking off to Superman the movie all day long, in between posting on this BLOG.

Anonymous said...

"How fucked in the head do you have to be to repeatedly DEMAND "proof", yet only posts conjecture and fluff-pieces of his own? I mean seriously, this is one delusional, dangerous individual walking the streets unchecked."

Yeah he is dangerous and you have told how many people on this BLOG that you want to BANG their mother's jackass? You trashing someones mental state is downright pathetic, given your own actions.

Anonymous said...

"you want to BANG their mother's jackass"

Their mother has a jackass??

Sounds a bit like "Greenlite" or "denailist" type writing to me.

Anonymous said...

"you want to BANG their mother's jackass"

Their mother has a jackass??

Sounds a bit like "Greenlite" or "denailist" type writing to me.:

Here is a typical post from AP. "You liked SR, well fuck off you ladyboy piece of shit, go fuck Singer in the ASS while i bang that whore of a mother of your's." Go back and check his post history that is pretty close to the shit that he says and he is questioning another persons mental state.

Sepharih said...

"PROOF:

IMDB, WIKIPEDIA, SUPERHEROHYPE"

...Wikipedia and IMDB are USER UPDATED you idiot! I can go there right now to both sites and change the information so that it lists Jon Heder as playing Superman.

Anonymous said...

John Heder > Brandon Routh

Anonymous said...

John Heder after his turn as Napoleon Dynamite has seen more films under his belt as a result than Brandon Routh after donning the Singerman suit.

Although Heder isn’t what you would call a thespian he’s got something that Routh is clearly lacking, charisma and presence.

Anonymous said...

"Although Heder isn’t what you would call a thespian he’s got something that Routh is clearly lacking, charisma and presence."

Routh was widely considered to be the best thing in SR. Even by those who hated the film. He got good reviews for his performance and the public for the most part liked him. This is not Clooney in Batman and Robin who sucked and almost everyone was in agreement that he sucked. Don't get me wrong, he is not Chris Reeve but i thought he did a nice job.

Anonymous said...

"But go ahead and blame Pirates for the fact that it made barley another $90 million after it's first week. It's not like any other movies did well this summer once Pirates hit, nothing like Devil Wears Prada...oh wait, that's right, that opened the same weekend as Singerman and was outgrossing it daily by August.....pathetic, your posting and Singerman."

So you are saying that as long as the movie is of high quality then competition be damned. A movie that rakes in over a billion dollars means nothing in regards to other films BO. Competition is a major factor in every form of business nomatter what it is. You brought up Prada which did well, imagine how much more it makes not up against Pirates and SR. Look at piece of shit movies like Night at the Museaum that made a killing because there was almost nothing else out there to be seen. Spiderman is on a whole different level. BB was a good movie that did not make half of what Spiderman pulled in and the sequel is not likely too either. Comparing SR to Spiderman is simply not fair unless you can give me another comic book film that has made what Spiderman has made in the last 5 years.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Here is a typical post from AP. "You liked SR, well fuck off you ladyboy piece of shit, go fuck Singer in the ASS while i bang that whore of a mother of your's." Go back and check his post history that is pretty close to the shit that he says and he is questioning another persons mental state."

Look at this...an "Apologist" looking for sympathy here at Singer's Superman Sucks.

"Oh, poor ME! That apologistpuncher is so very, very MEAN to us! Won't someone stand up for this ladyboy's honor??".

Since you are OBVIOUSLY REtard AGAIN trying to make it seem like there are "more" of your kind here, you ARE fucked in the head.
And pathetic.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Spiderman is on a whole different level"

This is the ONLY thing that makes sense in your entire post.

And why is it on a "different level"? Because it is a BETTER MOVIE.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Routh should have taken The Entourage route and starred in an Aquaman film.

That guy seems to be doing better than Routh as far as his film career goes. Heck he was featured in the film (Prada) that took a bite out of SR last summer.

SPDB37 said...

Interesting how people are talking about Spiderman's numbers in comparison to Batman and Superman. Both of franchises are behind the 8 ball mainly because they are not new. When Superman first came in 1978, it was groundbreaking and fresh, same thing with Batman in 1989. When you inflate their BO takes Superman made about 370 mil and Batman a little over 400 mil. When Spiderman came out in 2002 nobody had ever done a big budget high quality movie with that character before. People went into it with very much an open mind. What Spiderman has done that Batman and Superman could not is the series has maintained the quality of the original. Had Donner stayed on Superman we probably would have been treated to 3 or 4 great big hit Superman movies. However people have it ingrained in their minds as to who Superman and Batman are. They have an expectation as to how they want them to act and look. If they rebooted Spiderman in 20 years or so that will be tougher for the film because now people will then look at Spiderman in a different fashion based mainly on what they saw in the Raimi Spiderman movies. To me where SR missed was in it's lack of action and the story was weaker than it should have been. I thought outside of Bosworth the performances in the film were good, especially Brandon, who could never replace Chris Reeeve but who can? I thought BB was a good film but there have been so many Batman movies in the last 15 years audiences are not going to react to it like Spiderman.

ApologistPuncher said...

"so many Batman movies in the last 15 years audiences are not going to react to it like Spiderman."

Without a doubt, next year when Dark Knight hits, it WILL be a monster hit. The first one was greeted with skepticism in the theater, but found it's audience on DVD.

This won't happen twice. Bet on it.

spdb37 said...

"Without a doubt, next year when Dark Knight hits, it WILL be a monster hit. The first one was greeted with skepticism in the theater, but found it's audience on DVD.

This won't happen twice. Bet on it."

Not like Spiderman though. First of all it is such a dark character and it needed to go back to those roots that Nolan took it to in order to make it work again. However that alienates the kids from going to see it. Spiderman is a more kid friendly type of film. BB was a hit on DVD but again nowhere close to the level that Spiderman was or the first Pirates movie. Plus BB struggled overseas and those numbers are not likely to improve much come sequel time. TDK should do better than BB but it will not sniff Spidey type numbers.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Not like Spiderman though. First of all it is such a dark character and it needed to go back to those roots that Nolan took it to in order to make it work again. However that alienates the kids from going to see it. Spiderman is a more kid friendly type of film. BB was a hit on DVD but again nowhere close to the level that Spiderman was or the first Pirates movie. Plus BB struggled overseas and those numbers are not likely to improve much come sequel time. TDK should do better than BB but it will not sniff Spidey type numbers."

No, it will DEFINITELY "sniff", but won't "inhale". Expect at LEAST $300 million domestic, which is a "good" but not "great" domestic take.

And what exactly are you basing the overseas comment on? Wild guess, I'm thinking....

spdb37 said...

"And what exactly are you basing the overseas comment on? Wild guess, I'm thinking...."

It is tough to say at this point what TDK will make. There is no gurantee it is going to be a good film. I mean Heath Ledger as the Joker, he is no Nicholson. Plus it will be up against the likes Of Indy 4 in the summer of 08. Overseas BB made only 166 mil that is very poor even for a comic book film. Alot of people thought SR would perform like Spiderman overseas. That did not happen only further lending proof to the idea that most comic book movies are not big sellers overseas.

swright said...

Without a doubt, next year when Dark Knight hits, it WILL be a monster hit. The first one was greeted with skepticism in the theater, but found it's audience on DVD.

This won't happen twice. Bet on it.


Wow for once I am in complete agreement with AP. however, I think it will get about 270 domestic... I don't want to say 300 because who knows what people will go see.

I think BB only made 165 million overseas..That isn't a great number, it's good, but not great..however, I think that along with Domestic increase the overseas will increase too.

Anonymous said...

"...Wikipedia and IMDB are USER UPDATED you idiot! I can go there right now to both sites and change the information so that it lists Jon Heder as playing Superman."

This is my favorite denialist crap. If you go on the above websites and if you add "THE SUPERMAN RETURNS SEQUEL IS CANCELLED" Your update will be ripped down within min. Now why would that be? Oh yes I remember now because.........

Man of steel in 2009!

My superior intellect sometimes even amazes even me.

REstart

Oh and AP i always sign restart. i have mentioned that several time i know you are slow.

Anonymous said...

Oh and since this site loves quoting people that worked on previous superman films except for donner let me forward my own agenda with a quote from an actor signed for the sequel.
Ms. Saint revealed that she is indeed signed on for the Superman Returns sequel, but does not know who the main villain will be. There have only been limited talks about what Martha Kent will be doing in the sequel, although she believes that it may involve Ma Kent meeting Lois and Jason.

Man of Steel in 2009!

Restart

See instead of insulting back these "denialists" I attack them with hard cold fact. Watch how they insult me now proving how right i am.

Anonymous said...

"My superior intellect sometimes even amazes even me"...ReTard

Your command of english amazes me

Eva Marie Saint confirms sequel. What a fuckin joke. As if she'll be around for a sequel

Anonymous said...

And Zod and kevin smith never even worked on the movie and this site quoted them both. Point and game. Man you are slow arent you guess i have to spell it out again.

Man of Steel flies again in 2009!

Restart

Anonymous said...

Restart you moron, the WHOLE CAST was signed for a TRILOGY. The fact that Ma Kent says she signed for a sequel is not news to anyone, nor is it anymore proof of anything other than that she signed a contract for 3 movies back in 2004. You poor misguided fool.

Anonymous said...

Oh shit. Did 300 really out-gross superman returns??? oh wow... let me check mojo...

LOL, it did. Wow, that movie cost what again? 65 mil?

Oh wb, what have you to say to that...

Sepharih said...

“This is my favorite denialist crap. If you go on the above websites and if you add "THE SUPERMAN RETURNS SEQUEL IS CANCELLED" Your update will be ripped down within min. Now why would that be? Oh yes I remember now because.........”

…because, you fucking idiot, there are posters who change it! Probably people like YOU. Do you honestly think that ANYONE who is involved in “Singerman's” production have anything to do with what is posted on those Webpages? DO YOU?!?

Honestly, I used to think AP was being somewhat overzealous, but you really are a complete moron.

voice_of_reason said...

Oh shit. Did 300 really out-gross superman returns??? oh wow... let me check mojo...

LOL, it did. Wow, that movie cost what again? 65 mil?

Oh wb, what have you to say to that...


I'm guessing they'd say "YAY!!!" since they made 300

ApologistPuncher said...

And also: "Boy, did we back the WRONG PONY with Superman".

swright said...

you know even as someone who likes SR and defends it on here constantly, I think it would have been funny to manip BR into that pic for this entry as the Superman that CR strangles..

That would have had me rolling...lol

swright said...

oops...forgot what entry I was in...sorry about that

Anonymous said...

Wow you should go outside. There are girls out there.

Anonymous said...

Superman as a character has been limping along for years, then Singer came along and put the final damaging touches to him.