Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Why Spider-man Soars and Singerman well...Sucks

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week I'm sure you've heard by now about Spider-man 3 's record opening weekend box office take of $151.1 million domestic and $382 million worldwide. (75% and 97% of Singerman's TOTAL box office take respectively) Mind you this is for the third film in a trilogy when these big film franchises usually tend to fall off a bit i.e. Batman Forever, Superman III, The Matrix Revolutions, etc.

Now granted the box office take is not the sole indicator of a film's quality, as the few supporters of Singerman like to point out. (except when it comes to comparing it to Batman Begins, then box office matters for some reason?) However it can be one big indicator of a film's quality since if people enjoy a film or a franchise of films, they'll actually pay to see it... a novel concept I know.

So why does Spider-man, Marvel's flagship character, continue to break box office records and soar in popularity while Singerman, DC's big gun and American pop culture stalwart, festers in cinematic mediocrity and Brandon Routh's photo appears on milk cartons? Well it's a pretty simple formula, parts of which we've discussed on this blog before. The break down is as follows:

1. A director with an appreciation of the source material who isn't afraid to do his own spin on it within the bounds of what's consistent with the characters. - This is the most crucial piece to any of these films. This is why the Sam Raimi's and Christopher Nolan's of the world get such rave reviews from the fan communities and why websites like this exist for Bryan Singer. Raimi is a life-long Spider-man fan. Even so, he admitted to spending hours upon hours with the writers brushing up on the comics to decide where he wanted to go with all 3 of the Spider-man films. He wanted to do his own updated take on the material while remaining true to who the characters are. He knew these characters had withstood the test of time for a reason, and didn't have the ego to try and make them something they weren't. True, he took a lot of shit for the whole "organic webshooters" thing, but in the end it was a relatively minor alteration and he still came through with the same Spider-man character everyone knows just with an updated twist.
Singer on the other hand, admittedly shit-canned the comics, and had his cronies Harris and Dougherty pen an unabashed love letter to Richard Donner's film and took liberties with the Superman character in an attempt to give him some kind of "emotional weight," when if he had just studied the character in the comics over the last two decades since Superman: The Movie he would've found all of the weight he needed.

2. A charismatic cast who plays well off one another. - Chemistry is an important part to casting any film . Not that I'm a fan of Kirsten Dunst by any means, but she and Tobey Maguire have "it" on screen together. You buy them as a couple and you empathize with them. The entire cast plays well off one another and that energy comes across when you watch the films. There's little to no "scenery chewing" in these films either with the exception of Dafoe at times in the first film. Most everything comes off as sincere.
Compare that to Singerman where you have background extras who have more dialogue than Brandon Routh, and he and Kate Bosworth have all the chemistry of old oatmeal and dont allow the audience to build a shred of empathy for them. (and you wonder why people keep bringing up Tom Welling and Erica Durance as a basis for comparison?) Add to that the fact that they completely wasted Kevin Spacey's talents by making him play a long extinct, petty swindler version of Lex Luthor that was far too Gene Hackman-like, and it's no wonder why audiences really had trouble caring about these characters or they alleged "drama" the film was trying to build.

3. Appeal across all demographics. - Again Spider-man makes a killing at the box office because its got something for everyone. It's true to its roots so the life-long fans enjoy it. Its got a ton of action for the young male crowd. Its got love triangles for the young female crowd. It's got the fast-pacing, super villains, and bright costumed characters to appeal to children of all ages. It also doesn't take on touchy issues like pre-marital sex and illegitimate children that offend the politics of some and turn certain people off.
What demographic exactly was Singerman trying to appeal to? Besides himself that is? Singer copped to the fact that he thought he made a "chick flick." An odd choice considering comicbook movies generally skew towards the young male demographic who prefer the exact opposite of that which is the action blockbuster. (Studio head Alan Horn acknowledged that shortcoming.) It makes sense to add pieces of that drama element to a film, not dominate the movie with it, and even then it fell flat since Bosworth's zombie like performance killed any believability in the romance angle. The only person you really felt bad for in the whole mess was Richard White.
Children weren't really targeted by the film either with it's slow-pacing, lack of an interesting villain (unless you count the island...) and drab, washed out pallette, which was an extremely odd choice for such a light character. The sluggish merchandise sales figures basically confirmed that the movie didn't hit home with kids. Then you get to the alleged "elements of drama" like the illegitimate "super kid" and the creepy stalker angle, and you don't really have a family friendly film either.

4. Storylines that don't unnecessarily paint the film into a corner and lend themselves to further sequels. - At the end of each Spider-man film you know the direction the characters are headed in and they don't make have any unnecessary plot contrivances that they'll have to sweep under the rug in the sequels. They dont saddle Spider-man with children he doesnt know he has for the sake of trying to evoke some emotional response about him being an orphan. Seriously, what the hell do you do with that kid in sequels? (unless you never intended for any...) Forget him? Kill him? Make him a side-kick? If that's the case, why invent him in the first place other than for arbitrary drama?

5. Don't be ashamed of who you are. - These are comicbook characters. Embrace that! You dont need to pretend to be some boring, weighty think piece. There have been compelling drama aspects to comics for years even though the focus has always been on action and the super reality the stories are based in. You dont need to pretend to be The Bridges of Madison County in order to evoke an emotional response from your audience, the emotional aspects are in the books already. Plus going overboard like that's something that is only going to bore them to tears.This is what killed the first Hulk movie and why it's being relaunched as the action/adventure epic it should've been the first time. But at least in the case of that film, most of the cast had the acting chops to pull it off.
The Spider-man films do the comicbook drama aspect very well. The death of Peter's Uncle Ben, Peter explaining how he could've stopped the shooter to his Aunt May, the revelation to Harry Osborne that Peter is Spider-man are all very well done and all straight from the comics. Where was that in Singerman? Even the way you actually empathize to an extent with the Spider-man villains is great and they dont do it in an over-the-top, sappy way. They do what they do for a reason, not for the sake of just doing so. They actually have real motivations not wacky real estate schemes for no apparent reason. That's part of what keeps people coming back and recommending the film to their friends.

This whole "Spider-man formula," however, has been evident since May of 2002 when the first Spider-man film exploded onto the scene, a full 4 years before Singerman was even released, so why did WB miss it? Hell Singer even got parts of it right in the first two X-Men films. The only thing I can think of here is that his ego and ambition to suck up to Donner got the best of him now that he felt he didn't have to prove himself in the genre any longer.

414 comments:

1 – 200 of 414   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

It is more than just the forumla you spoke of SSS. Spidey is the hip character in people minds these days. Superman and Batman used to be the star players in this genre but the BO of BB and SR clearly shows that is not the case anymore. I know you hated SR compared to BB but the reviews were similiar as was the BO. There will come a time when Spidey is not the star he is now but at this moment his films crush all comic films at the BO and it is not even close.

Anonymous said...

SSS have you even seen the suckatude of Spiderman 3? Or I like to call it Spiderman the musical? SSS come to the light jump on the support of the greenlit sequel. Let go of the hate so there can be.

Superman again in 2009!

Restart.

IF Swright and me are the same person so is AP and SSS. But as you see AP dont post anymore because I kicked his ass.

Anonymous said...

Spider-Man 3 was a trainwreck. Obviously the Raimi movies have appeal, but the only one I really liked was Spider-Man 2. The first one is waaaaay overrated and the third one... well, you know.

To me, fidelity to the characters is more important than fidelity to the comics. The characters should be adapted but I don't think the storylines necessarily should be. Ironically enough, Singer himself proved that with his X-Men movies. One wonders how he could've forgotten that. Even so, the damage is done and the best choice would be for WB to fire Singer, wait a few years and make a new Superman franchise which has nothing to do with Singerman. Use Welling or don't use Welling, but for God's sake DON'T USE SINGER!!!

- t

Anonymous said...

You wanna see a hip pop version of Superman then look no farther than Smallville.

Anonymous said...

You know what’s funny? Smallville along with Gilmore Girls are the two leading earners in commercial revenue for The CW, at least Time Warner is able to profit from one of their Supermen.

Anonymous said...

Raimi proved that keeping the director and the same team doesn't mean that the next movie will be good or even better. That's the one thing all fanboys babbled about since Donner was kicked. It's a good thing this argument is finally put to rest.

---> Goodbye Singer!

Anonymous said...

Wow, didn’t know that Raimi spent countless hours reading up on Spiderman comics, no wonder in all his interviews about the third film he always says mostly now he’s looking forward to talking a little brake from Spidey. Say what you will about the Spidey film being to much action but the man cares a lot about the characters and their original internalizations along with what makes them human good or bad.

In contrast with Singer who doesn’t really believe in comic book films par say but is more interested in making “realistic” comic property films.

Let’s be honest here (And I am not a Singer fan by any means) but his approach and the general running theme of his entire body of work in all his films did fit well enough with the his two X-films because the real life tone of isolation, prejudice and the theme of being outcasted is what the X-Men comics are a underlying metaphor of.

But this approach for Superman just didn’t work and shows he has no understanding of the Superman character at his core at all and was the wrong man to direct Supes.

Anonymous said...

"The only person you really felt bad for in the whole mess was Richard White."
^^^
LOL, like I said before, the title of Singer's film should have been "My Super EX Boyfirend Returns". cause it sure as Hell wasn't no Superman film.

swright said...

Raimi proved that keeping the director and the same team doesn't mean that the next movie will be good or even better. That's the one thing all fanboys babbled about since Donner was kicked. It's a good thing this argument is finally put to rest."


Well the same team did Spiderman 2 and that was better than the first one, so I don't see your point.

Anonymous said...

According to the IMDB every single Spiderman film had a combination of different writers working on it, for example the screen story for Spiderman 2 was written by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar (The two head writers of Smallville) and Michael Chabon then was adapted to screenplay format by Alvin Sargent.

Meanwhile the first Spidey film was written by David Koepp and the third was written by Raimi and his bro along with input from Alvin Sargent.

Anonymous said...

Great article.

It surely can't be much longer before the penny drops around at Warners and they realise that the actor most recognised as the Man Of Steel is Tom Welling and the writers of that show were responsible for penning one of the all conquering Spidey films.

That and the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that a second Singerman film would be met with as much enthusiasm as a trip to the dentist.


And ReTard, you may go on about the "suckatude" of Spidey-3, but have YOU noticed that audiences have flocked to it?? For some reason now, that doesn't seem to matter. What do you think the execs at Warners are going to take notice of?

Spiderman3, nobody likes it except the ticket buying public. It's nearly taken all of Returns amount in a week!! If you don't think the overwhelming success of Spidey3 compared to last years anticipated blockbuster Singerman Returns hasn't made an impression on those who matter you're living in a fool's paradise

Anonymous said...

"Spiderman3, nobody likes it except the ticket buying public. It's nearly taken all of Returns amount in a week!! If you don't think the overwhelming success of Spidey3 compared to last years anticipated blockbuster Singerman Returns hasn't made an impression on those who matter you're living in a fool's paradise"

This entire quote comes down to one thing. Name me another comic movie that is making what Spidey is making? Lets see Batman, no, X-Men, No, Fantastic Four, No, Hulk, Hell no. Superman and Batman are not Spiderman in the eyes of the public they don't care about them nearly as much PERIOD. They can both have successful sequels but neither has any shot at making this kind of money. Please lets go easy on the Dark Knight people. Heath Ledger as the Joker, yeah something tells me he will be trashed as bad or worse than Kate Bosworth was for her role in SR.

Anonymous said...

"Heath Ledger as the Joker, yeah something tells me he will be trashed as bad or worse than Kate Bosworth was for her role in SR."

Brokeback Gotham, i guess. I agree Nolan did a good job with Begins but casting Ledger for the Joker has disaster written all over it.

Anonymous said...

Why don’t you like, you gave Singerman give Nolon and his second Bats film a chance before you start trashing it?

If like The Queer of Steel the film turns out really bad you can go on to some Nolon’s Batman Sucks Blog and have at it.

Anonymous said...

"Name me another comic movie that is making what Spidey is making?"

And there I was thinking Superman had greater brand recognition across an even wider demographic than Spidey.

I'd put Supes, Batman & Spiderman in the same league. The difference between Spiderman and the other two is that as a movie franchise audiences feel more secure in Spidey delivering an enjoyable film going experience. Batman hopefully will build on an impressive "Begins" but Superman, who cares after the 2 and half hour snooze fest when you can get action packed hip Superman at home on TV for free?

Plus Smallville stars someone who actually looks like Superman whilst not hindered by the most lame ass fag costume ever seen.

Kirk Alyn looks more like a convincing Superman than Routh(who?)

Anonymous said...

"And there I was thinking Superman had greater brand recognition across an even wider demographic than Spidey."

And you would be dead wrong in thinking that my man. Superman being well known does not mean he is more popular than Spiderman. Batman and Superman have been DC's heavy hitters for years and their latest movies were similiar at the BO and not anywhere in the same league as Spiderman. There was a time when Superman and Batman were the big draws in this genre, that is not the case anymore. It will come back around again at some point but Spidey is going to remain the king for a while yet.

Anonymous said...

"Plus Smallville stars someone who actually looks like Superman whilst not hindered by the most lame ass fag costume ever seen."

We agree on the costume but Routh looks so much like Reeve that saying he does not look like Superman is crazy.

Anonymous said...

Superman
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n226/belltown213/tomwellingsupes2.jpg

Singerman
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n226/belltown213/moviecard54.jpg

Anonymous said...

"We agree on the costume but Routh looks so much like Reeve that saying he does not look like Superman is crazy."

Facially Routh was perfect and he had the body as well. They just put him in the wrong suit, color wise and material wise. The designer of that thing should never get another job, it was that bad.

S.S.S. said...

^ I actually think Routh looks more like Jason Schwartzman and the guy who plays "Sylar" on Heroes than he does Christopher Reeve, but maybe that's just me?
I dont think Welling looks all too much like Reeve either, but he could resemble the Superman from the comics, probably most like the one from Jim Lee's run or maybe even John Byrne's. Welling's a natural big guy who seems to be able to pack on mass pretty easily.
Anyone seen Henry Cavill lately? He's on that Showtime series called The Tudors. He's got a great look for Supes now and would probably be my choice for a recast since he certainly has the acting chops.

Anonymous said...

I might be wrong, but I think Cavill was one of the many names being kicked around when McG was supposedly going to do the Superman movie.

I don't know how anybody can look at Routh and think he looks like Reeve. Their eyes are set differently, their noses are nowhere near the same shape, the lips are much different (noticeably fuller on Routh), etc.

Welling is naturally large and could probably bulk up... if he even needed to. I thought there was a strong resembelance between him and Ed McGuiness's version.

If Routh put on some weight and worked out (and got a MUCH better costume) I'd buy him as Superman. My complaints about Singerman are many and varied, but they don't include much of anything that was Routh's responsibility.

- T

Anonymous said...

"I don't know how anybody can look at Routh and think he looks like Reeve. Their eyes are set differently, their noses are nowhere near the same shape, the lips are much different (noticeably fuller on Routh), etc."

The only real noticeable difference is their noses their facial structure is very similiar plus they have the same body type. One thing i read over and over when Brandon was promoting SR was how much he looked like Reeve and i agree with that.

Sepharih said...

“I actually think Routh looks more like Jason Schwartzman and the guy who plays "Sylar" on Heroes than he does Christopher Reeve, but maybe that's just me?”

...you know I don’t really know what’s more eerie. How similar they actually do look, or the fact that I didn’t even notice it until now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Sepharih/singsylar.jpg

I mean seriously...

Also, I’ve got to disagree with some of your comments on why Spider-man is a success versus Superman, and I personally though Spider-man 3 sucked.
First, in so far as the Spider-man films remaining faithful to the comics I can agree to disagree on some aspects but: Kirsten Dunst is nothing like the real MJ, Spidey lacks the cynical wit he’s always had in the comics, and Sam Raimi utterly pussyfied Venom. Now to be fair on the later, Raimi has always openly admitted that he doesn’t like the character and that he was more or less pressured into using him in the film, so I’m fairly lenient on him there.

What it ultimately comes down to is that Singer just doesn’t understand the Paradigm.

At his core, Superman is a classic Greek tragic hero archetype, most closely resembling Achilles. Superman is a celebration of the ideal hero, of the hero we look up too. Conversely, Spider-man is a celebration of the hero within us, of the hero we can actually aspire to become. Whatever deviations Raimi made, he has a firm grasp of the Spider-man Paradigm. Singer doesn't.

Singer tried to portray Superman as a plaussible human being, giving him more character flaws to try and make him more identifiable. As a result, they de-mythified Superman and made him bland and boring. Wolfgang Peterson's "Troy" made the exact Same mistake with Achilles as well. Greek heroes are not introspective, and they are not conflicted. They brought depth to a character that neither wanted nor warranted it.
Superman, like any Greek hero, has to be characterized through his actions and amazing feats of strength; not his introspective thoughts, and the ones that do succeed in portraying Supes as more nuanced and introspective always cheat with the paradigm (Secret Identity, Red Son, Kingdom Come, Smallville, etc.).
Even if you are going to cheat with said paradigm, you still have to understand it to begin with.

That, and of course, the fact that alot of people have a hard time buying Routh as Supes.

Anonymous said...

"That, and of course, the fact that alot of people have a hard time buying Routh as Supes."

Uh no they don't he was the one thing most people agree on was good in SR. He got excellent reviews and most of the public did like him as Superman. Nobody can ever replace Chris Reeve he is a legend that will never change but the consensus is Routh did well.

Anonymous said...

sepharih, I'm glad you're on my side!

But who's this Routh guy you all keep talking about? Is he some sort of Tom Welling impersonator or something?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Routh did SO well that less than a year later he's now reduced to selling his autograph to collectors and appearing in costume at execs' childrens' parties.

Way to go Routh. Those 12 lines and shitty costume Singer gave you in that borefest of a superhero movie really made an impact on the filmgoing public!

What resemblance to Reeve?? People actually thought he looked like Reeve? People believed that puff line? They styled Routh's hair in the mirror and got the reverse of Reeve's/Superman's hair style! They are that pathetic when it came to attention to detail and then have the audacity to promote Routh as looking like Reeve. What an insult to costumers and stylists who actually got it spot on years ago.

Anonymous said...

"..but the consensus is Routh did well."

It is?? Boy, you sure swallow the hype if his career is anything to go on.

Sepharih said...

“Uh no they don't he was the one thing most people agree on was good in SR. He got excellent reviews and most of the public did like him as Superman. Nobody can ever replace Chris Reeve he is a legend that will never change but the consensus is Routh did well.”

Where, pray tell, are you getting this consensus from? Your ass?

Hell, I don’t even rate Tom Welling that much higher than Routh personally, but even I can tell you that he’s more synonymous with the Superman Legacy in the eyes of the general movie going public than Routh will ever be. He’s got at least a million more crazed fangirls as well.

Anonymous said...

"Where, pray tell, are you getting this consensus from? Your ass?"

Reviews and the GEN public fuckhead. Come out of your little bubble and into the real world where normal people exist motherfucker. BR is not the reason SR did not make more money. Singers shitty story is to blame for that.

Anonymous said...

"They are that pathetic when it came to attention to detail and then have the audacity to promote Routh as looking like Reeve."

Nobody promoted that. Tons of people saw it all on their own. Why is BR looking like Chris a big deal. Are some of you people on here so fucked in the head that even the idea of BR looking like Chris pisses you off. Seek therapy and lots of it.

Anonymous said...

"Why is BR looking like Chris a big deal."

He doesn't look like Chris. Seek eye test and lots of it.

Anonymous said...

"He doesn't look like Chris. Seek eye test and lots of it."

Gen public and reviews say otherwise, dial information get the number of a good shrink.

Anonymous said...

Looks like someone's a little sensitive when it comes to poor widdle Bwandon Wouth. Will Bwandon get upset and all emo just like in the movie?

I see Welling and the Smallville cast sell their autographs too...for charities!!! Routh has to sell his to pay the rent.

Anonymous said...

"Gen public and reviews say otherwise...and by refusing the evidence of my own eyes as demonstrated again above in yet ANOTHER side by side comparison, I too throw common sense to the wind and agree with the "consensus"

Yours truly,
Apologist

Anonymous said...

Shit even the screenwriter of that piece of shit Superman 4 was talking about at the end of his DVD commentary how much Brandon and Chris look alike. Mark Rosenthal is his name.

Anonymous said...

"Yours truly,
Apologist"

Look it up moron that is what you are as well.

Anonymous said...

"Shit even the screenwriter of that piece of shit Superman 4 was talking about at the end of his DVD commentary how much Brandon and Chris look alike. Mark Rosenthal is his name."

You're really hung up on how Wouth must look like Reeve, aren't you. I know you must've studied his photo intensely whilst you hold his picture up with your left hand.

Not even vaguely similar. Now as for Wouth looking like Syler, that CAN'T be a coincidence!

Anonymous said...

"Shit even the screenwriter of that piece of shit Superman 4 was talking about at the end of his DVD commentary how much Brandon and Chris look alike. Mark Rosenthal is his name."

You're really hung up on how Wouth must look like Reeve, aren't you. I know you must've studied his photo intensely whilst you hold his picture up with your left hand.

Not even vaguely similar. Now as for Wouth looking like Syler, that CAN'T be a coincidence!

Sepharih said...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Sepharih/nsupes.jpg

I’d certainly concede that he definitely looks like he could be related to Reeve, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he actually looks LIKE Reeve. It may just be a matter of seeing him in person versus seeing him on camera though. Welling is a much closer match IMO, except he looks more like how Reeve would have looked when he was still in his early twenties.

And really, I don’t mind whether he looks like Reeve or not. Who cares? It’s not like every Superman illustration in the comics looks like Reeve anyway.
The biggest thing with Routh is that, Reeve look alike or not, he doesn’t have 1/10th the charisma that Reeve had in the role. If he had that then no one would even bother to care.

Just out of curiosity though, does everyone agree that he looks a lot like Sylar? Cause I’m still kinda shocked I didn’t notice that before:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Sepharih/singsylar.jpg

Anonymous said...

Yes, the resemblance to Syler is too spooky to be coincidental, especially as it's in a series about superheroes!! An empy vessel that can suck the life and abilities out of other people. Yep that sounds like Syler and/or Bwandon Wouth.

I also agree I could care less about Wouth looking like Reeve or not (he doesn't). I do find it amusing that someone here goes to such extremes to say he does!!

The fact remains that Wouth was underwhelming as Superman, hence the autographs and costumed appearances since.

Christopher Reeve's appearences on Smallville were almost baton passing to Welling. Another missed opportunity that could have been made into something.

Hello Warner Brothers..anyone awake in there?? Yep, the studio that brought us "Catwoman" recently. Clueless mostly and the hits are more luck than planning

swright said...

Now to be fair on the later, Raimi has always openly admitted that he doesn’t like the character and that he was more or less pressured into using him in the film, so I’m fairly lenient on him there."

And to be fair, if Singer had done the same thing (tell everyone he hates a comic book villain of Superman and then destroyed his characterization) you guys would go fucking ballistic.

Sepharih, you and I completely disagree on SR of course, but you do present your side extremely well..I always like reading your posts.


And yes, I actually said to my fiance last monday how much Sylar looks like BR after he put the glasses on to go back home to see his mom.

And BR, while not being a dead ringer, does resemble CR. As much as you guys want to yell at us apologists about this, almost every reviewer even mentions the resemblance. BR was not the problem for this movie at all, and he won't be the problem if they do a sequel.

Anonymous said...

I see Welling and the Smallville cast sell their autographs too...for charities!!! Routh has to sell his to pay the rent.
^^^
BA HA HA!

brandon routh fucking sucks said...

LOL love the comment about Routh's face appearing on a milk carton. And HOLY SHIT, he DOES look like Sylar, only he's not as good an actor as that guy.

Anonymous said...

Wait a second how did Raimi destroy the characterization of Venom?

He may have taken creative liberties like he does with all the characters in the series here and there like combining different comic continuities. Including for Venom use the cartoon origin where the Symbiote comes crashing to earth in a black meteor, using Eddie Brock JR. from the Ultimate series as the look of Brock but the character’s psychological makeup and reason why he hates Peter is straight from the comics.

In the original origin story written by Todd Mcfarlane, Eddie Brock was a reporter who blamed Peter Parker for debunking his reward story, thus, humiliating Brock and ruining his career.

Farther along attracted by his intense hatred of Spider-Man the symbiote bonded with Brock while he was praying in a church after Parker rid himself of the symbiote.

This is essentially what Raimi put forth in the film but instead of Brock being a news reporter he was a photographer although it should be noted that Brock was a photographer in the cartoon series as well as some of the different Marvel comic continuities.

So yeah the guy may not have liked Venom beforehand and was pushed into putting him in the film by Avi Arad but him and his writers certainly weren’t pulling shit out of their asses like Singer and Co for Superman, a character that he claimed to love.

Although to be fair to Singer he has stated that he never read the comics and his bases for loving Supes was from the George Reeves days, Richard Donner and seeing a lot of himself in Supes as a blue eyed orphan.

Anonymous said...

THEY SAY THAT FALLING IN LOVE IS WONDERFUL

WONDERFUL

SO

THEY

SAY...

Anonymous said...

Wait a second how did Raimi destroy the characterization of Venom?
^^^
Maybe becasue he was pussy whipped by Gwen Stacy(Not that any man could blame him, GOD DAMN!)? But yeah everything else was dead on with his characterization from the source.

Anonymous said...

http://www.devotedfansnetwork.com/gallery/albums/tv/smallville/episodescreencaps/season6/620/Noir_149.jpg

^^^
There's your real Clark Kent, that collective sound you hear is all the fangirls swooning, something that Routh has never heard in his life.

S.S.S. said...

awesome manip of Routh and Sylar there, Sepharih.

Now you just need to make Kal Penn look like Suresh and James Marsden look like Peter Petrelli and we've got the making of a series called "Zeroes."

hmmm...ponders an idea for a posting... ;)

Anonymous said...

Just got back from Spidey 3 holy shit was that fucking bad time for Raimi to leave the franchise after that debacle. He is lucky the first 2 were so good because that is the only reason anyone is showing up to see that piece of shit.

swright said...

You mean like this?

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2025055333

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons the B.O. for Superman sucked due to marketing. I mean Spider 3 had 4 trailers, one 9 min preview, tons of comercials, etc. But just like the old "cashola" skeems with Pop songs Spiderman 3 will drop harder then a rock! Spiderman the musical. What Garbage. This is why this site should behind Superman. Otherwise we will get more crying wimpy emo spidermen.

In 2009 the REAL man flies!

REstart

Say what you want about returns but not once did superman cry. We got Peter crying, MJ crying, Sandman crying, Venom crying,...man I think the crew needs some zoloft.

swright said...

Say what you want about returns but not once did superman cry."

Dude, I liked SR but he teared up a couple of times. The first was when he was flying throught the clouds after "spying" on Lois, and then at the end by Jason's bed.

Anonymous said...

no one cried in Singerman because no one in the cast has the ability to emote.

Anonymous said...

"Dude, I liked SR but he teared up a couple of times. The first was when he was flying throught the clouds after "spying" on Lois, and then at the end by Jason's bed."

This is one thing i don't get about people's complaints about SR. There is nothing wrong with Superman showing emotions. I mean he gave up his powers for Lois in Superman 2 for god's sake. Isn't that one of the things that makes Superman so interesting. The fact that he is an alien but raised by humans and that he shares in their emotions and feelings.

Anonymous said...

Hey what’s wrong with superheroes emoting?

Too join the club didn’t
Wolverine cry at least twice during X3 and Bale’s Batman was on the verge of breaking down in Begins when the League of Shadows burned down his mansion.

Real men ain’t afraid to Cry!

Anonymous said...

Whining and complaining and crying is part of who Spider-Man is. I don't think it's out of character at all.

Logan and Scott also both cried (while hugging and groping each other) at the end of X2.

Lois teared up at the end of Singerman while trying to figure out why the world needs Singerman. The kid was all mopey and constantly on the verge of tears. Come to think of it, the only person in Singerman who showed any balls at all was Lex.

Anonymous said...

"There's your real Clark Kent, that collective sound you hear is all the fangirls swooning, something that Routh has never heard in his life."

LOL yeah right a good looking guy that just played Superman in a big movie yeah i am sure women don't want him at all.

Anonymous said...

^^^
You’re aware that the guy you’re referring to is now selling his autograph to pay the rent so he doesn’t have to go back to tending bar in Hollywood and there is no denying that Welling has the teenybopper fangirl market owned over Routh, which was what my OG post was referring too.

Anonymous said...

Get off the autograph sell. Obviously you have never gone to a SiFi convention. Everyone sells their autograph. Its a huge bonaza. Hell C3PO goes for $30 and I got James Douhan for $20(when he was alive) All of hollywood is pimp misers. If you were famous you would do it to just to suck up as much fortune as you can.

Superman won't sign autographs in 2009!

Restart

The most pathetic one I saw was the guy who played SHAZAM in the 70's no on was at his table.

Anonymous said...

Really everyone does it? Did you see Tobey Mcguire or Christian Bale doing random Sci-Fi conventions after their turns as heroes on the big screen? The only time they’re near a comic convention is when they have a film to promote as part of the media blitz.

Guess those big offers ain’t coming Routh’s way and he’s got to pay the monthly on his plush LA pad somehow, the dude’s like Adam West.

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

The trilogy ends summer 09.

Anonymous said...

"You’re aware that the guy you’re referring to is now selling his autograph to pay the rent so he doesn’t have to go back to tending bar in Hollywood and there is no denying that Welling has the teenybopper fangirl market owned over Routh, which was what my OG post was referring too."

Big fucking deal Welling has a teeny bopper audience, yet he will never be in a Superman film because he is such a pre-madonna and thinks he is bigger than the role.

Anonymous said...

"Really everyone does it? Did you see Tobey Mcguire or Christian Bale doing random Sci-Fi conventions after their turns as heroes on the big screen? The only time they’re near a comic convention is when they have a film to promote as part of the media blitz.

Guess those big offers ain’t coming Routh’s way and he’s got to pay the monthly on his plush LA pad somehow, the dude’s like Adam West."

You are referring to people who already had established careers before they were in a comic film. This was Brandon's first film and he will be doing 2 more before the sequel starts. I love all the talk of Brandon not getting big roles. Name one big role Chris Reeve ever got outside of Superman, just one.

Anonymous said...

"pre-madonna"

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day!

Fuckin classic and displays the brains trust that are the apologists

Anonymous said...

"That's the funniest thing I've seen all day!

Fuckin classic and displays the brains trust that are the apologists"

Welling refuses to show up to many fan events. You want irony Michael Rosenbaum is one of the nicest guys on the show and shows up to all the big fan events. Yes Lex Luthor is a nice guy and Superman is a dick who would have guessed.

Anonymous said...

Funny that someone like Welling who has stated many times that he was never a Superman fan before hand and who has no intentions of ever donning the cape has a clearly better understanding of the Superman character than both Singer and Routh , who claim to be life long fanboys.

All you have to do is take a look at the Welling directed tenth episode of the current season of SV.

Clark was so Superman-like in the final barn loft scene. His behavior reflected his basic values and the values of the character at large, and he did the right thing, in regards to Lana’s relationship. A baby does change everything, and no version of Clark/Superman should ever be a home wrecker, the exception being Singerman, of course.

It’s such a refreshing change to see his perspective on these fictional characters, and their relationships with each other. The great thing about SV is that like the Spiderman films, even though it takes liberties with the source material it stays true to the characters and their original internalizations while putting a new spin on them to keep it fresh with the times.

Anonymous said...

"All you have to do is take a look at the Welling directed tenth episode of the current season of SV.

Clark was so Superman-like in the final barn loft scene. His behavior reflected his basic values and the values of the character at large, and he did the right thing, in regards to Lana’s relationship. A baby does change everything, and no version of Clark/Superman should ever be a home wrecker, the exception being Singerman, of course."

LOL uh my man unless Tom Welling actually wrote that show he directed then everything you just said is fucking idiotic beyond belief.

Anonymous said...

Welling a pre-Madonna? I’m sorry wasn’t Routh the one that threw a diva hissy fit at a Singerman media event because he felt that his makeup didn’t make him like man enough?


Superman star has tantrum after make-up made him look 'wimpy'

By CLEMMIE MOODIE, Daily Mail - More by this author » Last updated at 23:56pm on 13th July 2006

As America's favorite super hero, Superman is the epitomy of manliness.
But it appears the actor drafted in to play Clark Kent in the new movie sequel is more concerned with his make-up than saving the world.

SUPERMAN PREMIERE SPECIAL

American star Brandon Routh was left furious this week after he complained the make-up used on his face at a press conference made him look pale, artificial and 'a bit wimpy'.
The actor became annoyed when he saw pictures of himself posing up next to his Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth, who, he said, looked much more natural and sun kissed.
After the Superman Returns press conference at London's Dorchester Hotel on Wednesday afternoon, Routh's aides had new darker foundation flown in for him to use in time for last night's premiere in Leicester Square.
"To say that Brandon was livid with his make-up is an understatement," said an aide.
"The problem arose when he posed for photographs beside his co-star Kate Bosworth - who has a fantastic tan - and he realized that he looked pale and artificial in comparison.
"Basically there was a problem with the shade of his tinted moisturizer - it was slightly lighter than his natural skin tone - so he asked for an expensive fake tan moisturizer to be used instead.
"A waterproof, gradual build one which develops over time was eventually found and has given him a natural, all-over golden glow.
"This is Brandon's first major movie premiere and in front of thousands of screaming fans, it is understandable that he wanted to look like a tanned, Adonis of a superhero and not a pale-skinned wimp."
In stark contrast to his all-action counterpart, Routh refused to tackle the rather embarrassing topic head-on.
Instead, he ordered his personal assistant to do it for him.
So, within minutes the film company's specialist make-up artist had been hauled in and instructed to make Routh more tanned.
The young star's diva-like behavior is a far cry from that of his straight-talking predecessor, Christopher Reeve, who first played Superman - and the character's alter ego Clark Kent - in 1978.

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

The trilogy ends summer 09.

Anonymous said...

^Yeah digging up tabloid trash that SSS posted on here like a year ago please. Welling thinks he is a huge movie star which is why he never shows up to fan events and refuses to ever play Superman in the movies. He is not exactly a great Representitive for the man of steel.

Anonymous said...

I have read reports of similar outbursts in USA Today and Factropolis. Routh should keep in mind that fame can be fleeting.

S.S.S. said...

Name one big role Chris Reeve ever got outside of Superman, just one.

You REALLY dont want to go there. Reeve CHOSE to do art house flicks after Superman because he wanted to get away from the mega-stardom that being Superman brought him (something Mr. Welling seems to share with him).
Reeve took roles in lesser films like Somewhere in Time and Deathtrap to spread his wings as an actor. Don't forget he was a classically trained thespian before donning the cape and a graduate of Juliard, he was Robin Williams' roommate in college (little known fact).
Reeve turned down roles in other blockbusters like The Running Man and Total Recall and later lamented doing so, and took responsibility for his perceived type-casting. I wouldn't equate Routh's situation to being at all similar, although I dont think you can really judge "B.J." until we see what he does in a few years.

Anonymous said...

Back on topic people this post is supposed to be about why Spiderman flew and Singerman fell at the box office, if you wanna post about Routh VS Welling be the first to comment on SSS’s other columns about the subject.

S.S.S. said...

Yeah digging up tabloid trash that SSS posted on here like a year ago please. Welling thinks he is a huge movie star which is why he never shows up to fan events and refuses to ever play Superman in the movies. He is not exactly a great Representitive for the man of steel.

From what I've heard about Tom, he's a very private person similar to how Christopher Reeve was. I've never seen anything that would indicate that he doesnt do appearances out of ego. Although anytime I've heard an account of someone meeting him on the street, he seems to have been more than accommodating.
It's funny that you bring this type of thing up because the other day my email had a bunch of links in it to something on BrandonRouth.com's message forums about how he totally slighted one of his big fans at the signing you guys are talking about. I never got a chance to check it out.

Anonymous said...

"You REALLY dont want to go there. Reeve CHOSE to do art house flicks after Superman because he wanted to get away from the mega-stardom that being Superman brought him (something Mr. Welling seems to share with him).
Reeve took roles in lesser films like Somewhere in Time and Deathtrap to spread his wings as an actor. Don't forget he was a classically trained thespian before donning the cape and a graduate of Juliard, he was Robin Williams' roommate in college (little known fact)."

I know everything about Chris and loved him but he suffered the same fate as George Reeves in the 50's tv show they both were typecast and could not find other big roles. Chris always expressed his dissapointment in Somewhere in Time because it was one of his favorite roles and it bombed at the BO. He told the Salkinds during production of Superman 3 that he was done with Superman. Another couple of BO dissapointments later he agreed to come back for the right price for Cannon. There is no doubt in my mind that Reeve was the better actor, Routh is not as good as him but you can't use Reeve's career as any kind of reference of great success outside of Superman, because he did not have any. His greatest contributions were to society in the 2nd half of his life.

S.S.S. said...

yes, yes back on topic. Spider-man 3 is tracking to make more domestically (around $400 million) than Singerman made worldwide.

Discuss.

voice_of_reason said...

I know everything about Chris and loved him but he suffered the same fate as George Reeves in the 50's tv show they both were typecast and could not find other big roles.

apparently you dont know everything, because SSS just listed two of the roles that launched "Ahnold" into superstardom that Reeve turned down first. So apparently he was offered "big roles" but chose not to accept them .

Anonymous said...

"yes, yes back on topic. Spider-man 3 is tracking to make more domestically (around $400 million) than Singerman made worldwide.

Discuss."

Actually look at what it is doing this week it is dropping fast because it really sucks and i loved Spidey 1 and 2 but 3 was very poor. I fail to see why that is a big deal when Spidey is the big comic franchise right now, he has no equal. It is not like Batman or X-Men are making that kind of cash.

Anonymous said...

"apparently you dont know everything, because SSS just listed two of the roles that launched "Ahnold" into superstardom that Reeve turned down first. So apparently he was offered "big roles" but chose not to accept them ."

The Running man was a flop at the BO jackass, try again.

Anonymous said...

"apparently you dont know everything, because SSS just listed two of the roles that launched "Ahnold" into superstardom that Reeve turned down first. So apparently he was offered "big roles" but chose not to accept them ."

Plus that movie came out 9 years after STM. SR was just released last summer so give Brandon a chance to do other things before you bury him and say his career is over.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit you people are still here whining about this movie. You know it is May guys, warm weather, flowers blooming, hot girls running around in short skirts. Go outside get some fresh air live a little. This kind of sad obsession can't be good for your health.

Anonymous said...

"Welling refuses to show up to many fan events. You want irony Michael Rosenbaum is one of the nicest guys on the show and shows up to all the big fan events. Yes Lex Luthor is a nice guy and Superman is a dick who would have guessed."

That is so retarded. Willingness to show up for fan conventions has little or nothing to do with an actor's disposition towards fans. I get the idea Rosenbaum gets a kick out of the adulation. He's there as much for his own entertainment as for shouting out to the fans. Welling shows up, does his job and leaves. He's no more a dick for doing that than the litany of other SV costars (who, btw, shoulder MUCH less of the storyline) for not doing it either.

As for Routh, if he really is showing up in costume for exec parties... man, that's just PATHETIC. Doubly so since he's a good actor and one of the bright spots of Singerman.

- T

Anonymous said...

"yes, yes back on topic. Spider-man 3 is tracking to make more domestically (around $400 million) than Singerman made worldwide.

That's great news for Spidey! That's about what it needs to do in the US alone to make backs its budget according to Sony which is like 258 million bucks.

If Pirates can make so much money why can’t Spidey, they’re both really fun films that have such a wide range of appeal.

swright said...

Clark was so Superman-like in the final barn loft scene. His behavior reflected his basic values and the values of the character at large, and he did the right thing, in regards to Lana’s relationship. A baby does change everything, and no version of Clark/Superman should ever be a home wrecker, the exception being Singerman, of course."


I guess you missed the episode where TW's Clark Kent decided it was cool to kiss a woman on her wedding day..Oh...and then went into her private room to beg her to leave her new husband. oh and tonight while in her bedroom at the mansion, Clark started to go in for a kiss and stopped just like BR did in SR. So let's get real here. I'm a big Smallville fan, but what they have done to the character this year is horrible.

Oh and SSS there is no way Spiderman makes 400 million domestic. It has too much competition coming out. Shrek 3 will take away theatres next week and Pirates will take even more the following week. My guess is that it tops out at 300 to 340 million domestic. However, it's still going to make it's budget back by the end of the theatrical run.

Anonymous said...

"I guess you missed the episode where TW's Clark Kent decided it was cool to kiss a woman on her wedding day..Oh...and then went into her private room to beg her to leave her new husband. oh and tonight while in her bedroom at the mansion, Clark started to go in for a kiss and stopped just like BR did in SR. So let's get real here. I'm a big Smallville fan, but what they have done to the character this year is horrible."

Exactly and like i said Welling directed an episode he did not write the dialogue. He is no more responsible for Clark's actions with Lana than Routh was in Returns when he was spying on Lois.

Anonymous said...

Yes both Supermen are somewhat home wreakers but the subtext and context of their lover’s crushes are completely different.

The Clark Kent in SV even though is somewhat infatuated by his youthful love for Lana is at the same time trying to save her from a very bad relationship with LEX LUTHOR while Superman in SR is just being selfish and trying to steal Lois away from a very loving and caring man who was their to even help her take care of Supes kid because she couldn’t wait 5 years for him to come back.

Did you see the scene in SR when Clark held the picture of Lois and Richard and the guy pretty much cracked the frame with the photo in it?

Some of you wanna talk about how deep SR is as a film. If that isn’t symbolism for a premeditated home wrecking then nothing is. If this was really SuperMAN (You know the guy who is supposed to show mankind how great they can be)then he would have realized how much he hurt Lois by leaving, saw that she was in a relationship with a gentlemen and stepped aside instead of trying to seduce her away from poor old Richard.

Anonymous said...

"I guess you missed the episode where TW's Clark Kent decided it was cool to kiss a woman on her wedding day..Oh...and then went into her private room to beg her to leave her new husband.
^^^
What you seem to be forgetting is the Clark Kent in SV is a very lovestoned nine teen year kid while the Supes in SR is supposed to be a grown man who is still acting like a high school kid.

Anonymous said...

For fucks sake, it's PRIMA DONNA, not PRE-MADONNA!

Bwandon Wouth is a prima donna

Judy Garland was pre-Madonna

.....but coincedently both are gay icons

Sepharih said...

“And to be fair, if Singer had done the same thing (tell everyone he hates a comic book villain of Superman and then destroyed his characterization) you guys would go fucking ballistic.”

Not even remotely true.

As big a Spider-man fan as I am, I know that I sure as hell have absolutely no love for The Jackal, Kaine, the Spider Doppelganger, or any of the other characters who were part of that atrocious Clone saga.
Being a devote fan of a character in no way means that you have to love everything the character has ever been involved with. I don’t have a quote handy but Chris Nolan once said that one of the villains we will never see as long as he is involved with the franchise is Clayface; because he never liked the character much.
Personally, I’m no big fan of Doomsday and am in no rush to see him on the screen, although if anyone can make a good story from that character it will be Bruce Timm and Co. in their straight to DVD release.

Me, I’m a Venom fan. I love the character. I find him fascinating. Sam Raimi doesn’t. That’s fine.
I hate what he did to the character, but he was always very open about the fact that he didn’t understand the appeal, and that he was more or less pressured into using him because of his sheer popularity. I can’t really hate the guy for that. I doubt he had any fun exploring it himself.

Also worth saying is that I’m fairly open to reinterpretation and change in this sense. After all, if we had to hate every change that was made like that then Mr. Freeze would still be a two bit joke villain, and more than likely would still be dead. Thanks to the outstanding revamp of Batman: TAS, which turned him into a tragic character, he came back in a huge way, and is one of the coolest (pun intended) villains Batman has in his rogue gallery, and since Batman has the coolest Rogue gallery ever, that is saying something. Some people will disagree with me on this, but I actually think the DCAU version of Brainiac is a hell of a lot cooler than his traditional comic form.
I just consider Raimi’s interpretation (read: misinterpretation) to be a travesty to the character. He was better than Ultimate Venom, but that’s the best I can say.

“Sepharih, you and I completely disagree on SR of course, but you do present your side extremely well..I always like reading your posts.”

Thanks.


“Wait a second how did Raimi destroy the characterization of Venom...?

First, as much as I love Brian Michael Bendis and his take on Ultimate Spider-man, Ultimate Venom is garbage. He’s even worse than Raimi’s interpretation, and should have had no part whatsoever in the adaptation of the character.
Second, in the cartoon, the symbiote did not land on earth inside a meteor. It was discovered during a moon exploration conducted by NASA, and attached itself to Spider-man whilst he was extracting the survivors from a shuttle crash.
I know it’s not the comic origin, and I honestly wouldn’t want it to be, but one of the things I pointed out in my review of the film was that a kid’s show was able to come up with a standalone Venom origin that was far more plausible than this movies sad attempt. It was downright sloppy storytelling by having that thing land right in the middle of Peter Parker’s lap as it did.

Now all of the things you mention are more or less indeed faithfully represented on the screen. However;
In Superman Returns: Superman has all the powers that he traditionally has in the comics, he’s still mild mannered Clark Kent who’s a reporter for the Daily planet, he’s the last son of Krypton raised on Earth in Smallville Kansas, his Arch nemesis is still Lex Luthor, he’s still in love with Lois Lane......
See where I’m going with this?

All of the details you mentioned are classic staples of the Venom character, much like the ones I mentioned about Superman above are a part of his character.
Yet despite these aspects being more or less faithfully represented, these details still do not define who they are.

Really, I can nitpick the character to death and even go serious fanboy on you about the lack of a tongue, but here are my top 4 issues with his representation:

1. The symbiote didn’t have enough character development.
There’s a lot more to the Symbiote than what is presented in the movie. It has a real personality beyond simply being some kind of primal and instinctual black ooze (as portrayed in the film). It has sentience.
As a parallel, think of the one ring in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. It never really speaks, but it’s often personified and treated as a real character within the story. No need to hear it speak, but more time should have been devoted to exploring this, as Peter gradually came to understand what the Symbiote was actually doing to him.
The Symbiote also has a love/hate relationship with Parker. It loves him, truly, but it hates him for rejecting it. In fact, it’s been shown more than once that if Parker were to ask, the Symbiote would be willing to leave Brock for him. Peter is the one it truly loves, so much that it can’t stand being rejected by him.
This also leads us into my second problem,

2. The duality of the character is destroyed.
The Symbiote and Eddie Brock are two unique characters. Only together do they form Venom, hence why Venom always refers to himself as “we”, and movie Venom doesn’t.
It’s downright criminal that we didn’t get a Gollum/Doc Ock/Green Goblin scene with Venom, because while it was an odd (but admittedly interesting) liberty taken with Ock to give his tentacles their own personality, it’s absurd that this fundamental aspect of the Venom character was completely removed and not touched on in any way at all.

3. Venom had no charm.
As much as I’ll profess to love the character and find him fascinating, a deeply complex and depthful character Venom is not. What made Venom so popular was how absurdly charming he was. Lines like “I’ll eat your brains!”, or “Come here little Spider...now…PLAY DEAD!” or my favorite “Oh! He’s going to DIE! Oh HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!” were never done so charmingly.
As a comparison, think Freddy Kruger. Yes, he’s a monster of horror, but he’s a seriously charming monster. He has charisma, personality, screen presence. Movie Venom doesn’t. Raimi barely even lets him speak, and when he does for the first time it’s Topher Grace’s voice...unmodulated. Leading me to my final point,

4. Topher Grace sucks.
Ok, not entirely true. Topher Grace isn’t all that bad as his interpretation of Brock, but he couldn’t be more unintimidating if he tried. He comes across as ridiculous and is anything but scary when the mask is off.
The guy who plays Venom doesn’t necessarily have to be a brilliant actor, but he does have to be able to be intimidating, charming, and, again, be able to stand amongst the likes of Robert Englund and other legends of the horror genre. Topher Grace can’t. He’s not just miscast as Venom, he’s miscast as Raimi’s interpretation of Venom.

So there we are.

“Although to be fair to Singer he has stated that he never read the comics and his bases for loving Supes was from the George Reeves days, Richard Donner and seeing a lot of himself in Supes as a blue eyed orphan.”

To rephrase what I said before with Achilles, if you see yourself in Superman, you’re reading him wrong. Superman isn’t a hero we’re supposed to identify with. He’s a hero we’re supposed to look up too. He’s meant to be ideal.
The only time we should see ourselves in Superman is when the writers drastically change or alter the paradigm, such as on Smallville. I stopped watching Smallville well over a season ago though, so I can’t comment on what’s happening right now.
The series SHOULD have gradually shifted from a young, introspective, and conflicted Clark Kent in youth towards a more uncompromising figure of epic heroism. We should have focused on this extreme shift from Clark as being a conflicted young teenager towards his becoming the ideal Hero, but it became painfully clear to me at some point halfway through Season 4 that the writers had no idea where they were actually going, or how to actually do that.

“awesome manip of Routh and Sylar there, Sepharih.”
Glad you liked it SSS!

“Hey what’s wrong with superheroes emoting? “
Nothing. But, especially with Superman, that shouldn’t be the focus of the story now should it? Superman Returns was one long story overdrawn story where Superman did little more than mop around, brood, and feel sorry for himself. No thank you. Give me epic larger than life myth.

Anonymous said...

.....but coincedently both are gay icons

Routh was featured on the cover of The Advocate, and Singerman was also featured in the LA Times expose “Will a Gay Icon Fly at the box office”.

Anonymous said...

"Routh was featured on the cover of The Advocate, and Singerman was also featured in the LA Times expose “Will a Gay Icon Fly at the box office”"

Yeah and the only reason that happened is because Singer is gay. Some people were desperate to find gay overtones to the film because it's director was gay. SR is the story of a man still in love with the love of his life and they now have a child together. Superman has never been gay and Brandon Routh is not gay so any references to that in SR are complete and total BULLSHIT!!

Anonymous said...

"saw that she was in a relationship with a gentlemen and stepped aside instead of trying to seduce her away from poor old Richard."

If he was truly trying to take Lois away from Richard he would have laid claim to his son. He left Jason with Lois and Richard without saying a word to Lois about it. Everything in the end was all inferred. "I love you, you love me but we are better off apart with you staying with Richard and raising our son". That was the meaning of the end of SR even if you misunderstood it.

sepharih said...

"any references to that in SR are complete and total BULLSHIT!!"

O RLY?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Sepharih/BS.gif

Anonymous said...

"It's funny that you bring this type of thing up because the other day my email had a bunch of links in it to something on BrandonRouth.com's message forums about how he totally slighted one of his big fans at the signing you guys are talking about. I never got a chance to check it out."

Yes i am familiar with what went down with this. This person is a big poster over at Bluetights.net and BR.com. For about a month she was totally excited about going to meet Brandon at this event. She was posting like crazy on both sites about it. She is one of those people that has their picture posted all over myspace and so it is easy to see what she looks like. Anyway she was meeting up with another member of Bluetights at the event and he was late getting there. Apparently she was off to the side taking pics of Brandon as he signed and took pictures with other fans while she was waiting for the other member of her party. Security at the event apparently was put on notice to watch out for her given how public she was about this on BT and they knew what she looked like. I have talked to her before and she is a very nice person but for whatever reason security thought she was a threat and they informed Brandon of this. So when she actually got to meet with him, Brandon was nice to her friend but rather cold to her mainly because security had warned him about her. I don't blame him if security says watch out for her what else is he going to do? That is basically what went down and it was sad because she is a nice person and this was just a big misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037380_20037382_20038105_4,00.html

No surprises in that poll's result!!

sepharih, that gif of Bwandon Wouth and Spacey is the gayest thing I've seen in ages.

And some naive apologist above reckons just because the director is gay doesn't mean the film is!

Anonymous said...

"Superman won't sign autographs in 2009!

Restart"


No, by that time he'll be fired out of a cannon at the Kentucky State Fair

Anonymous said...

....and in a cruel twist of fate, he'll be wearing a costume that was made by his Mother

Anonymous said...

Warner Bros.' relaunch of the Man of Steel franchise garnered five kudos, including top fantasy film, directing honors for Bryan Singer and the top actor award for star Brandon Routh.

Pic's scripters, Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty, took the writing award, and composer John Ottman received the best music award.

On the TV side, "Heroes" nabbed top network series kudos, as well as supporting actor and actress awards for Masi Oka and Hayden Panettiere.


Wow as predicted Super rocked at the Saturns. Proving the....

Return in 2009!

Restart

Sepharih said...

^The Saturn awards mean, precisely, dick.

Let me assure you now, Singer would gladly trade every Saturn award he ever has or ever will make for even one Oscar.
The academy awards are just as political as anything else, true, and they hardly mean anything in terms of actual quality, but at least they have some clout. The Saturn awards? When was the last time you actually heard someone talk about the Saturn awards? When was the last time you heard the line "(X movie), the Saturn award winning film is now on DVD!"

Anonymous said...

Yes but comic book movies don't typically win oscars or golden globes. Hell best picture at the Oscars is usually given to some artsy flick that very few people have even heard of. BTW SR won 5 Saturns and BB only 3.

Anonymous said...

To me, the lack of Oscar nominations is a lot less conspicuous than the nonstop hype behind the Saturn awards. For a comic book movie to be overlooked for an Oscar is by no means unheard of. On the other hand, a comic book movie getting so megahyped about winning an award nobody gives two fucks about *is* unheard of.

Besides which isn't Singer part of the Saturn award selection committee? That's not exactly an unbiased judge, is it?

- T

swright said...

Bryan Singer and SR writers interviews about the sequel and VALKERIE. It doesn't look like BS is planning on leaving anytime soon. If fact he is planning on doing the SR sequel right after he's completely done VALKERIE. They are hoping to be in principal photography by next summer, which would be in line with what we have heard so far with pre-production beginning in March. Here's the link to the interviews...

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/4346/tcid/1

Sepharih said...

“Yes but comic book movies don't typically win oscars or golden globes. Hell best picture at the Oscars is usually given to some artsy flick that very few people have even heard of. BTW SR won 5 Saturns and BB only 3.”

I reiterate; the Saturn awards mean, precisely, dick. I couldn’t care less if Superman Returns won 10 Saturn awards and Batman Begins won none. The award has absolutely no clout whatsoever. It’s inconsequential.
I never even said anything about “Best Picture” concerning the Oscars. 1 Oscar, even if only for Visual FX or Sound Editing, counts for more in Hollywood than 100 Saturn awards for “Best Picture” or “Best Actor” ever will.

“http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/4346/tcid/1”

We’ll see what happens, but until the studio sees his script treatment and the project is greenlit anything can happen.
That said, I’d still be very surprised if we actually got that rumored Justice League film, or if they didn’t give the sequel a chance. Warner Bros. has probably made too much of an investment in this disaster to just walk away.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Anonymous said...

So Singerman, won five stupid "Saturn Awards", which Brian Singer has a stake in. WOW, and that means what exactly, kind of like the Bushies handing at medals to the incompetant fools in this administration.

Have to laugh though, B Routh career is sinking faster than the Titanic.

Both Matther Bomer and Henry Cavill, actors who were turned down for the role, have flourishing careers at this point, gettin good reviews, and women fawning all over them.

And Routh. Dressing up for execs in the Singerman outfit, and charging for his autograph.

Routh is pathetic, and so was the film.

Restart with some talent.

voice_of_reason said...

LOL @ Restart and all the other apologists grasping for some semblance of credibility by bringing up "Saturn Awards."

Not that those awards mean dick in a box, but didnt SSS show a few months back that Singer AND his writing buddy from Apt Pupil AND a WB executive are on the nomination committee for the awards? Didnt he also show that X3 and Poseidon were also nominated for their best picture awards?

Congrats Singer for giving yourself a pat on the back when no one else would. Glad to see you didnt got 6 for 6 with those awards, just 5 for 6 so as not to make it look too bad....pathetic

Anonymous said...

It's just a movie.

GET LIVES, YOU NERDS!

Anonymous said...

"It's just a movie.

GET LIVES, YOU NERDS!"

You think this is bad. If Singer gets the greenlight for SR 2 some people that occupy this blog will be on the verge of suicide.

Anonymous said...

AP & SSS I have your gun. You can rent a bullet!

Since Singers in for 2009!

rEstart

Anonymous said...

"You think this is bad. If Singer gets the greenlight for SR 2 some people that occupy this blog will be on the verge of suicide."

I KNOW WHY THE NERDS ARE UNHAPPY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT SUPERMAN TO FIGHT NUCLEAR MAN AGAIN OR SOME SHIT.

AND IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S LIFE. NOT EVERYTHING GOES GREAT... MOVE ON.

sepharih said...

“It's just a movie.

GET LIVES, YOU NERDS!”

It’s just a blog for Superman fans.

GET A LIFE, YOU TROLL!

voice_of_reason said...

if you care enough to go to the trouble of posting on this blog, however mundane or pointless your post may be, then you're no different then the people who run the thing.

So calling others "nerds" when you're not only reading but posting on an internet blog about a superhero movie, doesn't exactly make you a merchant of cool. Although I'm sure everyone here is a "fat, pastey basement dweller" with the exception of you, of course. Please share with us this secret that ONLY you have about having a real life and using the internet. As a matter of fact wait a second, I need to get my notepad...

Anonymous said...

YEAH BUT YOU GUYS THINK YOU MIGHT BE TAKING THIS TOO FAR? SERIOUSLY THE WAR'S BEEN OVER FOR MONTHS.

DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ENDLESSLY ARGUE ABOUT?

TERRORISM OR SOMETHING?

IT'S JUST A BLOG, BUT IT'S ALSO FULL OF SQUABBLING OVER MEN IN TIGHTS SO I DON'T FEEL QUIT AS PATHETIC AS YOU WANT ME TO FEEL SINCE I'M TAKING THE HIGHER GROUND AND CALLING YOU ALL OUT FOR BEING SILLY.

Anonymous said...

CHECK THIS OUT

http://darthno.ytmnd.com/

NOW THAT WAS PRETTY HORRIBLE, BUT I GOT OVER IT AND TRIED TO ERASE IT FROM MEMORY AND GET ON WITH LIFE. SO CAN YOU ALL.

EXCEPT SSS, SSS CAN KEEP DOING THIS. I LIKE THE HUMOR. THEN EVERYONE IN THE COMMENTS ACTS LIKE THEY'RE COMPLETELY SERIOUS AND RUINS THE MOOD.

Anonymous said...

Returns wins Saturn Awards!!!!!!

Just when the suits at Warners really started to doubt the continued viability of Singer's vision of Superman in face of the US$622 million onslaught of Spiderman 3, news breaks that Returns has "dominated" the Saturn Awards!!

Nevermind the Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, box office clout or especially the Razzies(that means you, Younis!) Faith has been restored in the hearts of apologists worldwide (but mostly in Sydney)knowing Singer and co have shiney Saturns for the mantlepiece. It's all about the timing, isn't it Spidey......



What the fuck is a Saturn Award?

Sepharih said...

“YEAH BUT YOU GUYS THINK YOU MIGHT BE TAKING THIS TOO FAR? SERIOUSLY THE WAR'S BEEN OVER FOR MONTHS.

DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ENDLESSLY ARGUE ABOUT?

TERRORISM OR SOMETHING?

IT'S JUST A BLOG, BUT IT'S ALSO FULL OF SQUABBLING OVER MEN IN TIGHTS SO I DON'T FEEL QUIT AS PATHETIC AS YOU WANT ME TO FEEL SINCE I'M TAKING THE HIGHER GROUND AND CALLING YOU ALL OUT FOR BEING SILLY.”

First off,
"Seven sixteenths of one inch. That's the distance you'd have to move your pinky in order to not sound like an idiot."
-Maddox

If you think this blog consumes even half of our lives then please piss off. So I like to check the blog once or twice every now and then and drop a line amongst my fellow critics. How is it worse than someone who spends all of their free time downloading funny/stupid videos online? How is it worse than the people who spend their free time going on myspace? How is it worse than people who play MMORPGS? It’s my own free time and I’ll spend it however the hell I want.
That’s the last thing I’ll say on the issue.

Anonymous said...

OH SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THE WAH WAH WAH.

OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE BOTHERED ENOUGH TO REPLY SO IT CONSUMES WAY TOO MUCH.

I WISH WE COULD ALL GET DRUNK AND HAVE FUN INSTEAD OF THIS SHIT.

Anonymous said...

hey ass ranger, turn your Caps Lock key off. Then go outside and get some sun, and touch a girl...legally of course

Anonymous said...

LIKEWISE. AND IT'S BETTER WHEN IT'S ILLEGAL. TRUST ME. I USE CAPS TO MAKE MYSELF STAND OUT AND SO FAR I'VE SUCCEEDED, BITCH.

ANYWAY THIS IS MY LAST WORD TO YOU COMIC HUGGING PHUCKERS.

GET

OVER

IT.

YOU THINK I'M STUPID. YOU WANT TO ARROGANTLY BREAK ME DOWN, DISMISS MY WORDS, BUT GOOD LUCK WITH THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THE TRUTH. YOU'RE ALL JUST SCARED LITTLE CHILDREN. OH NOES POLAR BEARS. OH NOES!!11 SUPERBOY!11 OH NOES GIANT SPIDERS! YOU GUYS NEED TO GROW SOME BALLS AND DEAL WITH IT. NOT EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE JUST LIKE THE COMIC BUT SO THE FUCK WHAT? THE COMIC AUDIENCE IS TINY. ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE MOVIE AUDIENCE SO THIS KIND OF THING IS UNAVOIDABLE. CHANGES WILL ALWAYS BE MADE TO ACCOMODATE THAT. DEAL WITH IT.

ALSO I'LL COMMENT ONCE AND FOR ALL ON THIS WHOLE MESS BETWEEN SUPERMAN FANBOYS.

IT STARTED LIKE THIS:

ALL THE BRYAN SINGER FANBOYS WERE ARROGANTLY BASHING SMALLVILLE BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED SUPERMAN RETURNS WOULD BE MORE LIKE THE COMIC. SMALLVILLE FANS WERE OF COURSE DISPLEASED WITH ALL THE UNNEEDED VENOM BEING SPEWED AT THEM BUT TO MANY'S SURPRISE MOST OF THE MOST NOTABLE SMALLVILLE FANS DIDN'T LET THE SINGER FAN'S BASHING GET TO THEM AND JUST LET IT GO. THEY WERE CONTENT WITH THEIR SHOW DESPITE IT'S FLAWS...

BAM. THE MOVIE ARRIVES AND ALL THE ARROGANCE ALL THE BLOATED PRAISE SINGER'S EFFORTS WERE RECIEVING BEFORE HAND WERE DEFLATED. SUPERMAN RETURNS WAS BASICALLY THE NEW SMALLVILLE, ONLY IN THE GUISE OF A SEQUEL TO THE ORIGINAL SUPERMAN FILMS.

THAT WAS A HUGE ERROR NO MATTER WHAT WAY YOU SLICE IT AND IS MY PERSONAL LARGEST GRIPE WITH RETURNS. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE FUMBLED TO ATTATCH ITSELF TO DONNER'S FILM.
BEYOND THAT, IT'S A DECENT MOVIE. YOU'LL ENJOY ROUTH'S PORTRAYAL IF NOTHING ELSE. THE KID DID THE BEST HE COULD. I MEAN ROUTH, NOT HOME ALONE BOY.

SO BOTTOM LINE, I KNOW ALL THIS VENOM BEING TOSSED ABOUT IS BORN FROM SUBTLE REVENGE PLOTS BY NET NERDS. THANK THE MAKER FANS AREN'T IN CHARGE OF THESE BIG BUDGET MOVIES. YES MOST SUCK, BUT I HIGHLY DOUBT WE'D GET THE FEW GEMS THEIR ARE BASED ON THE NUMEROUS INCONSISTENT AND AGENDA DRIVEN REQUESTS AND CRYING ABOUT SHIT YOU LOT HAVE GOING ON.

THANKS FOR READING.

CAPS GUY OUT.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes wonder what kind of severe mental retardation must happen to someone in order for them to type in all caps.

Sepharih said...

^He just wants attention. Don't encourage him.

Anonymous said...

Why is there such a faction of Smallville lovers and SR haters. I like Smallville but there are maybe 10 good shows a year and it has little do with the comics in so many areas. So anyone that hated SR because it was not like the comics don't give me Smallville as a reference of Superman greatness.

voice_of_reason said...

^ You've got that comparison wrong. I'm no "lover" of Sv by nay means however I think it's leaps and bounds above Singerman in terms of showing an accurate characterization of the Man of Steel, albeit a younger, more modernized version.
Not only did Singerman ignore the comics, but it didnt even do its own take on the mythos, it lifted all that from Donner's movie. It's added nothing of significance of its own to the legend and Singer just doesnt get who Superman is as a character. The hwole thing was bastardized.

Smallville on the other hand, while it does at times take liberties with the comic material and has its other flaws at least gets the spirit of the character right, and they're not afraid to try new things within the bounds of the legend. Actually it's more faithful to the comics than a lot of people think too. A lot of the concepts on the show like having Lex and Lois in Smallville date back to the Silver Age in the comics.

Anonymous said...

"Not only did Singerman ignore the comics, but it didnt even do its own take on the mythos, it lifted all that from Donner's movie."

Yes it did do it's own take you just did not like it. SR is about him coming back to earth and trying to find his place in the world again and in Lois's life, that was their take on the mythos. Smallville takes many more liberties with the comics than SR did, hell the show's second biggest character Chloe was never even in the comics before they just made her up. Lana married to Lex, give me a break.

swright said...

Well, I'm a big fan of Smallville (although this season has tested my patience A LOT) and a fan of SR.

"Yes it did do it's own take you just did not like it. SR is about him coming back to earth and trying to find his place in the world again and in Lois's life, that was their take on the mythos."

Well this is more of a take on the story, not exactly the mythos.

Sepharih said...

“the show's second biggest character Chloe was never even in the comics before they just made her up.”

Kryptonite didn’t exist either, until the 1940’s radio show just made it up. Harley Quinn wasn’t in Batman comics before they just made her up. Both of these were eventually integrated into the DCU, and eventually DC plans to incorporate Chloe as well.

The truth is, and I say this to everyone, arguing over which take on the character is better based on its fidelity to the original comics is silly. It’s fine to dislike a particular deviation because you preferred its representation in the comics more, but it’s silly to outright reject everything just because it’s not the same as the comics, or because it wasn’t there.
These characters aren’t static. They’re constantly growing and evolving. For purism in comic book adaptations to make any sense at all we’d have to stop telling stories about the characters in those comics. As long as we continue to keep telling stories about these characters we can’t have a truly definitive take for the film/tvshow to base itself on.
All we have is a paradigm, a spirit that’s representative of the character.
My favorite take on the Man of Steel is, and probably always will be, the 90’s animated series. I don’t care that they made major deviations from the comics. I like those deviations.

I hate Superman Returns because I think it’s a terrible movie, period.

As for Smallville, It was a fairly novel take on a young Clark Kent on the road to becoming Sueprman in Seasons 1 and 2, and I had actually really started to get into it by Season three, but after Season four and midway through Season five I lost faith in the show. They seemed to have lost track from where they were going, and the whole show started to feel extremely stretched. I never got the sense that Clark was really growing, developing more and more like the uncompromising mythic hero he would one day become. The show felt static, like it couldn’t get beyond the formula of season 1, so I quit bothering with it.

Anonymous said...

^
You know what we disagree about SR but i agree with many of your other points, that was a very well thought out argument.

Anonymous said...

Jesus, was Richard White in the comics??

Fuckin Singer aplogists love to point out things like Chloe in Smallville because they're so ignorant of things like The Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen, kryptonite, etc

Anonymous said...

"Fuckin Singer aplogists love to point out things like Chloe in Smallville because they're so ignorant of things like The Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen, kryptonite, etc"

No that is not it. People look dumb though when they say SR sucked because it was not just like the comics and then point to other forms of Superman that also are not like the comics in a lot of ways. Creating a character like Chloe and making her a huge part of Clark's life on Smallville is a big departure from the comics whether you want to admit it or not.

Anonymous said...

Comic book purists are fucking idiots, pro-SV, pro-SR, anti-whatever, I don't care. Any comic book adaptation is successful ONLY if it adapts the characters and spirit of the comics.

Chloe wasn't in the comics. So fuckin what? The show needed a Lois character. So Richard White was made up for SR. Who cares? Singer was (badly) trying to draw parallels between what Lois wants in a man.

Comics are meant to serve as **inspiration** for a film, not as scripts or storyboards for them.

This is how one can sit back and enjoy Smallville (before it started to suck), Lois & Clark and Fleischer as great Superman stories all around.

- T

voice_of_reason said...

Let me clarify my earlier post as it seems to have confused all but separih, who as always expresses himself very well.
I realize things need to deviate from the comics however they should have some basis in them as a starting point, and that should usually be the characterizations, not necessarily the story elements like the example the poster after my last response cited, but the essence of who and what the characters are.
SV's characterizations are generally grounded in the mythos although they've expanded on them, and done their own take within the bounds of what's known to be 'acceptavble" for the characters to be doing based on what they've been for years. Clark acts like Clark on SV, albeit a younger, rawer version of the fully realized Superman. Lex acts like Lex, but his character has some added depth in that you empathize with him on some levels and his actions are always predicated on some understandable motivation. Credit that to the writers and Mike Rosenbaum.
In SR, Clark/Supes doesnt act like Clark/Supes. The whole premise of the film revolves around him leaving earth on a whim for 5 years, something Superman would never do especially out of a personal motivation to look for a Planet that his INFINTELY intelligent father told him was long destroyed, and since he wouldnt be able to protect the Earth for the time, which is the mantle he's taken up in life.
Lex's character is reduced to swindling widows out of their fortune. Congratulations Singer, you've taken the world's greatest criminal mind and one of the most savvy businessmen on the planet, and turned him into Anna Nicole Smith. I hope TrimSpa sponsors the sequel. Lex's actions dont have any motivations, he just does them out of necessity in the plot. Singer tried to make him hackman-esque, yet he didnt give the character any of the "pinache" we saw previously.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons i don't love Smallville though is Clark rarely acts like a HERO. Look at the Green Arrow this season, he has no powers and was far more dedicated to being a hero than Clark has ever been. To me they have lost their way in portraying Clark on SV because he spends more time trying to fit in and pining away for Lana than maturing into the Superman he is suppossed to become. The show is in season 6, Jonathon Kent has been dead for a year. He should be much further along than he is on that show, this year especially he has been stuck in neutral.

S.S.S. said...

they just announced the SV renewal for Season 7, today. I'm glad to hear it actually. Granted I think only about 11 or 12 episodes a year are really any good but we need something to keep Superman in the public eye that's not a complete embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

Season 7 is supposedly the last one for Michael Rosenbaum so we'll see if they end it next year or push it one more.

Anonymous said...

The producers of the show would be morons to continue without Rosenbaum once season seven closes.

Which means, hello season eight!
:(

Anonymous said...

How much longer can they go anyway? I mean once he is out of Smallville it is not longer about Clark in Smallville it is about Superman in Metropolis. They always said they would never do that so the show is definately coming to an end soon.

Anonymous said...

It'll come to an end when the ratings fall, not when you declare. The show is virtually Superman without the costume now anyway, not Superboy without the costume. Clark's still living on the farm but spends a heck of a lot of time in Metropolis.

Yes, Smallville has it's faults but the general public seem to enjoy it and more people would associate Welling with Superman than they would Routh(who?)

Anonymous said...

It'd be a shame to lose Rosenbaum though. He's the best Lex Luthor we've had in years.

If there is to be a season 8 I wonder if they'll be able to involve Dean Cain and Brandon Routh as well?

Cain may be busy, but I'm sure Routh won't be doing anything in 2009. Anyone who wants his autograph will have it by then.

Ever notice that the person who most wants the Singer status quo to remain for a sequel calls himself Restart? That's the mentality we're dealing with here

Anonymous said...

Dean Cain busy LOL, yeah he has had a hell of a career since Lois and Clark went off the air. He was suppossed to be the star of that show and yet Terri Hatcher is back with a top 10 show on ABC and he is doing what these days, nothing the public is aware of that is for sure.

Anonymous said...

Routh isn’t doing anything the general public is aware of either.

Poor guy you would think his turn as Superman would have jump started his career much like the role of Napoleon Dynamite did for Jon Heder’s.

Anonymous said...

"Routh isn’t doing anything the general public is aware of either.

Poor guy you would think his turn as Superman would have jump started his career much like the role of Napoleon Dynamite did for Jon Heder’s."

Nobody who has ever played Superman really has ever done much of anything other than that role. Even Chris Reeve, his greatest contributions were in life more than on the screen other than Superman.

Anonymous said...

I bet Routh really regrets getting pasted over for the lead on Smallville now.

That guaranteed seven/eight year contract and royalties from syndication rights could have saved Routh from going the Adam West route and charging for his autograph at random boonies comic cons.

What’s next for the guy doing Singerman voiceover cameos on Family Guy?

swright said...

That guaranteed seven/eight year contract and royalties from syndication rights could have saved Routh from going the Adam West route and charging for his autograph at random boonies comic cons."


Hasn't stopped Michael Rosenbaum or Allison Mack or Erica Durance from doing the same thing...

I don't have a problem with him doing what he was doing..He wasn't an established actor like CB was before Batman, and he probably got paid shit for SR and since the movie didn't break any records he can't ask for a ginormous raise for any sequels. I think at some point, if he improves his craft, he will show up on a TV drama or something after his run as Superman is over.

Anonymous said...

The problem i have with people ripping on Brandon about his career is Superman is the one character above all seemingly that is hard for actors to get away from in terms on typecasting. Go right on down the line, everyone who has played him has had to deal with that and not gone on to stardom in other roles because of it.

Anonymous said...

"Hasn't stopped Michael Rosenbaum or Allison Mack or Erica Durance from doing the same thing..." swright(RetArd)

Typical apologist mentality. The difference with those guys selling their autographs is that they're supplementing their income.

When Routh(who?) sells his autograph that IS his income.

Anonymous said...

"When Routh(who?) sells his autograph that IS his income."

Routh actually has 2 roles that he is doing before the sequel. One i think he is done with and the other one is about to start. So that is definately not his only source of income.

Anonymous said...

The dude is doing independent art house films, no wonder he’s selling his autograph on the side to keep a float. It’s not like any major studio is offering him anything in massive release that’ll give him a huge payday, at this point he’s probably working for scale.

Well at least he hasn’t been forced to go back to being a bartender in Hollywood.

swright said...

"The dude is doing independent art house films, no wonder he’s selling his autograph on the side to keep a float. It’s not like any major studio is offering him anything in massive release that’ll give him a huge payday, at this point he’s probably working for scale. "

The funny thing is that this is probably the best move right now if he's not getting good offers for roles. You can fine tune your craft (and gain major cred points) by starring in independant films where the acting is more important than the action. Like it or not, people view him as Superman and it's only going to get worse for him when the sequel comes out.

Tobey Maguire started in independant films, so it's not unheard of.

Anonymous said...

Everyone sees Routh as Superman? It’s more like they see him as the backwash of Chris Reeve.

Don’t disrespect both Maguire and Bale by putting them in the same sentence with Routh.

Both the aforementioned actors paid their dues before getting their big brakes and continue to do so afterwards by acting in low budget major studio releases in between thus proving that the studio still has their eyes on them.

Routh has fallen off the radar and doing films that will see the DVD bin at some small business video store after being showcased at the backend of random community college film festivals.

It’s not like Routh’s role as a crackhead is being featured at the Cannes Festival now is it?

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ guys SR just came out last summer and he is working on other things. It is not like he is 5 years removed from Superman and has yet to land another job yet. You guys are going to look foolish trying to make your case about playing Superman should mean stardom in other roles. Nobody who has ever played Superman has done that so why is Routh being held to that standard.

Anonymous said...

Brandon Routh is the first ever no hit wonder.

Anonymous said...

Bizarro on Smallville

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/Bizarroclark.jpg/800px-Bizarroclark.jpg

Anonymous said...

Wow great pic! When I saw that ep I was thinking about Venom/Black suit Spider-Man when Clark was facing off with his Bizarro counterpart.

Really fun stuff!

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm a Marvel...and I'm a DC: Villains Edition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHHDzQ4Axw

swright said...

Both the aforementioned actors paid their dues before getting their big brakes and continue to do so afterwards by acting in low budget major studio releases in between thus proving that the studio still has their eyes on them. "

And what the hell do you think Brandon is doing right now. He's only getting smalle roles in independent films. He's paying his dues as we speak. Yeah he also has a huuuugggeeee franchise, but he still has to prove himself.

Anonymous said...

Superman Returns was a flop and Brandon Routh is the face of it.

Anonymous said...

See I'm one of those that actually likes the no-pants-on-the-outside Superman on SV. I enjoy seeing Clark do all the super things but without the pants-on-the-outside stuff. And better hair. Don't get me wrong, in comic form it's pants all the way, but on TV...

I dunno... maybe 'Lois and Clark' was like Batman's camp years.

So when Smallville intergrates storylines, such as the Justice League, from the comics into it's storylines I've never had an issue because I've always seen them as separate takes on the same thing.

When my kids get to learn about Superman I'll be able to say,
"Here's Superman. He rocks. Here's the comics. And here's Smallville".
"And what about the movies, Dad?"
"Well here's 1 and 2. Chris rocked too."

Like I said, the only way that would change were if Chloe was written into the comics. Then I'd just be confused. But also a little bit pleased. Although I’ve heard that DC has actually brought the rights to the character, so it could happen down the line. Much in the same way that Batman took Hailey Quinn from the cartoon.

swright said...

Although I’ve heard that DC has actually brought the rights to the character, so it could happen down the line."

They are going to do it, they are waiting to see what the show does with her character first.

Anonymous said...

"Superman Returns was a flop and Brandon Routh is the face of it."

A film that made almost 400 mil WW and is getting a sequel is a flop, whatever you say pal.

Anonymous said...

You simpleton do you really think raw numbers mean anything? From a business standpoint SR was a complete financial failure, unable to cover its own spread.

According to Entertainment Weekly which is owned by Time Warner:

[Superman Returns] it's superexpensive, nonetheless. By most reckonings, Superman Returns will likely need to gross over $600 million worldwide to make its money back, a feat only two superhero adaptations have ever accomplished: Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1204671_5,00.html

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 and 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.



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

The trilogy ends summer 09.

Anonymous said...

According to the numbers at Box Office Mojo Spiderman 3 with its 258 million dollar budget after only 17 days in release is already turning a profit going way over the 600 million worldwide numbers. No wonder Sony has already announced that they are looking to make 3 more films.

This in comparison to Superman Returns with its 270 million dollar budget which couldn’t come close to even meeting its minimum requirement of 600 million dollars worldwide in 4 and half months of release.

Anonymous said...

"This in comparison to Superman Returns with its 270 million dollar budget which couldn’t come close to even meeting its minimum requirement of 600 million dollars worldwide in 4 and half months of release."

SR cost 204 mil to make and if WB did not make a ton of money on the film they would not be doing the sequel. It is not just about the BO. Merchandise, DVD sales, the TV rights just to name a few all bring in big revenue for films like SR. You guys go and on about SR not making enough money yet at the end of the day it made more money than your beloved Batman Begins and is the getting a sequel, so get over it.

Anonymous said...

The Spiderman comparisons are dumb as well since there is no other comic film that comes close to him in terms of BO. You name it Spidey kicks his ass at the BO and that is not going to change for a long time.

Anonymous said...

"SR cost 204 mil to make and if WB did not make a ton of money on the film they would not be doing the sequel"

Nobody has confirmed they are doing a sequel yet. Keep up, they've commissioned Singer to pitch an idea, but Warners HAVEN'T greenlit it yet.

If u wanna see something tragic then head over to Younis's site and check out all the piss taking they dish out to Smallville(which is returning, btw) compared to the way they fall over themselves praising Returns.

They have a caption contest featuring Bizzaro Clark from Smallville and that cracker review guy must have posted about 40 times! Oh my sides!

Sepharih said...

“SR cost 204 mil to make and if WB did not make a ton of money on the film they would not be doing the sequel. It is not just about the BO. Merchandise, DVD sales, the TV rights just to name a few all bring in big revenue for films like SR. You guys go and on about SR not making enough money yet at the end of the day it made more money than your beloved Batman Begins and is the getting a sequel, so get over it.”

That 204 million dollar price tag doesn’t factor in the 70 million dollars they spent on the past attempts to restart the franchise, nor does it factor in the other 100 million they spent on marketing the film.
Assuming that it already hasn’t, the film WILL break even eventually, but any chance the film had to make a huge profit is over. As for the sequel, as I’ve stated before, the WB has invested too much money in this catastrophe to just walk away now. That’s why it will probably get made, and I’d expect a significant cut from the budget as well.

Anonymous said...

"That 204 million dollar price tag doesn’t factor in the 70 million dollars they spent on the past attempts to restart the franchise, nor does it factor in the other 100 million they spent on marketing the film."

Nobody ever factors in marketing to a budget, Batman Begins same thing also had a 100 mil marketing budget. The 70 mil you are referring to is a matter of paperwork. It is the same project so it goes on the same tab however, some of those deals were made by people that are no longer with WB. Not one cent of that money went into the making of SR so lets not argue things that are just ridiculous here. SR started making a profit for WB a long time ago. Like i said DVD sales, merchandising, tv rights, amongst other things, there is no way WB has not made a lot of money on SR.

Anonymous said...

You guys go and on about SR not making enough money yet at the end of the day it made more money than your beloved Batman Begins and is the getting a sequel, so get over it.
^^^
The comparison between Batman Begins and Superman Returns are stupid and without any logic. Batman Begins did not cost over 200 million dollars to produce like SR.

If you want to compare SR to something how about comparing it to films in its own production cost weight class?

Either compare SR to X3 with it low cost estimate or compare it to Spiderman 3 with all the productions cost added in.

Anonymous said...

"The comparison between Batman Begins and Superman Returns are stupid and without any logic. Batman Begins did not cost over 200 million dollars to produce like SR."

SR cost about 50 mil more to make the same to market and it made 20 mil more at the BO. There is a difference of about 30 mil between them not factoring in any other means of licensing between the 2 movies. It is crazy to act like BB was this massive hit and SR a flop the numbers simply do not say that.

Anonymous said...

The preproduction costs are what killed Superman Returns and in a purely economical business perspective it is a huge flop.

According to the studio, Superman Returns' price tag is $204 million. Without the Australian tax credits: about $223 million. Add in the bills for Ratner and McG, which will count against Singer's film, and the total comes to an estimated $263 million.

Along with its bad word of mouth and year end reviews after the fact.

Time Warner’s own Entertainment Weekly had to save face after calling SR the biggest film of the summer by calling SR “The bore of the year” after it was all said and done.

It also doesn’t help matters when a 35 million dollar low budget major released outlasted SR at the box office and out profited SR which was supposed to be one of the biggest films of the summer.

Sepharih said...

“Nobody ever factors in marketing to a budget, Batman Begins same thing also had a 100 mil marketing budget.”

What’s your point? The film is still expected to cover those costs, and I’m fully aware that Batman Begins was no massive hit. It turned a profit, but it was nothing outstanding. Hell, when the opening box office numbers came in I was a little worried myself.

“The 70 mil you are referring to is a matter of paperwork. It is the same project so it goes on the same tab however, some of those deals were made by people that are no longer with WB. Not one cent of that money went into the making of SR so lets not argue things that are just ridiculous here.”

What’s ridiculous about it? Again, the film is still expected to cover those costs.

I’m not trying to say Superman Returns was some kind of record breaking bomb, but if you think the WB was satisfied with its final box office take then you’re dead wrong. Movie studios don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these films just so that they can do moderately well at the box office, then possibly break even or even turn a small profit on DVD.
If that were the case then why the hell did it take them so long to finally push forward with a Hulk sequel? Ang Lee and Bana were supposed to have been signed on for at least two films, and yet it took them this long to finally get the ball rolling with both a new director, an entirely new cast, with a completely different direction in mind.

Anonymous said...

No use arguing business logistics with apologists, according to them thanks to the new low standard that is SR. Films can now bring in less than their production and advertising cost at the box office and still be considered a success, just as long as they can barely brake even in the end and see a very low return on the studio’s investment to justify all the time and money that went into a project in the first place that was supposed to make them a positive financial killing.

swright said...

Here's the thing..Even if it didn't make the killing they were hoping for, it did make a little bit of money for the studio. Not as much if you factor in the restart failures but it made some dough. So I just think that with better financial sanity on the sequel and a much more fan friendly film (more action and super fights so the kids want to see it again) the franchise will start to make a serious profit.

Like Sepharih said, they are too invested right now to not try and make some money on a sequel. If the sequel ends up making, let's say 100 million dollars (which is possible if they watch the fucking budget) then the franchise becomes profitable and a success.

swright said...

By the way I meant a 100 million dollar profit...Sorry

Anonymous said...

For there to be only chance that the next Donner/Singer SR film to make that kind of net it has to be budgeted around the same level as Ghost Rider or the first FF 4.

Welcome to the C-list Singerman.

Anonymous said...

I think SSS posted an article a few months back that pretty much said no matter how poor SR did at the box office that WB was in too deep with merchandisers, advertisers, etc. to back out now and not try to salvage something from this mess.

swright said...

"For there to be only chance that the next Donner/Singer SR film to make that kind of net it has to be budgeted around the same level as Ghost Rider or the first FF 4. "

Not really..Let's say it brings in 250 million Domestic with a budget of 175 million...Well that's a 75 million dollar profit on just the domestic take, without including foreign markets. So let's say the sequel makes 450 million dollars WW...That's 50 million more than SR made, not unheard of for a sequel. Well then you take 175 and double it....You get 350 million. It will start becoming profitable after 350 million. Well with just a 50 million dollar increase in WW totals (again, that's even low by sequel standards) and a decrease in budget to 175 million you make the money a helluva lot quicker.

It's not impossible to do. And that's what they are looking at when they say they are doing a sequel with the budget getting cut.

Anonymous said...

"It's not impossible to do. And that's what they are looking at when they say they are doing a sequel with the budget getting cut."

Nobody has said the budget is getting cut just one of many rumors flying around that nobody from WB or Singer has addressed. I think if there is a cut it will be a minor one, especially if WB is demanding an action heavy sequel.

Anonymous said...

Singer’s whole take in Superman is the mess that’s needs to get remedied for Superman to have any kind of mass appeal.

What Singer did to Supes is akin to what Schumacher did to Batman, the only difference is that Schemmer’s first Bats film did well enough at the Box office back in its day for Time Warner to justify another, although the end result of that is the next film bombed because people didn’t want to see his crappy take on Batman again just like people won’t want to see Singer’s take on Supes again.

It won’t matter if The Queer of Steel punches someone or not, the action aspect certainly didn’t save Batman and Robin from itself and it certainly won’t save Singerman.

Time Warner wants Superman to make Spiderman money that’s a fact and the only chance at seeing those kinds of numbers is with a reboot because the Donner vision of Superman that Singer is playing with will never appeal to the 12 to 25 cash cow demo in the same way that Spiderman does.

You can bet that insiders at Warner are paying very close attention to what happens with the next Hulk film as a cue to rethink how to handle Singeman.

Anonymous said...

"Time Warner wants Superman to make Spiderman money that’s a fact and the only chance at seeing those kinds of numbers is with a reboot because the Donner vision of Superman that Singer is playing with will never appeal to the 12 to 25 cash cow demo in the same way that Spiderman does.

You can bet that insiders at Warner are paying very close attention to what happens with the next Hulk film as a cue to rethink how to handle Singeman."

WB could reboot Superman with Raimi directing and Maguire starring as Superman and they would not sniff Spidey type numbers. The Dark Knight has no shot at those numbers either, did you get a look at how the Joker will look in that movie what the fuck is Nolan thinking? First he casts Ledger who nobody wanted for the part and now he makes him look like a deformed mime. Spidey is in a world of his own, he chews up comic films at the BO and spits them out, one by one he has no competition from anyone.

Anonymous said...

Spidey is in a world of his own, he chews up comic films at the BO and spits them out, one by one he has no competition from anyone.
^^^
Truer words have never been written.

Much of the blame can go towards Time Warner for believing in Singer’s Donner colored vision and for not putting tighter control over him in terms of the budget.

Because for the production cost and advertising cost for SR to be where they were at, the studio expected Singerman to make at least Spiderman numbers at the box office as mentioned by Entertainment Weekly (One of Time Warner’s own publications). Not perform a dead crawl to 200 million while being unable to contend pound for pound with a 35 million dollar low budget major release staring Ann Hathaway.

Anonymous said...

SINGER'S SUPERMAN SUCKS BALLS END OF STORY.
SINGER'S SUPERMAN SUCKS BALLS END OF STORY.
SINGER'S SUPERMAN SUCKS BALLS END OF STORY.
SINGER'S SUPERMAN SUCKS BALLS END OF STORY.
SINGER'S SUPERMAN SUCKS BALLS END OF STORY.

Jerry said...

I realize most likely NO ONE will read my post since this is a very looong thread to scroll thru. But nevertheless....
I truly wish the rumor that Warner was canceling a sequel to Returns was true. I've been a Superman fan for close to fifty years. Singer has definitely ruined the character for me as a source of cinematic enjoyment. I'll NEVER go to see ANY of the subsequent sequels.
Singer's film was like watching a special effects loaded, 250 million dollar re-run of a re-make of a piss poor imitation Donner film.
Routh made a ridiculous looking Superman. I still can't comprehend how anyone can, with a straight face, claim seeing a facial resemblance between him and Christopher Reeve. His nose is too big, as well as his mouth. He has a weaker jaw and chin, and over all a slimmer face.
Not the first best choice for the role of Superman.
The costume changes were horrendous. I expected tweaks to the suit, but not the god awful alterations foisted upon us by Singer. The Superman costume in and of itself is as much an icon as the character. Singer defaced it.
I won't go into taking the film apart script wise. Its an understatement to say it was a waste of time to sit through.
The Donner film was what it was for the seventies. Superman as a film franchise was in desperate need of a fresh start. Singer opted to toss that approach and gave us garbage.
I'm not a "fanboy". Fanboys are completely biased when it comes to the object of their obsession and will defend it when its indefensible. Fanboys would have accepted Superman in a Ballet Tutu if it had an "S" shield plastered on it, and defend the costume.
What any SANE audience is looking for in a super hero film is good writing, a good story with real human drama that pulls you in and makes you care about the characters. The action of course, top notch.
However, all the action and eye popping special effects are secondary to the story itself. If the audience isn't pulled in and truly empathizes with the characters, you've got zilch. Special effects alone no longer make the film. The audience has to believe something other than whether or not a man can fly.
There was nothing about Superman Returns that made you care about anyone in the film. The only feelings it inspired was nausea.
So for me, a guy who's been a fan of the super hero genre for decades, Superman has pretty much become a closed book when it comes to cinema.
I seriously doubt in my lifetime I'll see another Superman film as long as Singer is attached to it, and his vision of Superman is shoved in our faces.

Anonymous said...

There was nothing about Superman Returns that made you care about anyone in the film.
^^^

HEy this isn't all true what about James Marsden's character? He seems more heroic than Superman! He's been with Lois all throughout the 5 or so years that Supes has been gone, and he saves Superman, Lois and that kid with that plane of his. He's a man's man.

Is that what Singer wanted? To show that Superman sucks compared to the average man??

Anonymous said...

"There was nothing about Superman Returns that made you care about anyone in the film. The only feelings it inspired was nausea."

Sounds like your main beef was character development and if this is one of the reasons you hated the film i respect that. However if you think that is main reason audiences did not flock to SR your wrong. People today care less and less about that. Look at Pirates. Where is the development there. The lead Jack Sparrow is an ASSHOLE to basically everyone in the movie and yet they seem to be willing to risk their lives for him to the ends of the earth. People love Pirates for it's action and fast pace. It is just entertaining to watch and people don't have to think much about it. Trust me when i tell you if SR was a non-stop fast paced action oriented film the BO would have been much better with the character development being just as poor.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. Returns is a film that was doomed from the scripting stage. Giving superman a kid, basing it on Superman the movie to the point of transplanting entire lines from it into the film, making superman such a depressed loser most of the film, and above all not looking at the comic book for more than the cover of one comic while ignoring all the great evolution that has happened since Superman the movie. Hello? Did we need lex and his land scheme again? No amount of action would have made people flock to see that, friend.

Actually the best thing about returns is its fx. The flaws however started long before a single cgi superman was modeled and put into a scene.

Anonymous said...

"Wrong. Returns is a film that was doomed from the scripting stage. Giving superman a kid, basing it on Superman the movie to the point of transplanting entire lines from it into the film, making superman such a depressed loser most of the film, and above all not looking at the comic book for more than the cover of one comic while ignoring all the great evolution that has happened since Superman the movie. Hello? Did we need lex and his land scheme again? No amount of action would have made people flock to see that, friend."

No i am not wrong Returns did not need to follow the comic book to be successful. It needed lots of brainless action to bring in the teen audience, unless you are willing to say right now Pirates has a great plot. How about 300, where is the plot there, the whole movie is battle sequences and screaming musclemen attacking eachother. Is there much plot to it, not in the least. Spiderman 1 and 2 seems to have gotten the comic faithfulness and action the most right no other comic film has come close, but you don't need much more than fun and action to have big BO, that is just a fact at the BO these days.

Anonymous said...

No if you use some good old fashioned common sense and don't judge film success based on mindless action alone you'll see that it's pretty much people just wanting something new to watch, but not too unfamiliar.

300 is a piece of mindless crap, but it was new. That's why it did so well.

Pirates is still riding the Johnny Depp bandwagon. That's really why that's popular. Beyond that it's just silly fodder for an afternoon.

spidey again, is new and marketed the hell out of. It owes the marketing really to its success because the movie's not that great.

Also if what you typed right out of your buttox was true, grindhouse would have been recieved much better than it was too.

so it's more complicated than you think

Anonymous said...

"No if you use some good old fashioned common sense and don't judge film success based on mindless action alone you'll see that it's pretty much people just wanting something new to watch, but not too unfamiliar."

Learn to read buddy i said fun and action. Pirates gives you that in spades. It is a fast paced entertaining ride with tons of action. All this crap about Superman having a kid and Lex and his land schemes is nothing more than garbage for fanboy's to yammer away at eachother about. Probably 7 people out of 10 have never even read a Superman comic before. There is something to what you said about it not being new. I agree Singer made a mistake with the Donner nods but Superman as a whole is not a new concept. Both he and Batman used to be the major players, now they are just supporting heroes to Spiderman's star power. People will get sick of Spiderman and that will change eventually but not anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

^^

I agree you need a director who can give people a stylish entertaining film with lots of action. Look at Superman 4, had more action than all the CR Superman films but it was done in such a cheap ass shitty way that nobody cared. I want a great deal of comic book continuity with Superman but you are right in the sense that the Gen public could care less about that. They just want to be entertained, they don't care how you do it as long as you get there.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying what they want is Batman and Robin,
fun and action without an ounce of respect for the comic.

you guys need to get a clue.

Anonymous said...

"So you're saying what they want is Batman and Robin,
fun and action without an ounce of respect for the comic.

you guys need to get a clue."

Fun what the fuck was Fun about that movie. I am talking about stylish action and entertainment like Pirates and 300 that is what people want, the comic book be damned, you give them that and the BO will follow. Batman and Robin why the hell would you bring that up. The action that it did have was like Superman 4 not worth talking about.

Anonymous said...

Batman and robin has the most action of any batman film, and the most 'fun' which I guess you'd call the humorous bits since pirates is more of a comedy and 300 isn't a fun movie, just entertaining.

sorry for pointing out the flaws in your air tight arguments though. Won't do it again, I promise.

Anonymous said...

Batman and robin has the most "action of any batman film, and the most 'fun' which I guess you'd call the humorous bits since pirates is more of a comedy and 300 isn't a fun movie, just entertaining.

sorry for pointing out the flaws in your air tight arguments though. Won't do it again, I promise."

What fun are you talking about for god's sake. Superman 4 had loads of action and it all sucked because it was not done in an entertaining fashion. Batman and Robin same thing. 300 and Pirates are action oriented films that present it in a way that keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. They will forgive plot holes and lack of character development for great stylish action. What you are citing does NOT fit that BILL try again or come up with a new argument.

Anonymous said...

whatever. I'm reading Angela's ashes. Man! Frank Mcourt's life sucked SHIT. And you all lose sleep over superman...

Anonymous said...

Both Spderman and Superman characters in the comic medium have been around for a long time and both have had TV series both in the live action and animation formats.

If we’re using Superman The movie as the starting baseline for the Supes film Franchise then Superman lost his pop culture relevance around the second film in the 80’s, this in comparison to the Spidey film franchise which is still going strong after the third film after which Sony plans to expand towards another 3.



The number one problem with Singer’s Superman is that he used a very outdated Donner continuity that very much limited the film's appeal to folks under the age of 25 (Summer cash cow demo). Superman the way he was presented in SR just wasn’t “cool”, “hip” or “now”

I know a lot of fanboys have their problems with SM 3 but the film is making bank because 12 to 25 year olds of both gender sets are enjoying it quite a bit for the action the CW love drama aspect of it, plus the superpowers.

Fanboys can go into details and present their arguments as to why they feel SM 3 is trash but their arguments are countered in larger numbers by kids and teenagers buzzing positive notions like:

evie Mon, May 7, 2007 at 08:24 PM EST from Entertainment Weekly

I'm not emo..just a regular 14 year old girl..but I have to say that Emo Spiderman was pretty effin hot..

Anonymous said...

Yes and Sony is going to wreck the franchise now because they want to lock down the cast for 3 more Spidey films whether it is the current one or a different one. Maguire and Raimi are not going to agree to 3 more films they have said they would maybe committ to 4 and then wait and see. Sony is going to get greedy and recast the whole thing with a new director that will committ now to 3 films and that will be the beginning of the end for Spiderman.

swright said...

Wrong. Returns is a film that was doomed from the scripting stage. Giving superman a kid, basing it on Superman the movie to the point of transplanting entire lines from it into the film, making superman such a depressed loser most of the film, and above all not looking at the comic book for more than the cover of one comic while ignoring all the great evolution that has happened since Superman the movie. Hello? Did we need lex and his land scheme again? No amount of action would have made people flock to see that, friend."

He's not wrong...Those things that you didn't like mean nothing to a 15 yr old kid. All they want is to see Superman kick ass and take names. Give them that and the sequel will make a shitload more money. Fanboys can bitch about the kid until they are blue in the face, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of things concerning the films profitability. The comments from the general viewing public almost never point out the kid, or the emo-type Superman...They all say "There was not enough action.." We all, haters and apologists can rant and rave all day long. Point out tons of flaws, curse and scream at each other. But if the sequel comes out and it's got great action sequences with superpowered fights and shit then the movie will make its bank.

Anonymous said...

We all, haters and apologists can rant and rave all day long. Point out tons of flaws, curse and scream at each other. But if the sequel comes out and it's got great action sequences with superpowered fights and shit then the movie will make its bank.
^^^
Time Warner blew it big time when they let Ratner go and went with Singer. Brett is the one that got the last laugh seeing that Warner had to still pay him his 20 million or so and his X3 ended destroying SR at the box office.

Anonymous said...

The third Pirates at the rate its going right now doesn’t look like it will be able to beat Spiderman 3’s opening weekend numbers.

Anonymous said...

"The third Pirates at the rate its going right now doesn’t look like it will be able to beat Spiderman 3’s opening weekend numbers."

No but the legs will probably be better than Spiderman 3's.

Anonymous said...

"He's not wrong...Those things that you didn't like mean nothing to a 15 yr old kid. All they want is to see Superman kick ass and take names. Give them that and the sequel will make a shitload more money. Fanboys can bitch about the kid until they are blue in the face, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of things concerning the films profitability. The comments from the general viewing public almost never point out the kid, or the emo-type Superman...They all say "There was not enough action.." We all, haters and apologists can rant and rave all day long. Point out tons of flaws, curse and scream at each other. But if the sequel comes out and it's got great action sequences with superpowered fights and shit then the movie will make its bank."

Please tell me you're kidding. Please just say "ha ha ha, I'm not serious."

Are you seriously arguing that WB could have slapped superman's name on anything with tons of action in it and it would have sold well regardless of whether the story was as retarded as the returns one or not?

Go eat a dog.

Anonymous said...

huge opening weekends for this summer are very important because all the tentpole films will only have 1 week or at the most 2 before another huge tentpole opens.

as far as POTC probably having better leggs then SM 3, what are you basing that on? Both part 3's have very mix reviews and the word of mouth coming out of POTC is about the same as SM 3 with folks saying it was full of action, SFX and nothing else.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 414   Newer› Newest»