Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Horn Doesn't Sound So Sure of a Singerman Sequel

Say that title 5 times fast....

An interesting report from today's Hollywood Reporter was just brought to our attention. In the piece they talk about how the movie studios are in search of the next big property to turn into a successful film franchise. In it they also give updates on the more recent big time franchises like Spider-man, Shrek, Ice Age, etc. and their plans for the future. At one point in the article they get to talking about Warner Bros.' properties. and Singerman comes up with a quote from studio head Alan Horn:

"The future of the studio's recent comic book adaptation, 2006's "Superman Returns," is somewhat more dubious. That film cost $209 million (even after various tax rebates) and marketing costs sent expenses upward of $300 million, but director Bryan Singer's Man of Steel picture made only $201 million domestically. While insiders say the movie was profitable, the studio mandated major cost cuts before proceeding with a sequel."IF we do a sequel to 'Superman,' we want it to be less expensive," Horn acknowledges. "I have to see a screenplay before I say yes to anything. But the studio would be willing to spend as much as $175 million if the screenplay and other factors warranted it."Still, Singer has announced that he plans to direct a second "Superman" project."
Interesting. Not exactly a vote of confidence for the continuation of the franchise when the studio head is using terms like "IF we do one" or "we'd need to see a screenplay before we say yes." You'd think he'd have a little more confidence in a director in an already established franchise if it was doing as well as some would have you believe. Obviously a script must be turned in before any film is greenlit, but you would think he'd be talking in a lot less uncertain terms about one their alleged big movie franchises

Even if it does get approved that's gonna be a REAL tight budget for a director like Singer who allegedley wants to up the action in a sequel. It also seems that Singer and his cronies (and his worshippers over at IESB) may have gotten a little ahead of themselves with talk of doing a sequel because the "money man" doesn't seem so sure right now.

Speaking of money, Michael Bay did quite a nice job updating an iconic character franchise from the 1980's, no? And for the cost of only $150 million (and that's with heavy CGI). Now there's a guy who gets the most bang for his buck. Just pair him a decent writing team and script supervisor to keep him in check and you're good to go apparently.

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Transformers actually only cost 150 million to produce and it ROCKED!!!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the smell of the rotten corpse of Singerman has finally reached the WB's headquarters!

Anonymous said...

The article mentions how these studios all went big blockbuster franchises like Spiderman, Pirates and now with the addition of Transformers that can bring in the bank easily past the 200 million dollar mark in its first few weeks and keep on going.

I think at this point the heads at Time Warner know that Singer’s Donner of Yesterday will never see those kinds of returns because the demo market that made the aforementioned films above such high grosses has no real interest in Singer/ Donner’s Superman.

Singerman ain’t winning any MTV awards, or Teen Choice Awards any time soon.

So the question remains does Time Warner feel that Superman can be their high earner or are they just satisfied with it hopfully crawling to the 200 mark after months of being in the dollar theaters.

Again if their as hard on Singer as they were on Whedon’s Wonder Woman and Goyer’s Flash scripts for being to dark and angst ridden then it’s a safe bet to say the nail is pretty much in the coffin of the next Singerman because Singer’s history has shown he isn’t capable of making films that aren’t metaphors for his own upbringing as a oppressed gay Jew.

Anonymous said...

Transformers (I've seen it twice now, and next payday will see it again) also knew how to play to the fans without either alienating a sub-segment of fandom or the general audience.

I'll be the first to admit that there are parallels in the reproduction of Transformers that although I liked here, I thought were kind of stupid in Superman Returns. Like they changed the look of the transformers, like Optimus Prime is a different kind of truck, Bumblebee isn't a Volkswagen anymore, and Starscream is now an F-22 instead of an F-15, but at least Michael Bay actually acknowledges his reasons for this, unlike Bryan Singer who was merely changing the costume to make his own distinctive mark, then incredulously replying "Changing it from what?" when asked why.

The references to earlier projects weren't shoehorned in, or even made blatantly obvious. I seriously think that unless one was actively looking for them (hint: see first appearance scene with Bumblebee parked next to the old yellow bug in the lot or see the final fight between Optimus and Megatron), they would miss at least half, whereas in Superman Returns, they would all but stop the plot to make a reference to some earlier project.

And probably the greatest figurative feather in their cap is the return of Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime. I know that it was impossible to get Christopher Reeve back, but casting a pseudo-lookalike who didn't even have his charisma was like rubbing salt into an open wound. Oh, and the music in Transformers was better too.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about anyone else but I would think this movie would be a serious contender for visual effects and sounds awards at the Oscars. And I'm almost positive it will win.

swright said...

"Even if it does get approved that's gonna be a REAL tight budget for a director like Singer who allegedley wants to up the action in a sequel."

I would say this is a valid point if you weren't just pointing out that The Transformers only cost 150 million. So it's possible that they could give us a big bang for 175 million. Hell a Superman sequel wouldn't even need as many action set pieces as the Transformers did.

Yes, Michael Bay is the best at getting everything out of his budget, but that doesn't mean that Bryan Singer wouldn't be able to do the same for the The Man of Steel.

After all what was XMEN 2's budget? Wasn't that around 175 million? I don't remember.

Anonymous said...

X-Men 2's budget was closet to $110 million than again that was in 2002-2003 when that was made. Also the effects on Superman and a super villain are going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than most of the X-Men effects. Flying visuals, etc are a bit more pricey than Hugh jackman's hairspray and making objects float to Magneto.

Anonymous said...

In terms of the action film Michael Bay is a God compared to Singer.

Brett Ratner also would be able to do 10x more with 175 million dollar budget then Singer.

Anonymous said...

The Transformers movie had me really scracthing my head about SR budget and i liked SR. However there is no way it should have cost 204-209 mil whatever it was to make. There were so much CGI and action in Transformers and it was done for 150 mil. The only thing i can think of is they spent way too much money on the sets.

Anonymous said...

Thankfully this means the end of Singerman, the dreadfully miscast Routh, and the others who were as miscast as Routh.

Give us a great script, actors with training, the real look, charisma, and away we go.

Bye bye, hopefully to Singer, Routh, Bosworth, and the rest.

Give is a rest WB, and give us something to cheer about.

Anonymous said...

"The Transformers movie had me really scracthing my head about SR budget and i liked SR. "

One need only watch the three hour snooze fest which is the making of DVD to see the monumental wasteful production.

Singer seems to have an open check book and he is irresponsible with what he does with it. The acres of corn in outback Australia gets me everytime..all for a redundant flashback scene!

I'd suggest Restart let Alan Horn know that his inside information has already green"light" the sequel. What a fuckin jerkoff

Terminal

Anonymous said...

"Singer, Routh, Spacey and the rest are all signed on for more movies IF they happen. Will there be more movies? Yes, it's most likely there will be. But nothing is definite... and never is in Hollywood." Steve Younis

In an attempt to quell the tears over on SHP, Steve Younis again displays blind faith in all things Singer....but it's clear the shakey reality is finally now starting to sink through his thick skull

Terminal

swright said...

Here's the full quote from Steve Younis..

"thisisajob, contracts have been signed. Singer, Routh, Spacey and the rest are all signed on for more movies if they happen. Will there be more movies? Yes, it's most likely there will be. But nothing is definite... and never is in Hollywood. All this means is that the WB want to be sure of the script before they move forward. Which is pretty much how things happen all the time. It's not a vote of no confidence, it's simply smart business practice"

Pretty much what everybody has been saying. That an official greenlight won't happen until a script and budget are approved.

Since I'm an apologist over here I look at it as Horn saying a he would greenlight a 175 million dollar sequel if the script is approved. So this statement can be looked at both ways. As always, we won't know officially until the end of the summer at the earliest.

swright said...

From www.superherohype.com

"Variety says that "Superman" director Bryan Singer met with Spacey in New York while the latter was appearing on Broadway in Eugene O'Neill's recently wrapped "Moon for the Misbegotten." Singer was about to pitch his "Man of Steel" sequel to Warner Bros.; Superman Returns screenwriter Michael Dougherty is now writing the screenplay."

I guess we are gonna find out sooner than I thought if he is about to pitch the movie.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Superman Returns screenwriter Michael Dougherty is now writing the screenplay."

And there it is, the FINAL nail. That piece of shit Dougherty is a HORRIBLE writer, and a BS ball-sucker to boot. It's pretty much GUARANTEED Horn says "Uh, no" to a Singerman sequel now.

Fuck off, ALL of you "Apologist" bitches....

Anonymous said...

Blah, Blah, Blah....I have to agree with S Wright this does not mean the project is dead. All of you had said this project was dead for months now. "Goyer off flash, singers next and Spider 3 numbers singer sinks" are my favorite. Being an insider i know that this project is moving at a steady pace. All of "Denialists" keep predicting the end that will not come since.........................

Superman beats the hell our of the crappy Smallville int 2009!

Restart

AP Haven't you been owned by me enough?

Anonymous said...

"Here's the full quote from Steve Younis.."

Sorry I neglected the last couple of sentences. Puts an entirely different spin on things......fuckwit

"Pretty much what everybody has been saying"

Bullshit. How many times has Younis or other Singersuckers posted confirmation from inside sources or co-stars????? Apologists have the shortest memories. Comes from the lower intelligence that is satisfied with Singerman as a film.

"Bryan Singer met with Spacey in New York while the latter was appearing on Broadway"

I think you'll find that's nothing more than a "social" visit. If not it's only more to fear if Spacey's lame ass, dated Luthor schtick is to return

Terminal

Anonymous said...

"AP Haven't you been owned by me enough?"

You haven't "owned" anyone you jackass. You keep coming back to display that you're an insider who can't even construct a sentence that makes sense, you fuckin little idiot

Steve Younis

Anonymous said...

Anon
Cut me down on my grammer as you will I have posted more factual information then anyone. Most of this site is just conjecture. This is why you and other denialist live in a pipe dream. hence I own people on this site.....thats why in 2009...

Zod will force Superman to kneel!

Restart

Ap is a big boy and can defend himself he is just afraid of me. That is why he hits and runs like a coward he is.
That is wh

Anonymous said...

"I have posted more factual information then anyone"

You haven't posted one fact. You have posted a few memorable clangers such as your prediction that Spiderman 3 would fail in the wake of Returns.

Like I said earlier, you better pass on your "inside" information to the boss, Alan Horn coz he seems to be singing a different tune, you dickhead.

Isn't it amazing now though, but totally predictable. After a full year on nonsensical confirmations from all sorts of unqualified sources (my fave was the one in which Younis caused a stink on the net by quoting some behind the scenes doco editor), now the sheep are being told that "nothing's definite in Hollywood"!!!

If only the sheep here who now have no other option other than to play the "jury's still out" line had played that very fuckin line months ago when told by Yes Man Younis that the crazy old broad, Eva Marie Saint, had confirmed the sequel. I guess it's called "holding on to a (wet)dream" that Routh & Singer would be back in each others arms again.

What should also be noted is the entire interview with Horn(swright, perhaps you could post ALL of that?). It's obvious that in Mr Horn's eyes Returns is LAST on his list of priorities. It reads almost as if Horn considers Returns to be like some dog shit that needs to be disposed of before going to bed

Anonymous said...

Terminal

Anonymous said...

"After Singer completes "Valkyrie" and "The Mayor of Castro Street," he plans to start production on "Man of Steel" next year for a 2009 release."

Oh, did the apologists miss that, did they?? So now Singer IS going to make the Milk bio before Returns....well, well, well.

That Variety article is nothing more than a vague interview with Spacey about wht he's got lined up in films.

Anonymous said...

I tell you what though, Routh (remember him?)must be getting increasingly desperate. Younis is reporting that instead of the traditional diamond engagement ring, Routh intends to use a "blue stone" that he FOUND in England!!!!!

Poor kid. I suppose the autograph signing money only stretches so far.

Routh also adds that he doesn't want guests to have to travel too far for the wedding....He shouldn't worry about what people think. Have the fuckin wedding in your folks backyard Brandon. That hard earned million you got for Supes has to go a loooong way son.

Terminal

(Brandon Routh, get another agent)

Anonymous said...

Actually, As Steve Younis is organising the wedding, I'm just wondering if there'd be any interest here in us having a whip round and chipping in to buy Brandon and his blushing bride to be a cubic zirconia engagement ring?

Also, if anyone has experience in catering for 50-100 people and/or wedding photography, would they mind dropping Steve Younis a line. Volunteers must not find the sight of homosexuals attending offensive.

Terminal

Anonymous said...

Bet poor Brandon is now cursing the day he pissed of the casting directors, writers, director et al of that awful soap he was on.

Bet he would love to have that income now.

Oh well, he will reap what he has sowed.

Could we please get a real actor now for the role.

messi said...

Restart you are an idiot. Smallville is far more entertaining than Superman Returns. You lose. if you liked the movie you have shitty tastes. Transformers owned Superman Returns in the most brutal sense.

Anonymous said...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33282

See scooped again. Another post by your God in here, REstart. Is Aint-it-cool-news not a worthy source? I think once again.....

Supes is fine for 2009!

Restart

Messi Smallville got boring in season 3. All they do is rehash rehash rehash. First Clark spies on Lana. Then he loves her. Then he doesnt love her. Then she loves him. How many times do the main characters get knocked out or have amensia. My personal favorite is Clark slamming the Mack Daddy on Lana before her wedding. If that happened to you Messi you would kill the guy, but since you like Smallville you might just kiss him.

Anonymous said...

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070711j.php

Another post from the Variety Story. I can almost hear AP/Terminal/SSS crying as I read this story. Another fact confirming......................

Superman is back in 2009!

Restart

Dam I am good! How can you people stand when I am right week after week!

Anonymous said...

I call bullshit on that article. It's logistically impossible for Singer to shoot 2 movies, do all the post-production work, and then do the same for Singerman 2 in time for 2009.

It's funny though, didnt Younis go on aschpiel a few months back about how Variety was known to get details wrong about things, but now THIS is concrete news?

Anonymous said...

"Another post from the Variety Story"

You are fucking retarded Restart. It clearly says Spacey "HOPES" to be back

Man, you show how fuckin desperate you Apologists will sink too.

Lame. Fuckin lame

Terminal

swright said...

What should also be noted is the entire interview with Horn(swright, perhaps you could post ALL of that?).

I posted everything he said about Superman's sequel..I dont' think anyone cares to read about the Harry potter movies.

S.S.S. said...

last I heard, Singer was in Germany doing some early shooting on Valkyrie. Seems odd that he'd fly to NYC now to pitch script ideas to Spacey. Usually when an actor and a director have an established repoire like those two, you dont need that degree of "selling" to be done.

Anonymous said...

Messi Smallville got boring in season 3. All they do is rehash rehash rehash.
^^^
SR got boring after the 3 minute STM ripoff credits opening. All Singer did was rehash, rehash and rehash Donner with his own added homo touches.

Anonymous said...

hmm if the Variety report is to be believed it sure makes the clowns over at IESB look like fuckwits...

Anonymous said...

The clowns at IESB ARE FUCKWITS, did you see their press representative interviewing Routh at the Transformers premiere kissing up to Singerman saying fuck all the fanboys that had a problem with SR?

swright said...

"Usually when an actor and a director have an established repoire like those two, you dont need that degree of "selling" to be done."

It depends. If KS doesn't want to do movies and needs to see what they have planned for Lex he would. It sounds to me like he was flying back to give his pitch for the sequel and stopped in to see KS beforehand. What's interesting is that this probably happened before Horn gave his interview for Variety. So I'm guessing that he probably told Singer that he wants to see a script before he commits to spending 175 million dollars.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Anonymous said...

It really does appear now to be a war of he said/singer said.

Everyone on the Singerman side is saying, look: so and so, and this and that said x is signed, y is being talked to and z is excited, yet in the land of Oz, the great and powerful Wizard of Horn is the only one who really matters.

Singer, Routh, Saint, Bosworth, et al can say, do, dance, sing, and karaoke all they want, if the great pumpkin Alan Horn says, "NOOOOOOOOO" then so be it.

Singerman and company really do seam to be desperate at this point, may work, may not.

Anonymous said...

"Usually when an actor and a director have an established repoire like those two, you dont need that degree of "selling" to be done."

It depends." swright

Like you'd fuckin know jackass!

Anonymous said...

"So I'm guessing that he probably told Singer that he wants to see a script before he commits to spending 175 million dollars." swright

What a fuckin genius! How did you come to that conclusion?

That's been established since day one Einstein

Fuckin hell, the level of stupidity that the apologists operate on is staggering. No wonder Younis strings them along all the time

swright said...

"Like you'd fuckin know jackass!"

Yeah I would..It happens all the time fuckmunch. There is nothing unusual about it.

"What a fuckin genius! How did you come to that conclusion?"

You really are retarded. Because you missed the whole point of my post. I was saying that the meeting and pitch to Kevin Spacey and the subsequent pitch most likely just happened and Horn told him exactly what he told Variety.

Yeah it's something we've all known, but it's interesting that HORN said he would GREENLIGHT up to 175 million if the script is good. That's the first time a hard budget has been officially announced if the sequel is a go. Up until now it's only been speculation.

Anonymous said...

Last May Brandon Routh was supposedly the next big thing in Hollywood, but since the disaster that was Singerman Returns, his career has be MIA. The guy does parties in the Singerman Suit and signs autographs for money. PATHETIC. How the supposed mighty have fallen.

Yet others up for the role, Mathew Bomer(Ratner's first choice), Henry Cavill, maybe R's second and the studio'ssecon choice, and Michael Cassidy, McG's choice, have all had great 2007, whereas Routh has literally disappeared from view.

It is well known that Singer is not great at casting, as Routh so aptly shows.

Yet Bomer(Traveler), Cavill(The Tudors) and Cassidy( Hidden Palms) have all gotten great reviews from critics, and the public at large.

Reboot bayy, and send Singer and Routh to nowheres' ville, and fast.

Anonymous said...

"I was saying that the meeting and pitch to Kevin Spacey and the subsequent pitch most likely just happened and Horn told him exactly what he told Variety."

WE KNOW, you fuck wit

Sheesh. Do you have to be retarded to defend Singer, or does it just help?

swright said...

"Last May Brandon Routh was supposedly the next big thing in Hollywood, but since the disaster that was Singerman Returns, his career has be MIA. The guy does parties in the Singerman Suit and signs autographs for money. PATHETIC. How the supposed mighty have fallen."

Where do you guys keep getting this from? How does showing up at a convention translate into doing parties in your Superman suit?

Anonymous said...

"Where do you guys keep getting this from?"

It's called the internet jackass. It was reported ages ago. Don't blame others for your own ignorance, LOOK IT UP YOUR FUCKIN SELF you lazy ill-informed sheep.

It was another of those unflattering news items like the Razzie nomination that went under the radar on Bluetights & SHP


"...pitch to Kevin Spacey"
Gee, if Spacey makes a statement saying he's on board for a possible Singer sequel just as Singer has to pitch it to Warners....it's all about the timing. One fag helping out another. They stick together those queers

Remember being gay makes baby Jesus cry,
Father Finian Egan

Anonymous said...

Again with the gay slurs. Just because this site was trumped yet again does not mean you have to be a biogot about it. The sequel is happening. Singer et. company aren't just going to pony up their own money to have meetings, etc. Seriously if there is work being done on the film (meetings, talk, etc.) do you think Singer is doing it out of the kindness of his own heart? Once again proving logically.................

Superman flies in 2009!

Restart

Now come the gay slurs and hypothetical proof this project is not moving forward. Horn himself said he is waiting for a script.

Anonymous said...

"Horn himself said he is waiting for a script."

WE KNOW, you fuck wit.

He then said "...before I say YES to anything"

So, as he hasn't as yet said YES to a sequel, it is impossible to suggest that it is "happening" until he does.

You may think you're being clever by your own standards, but to everyone else you are just a fuck wit beyond comparison. You're not even funny in a sad way anymore, just sad.

Anonymous said...

Anon
Yet you still respond to me so that means my comments either anger you or you realize how right I am. Evertime you and anyone who post here bring up your lies, conjecture, and bigotted remarks I am there to smack some sense into you, because....................

Singer will be back in 2009!

Restart

Trust me as Singer turned up the action in X2 he will bring it to Superman. I do find it funny even if you did not like the movie, your lack of faith for a sequel suprises me. Do you not believe he can learn from his mistakes?

voice_of_reason said...

Stop with the stupid X1 to X2 argument, it's completely irrelevant to the current situation:

The budget for X2 was almost $30 million HIGHER than X-Men.

The budget for an SR2 if it ever happens is going to be at least $30+ million LOWER.

Singer couldnt do anything more than have Superman skulk around in the bushes and pout for almost $210 million. But yet he's now going to be able to incorporate BONZO action and a big time super-villain for $175 million? Anyone who has faith in that happening, is a poor misguided fool who's in denial.

swright said...

"But yet he's now going to be able to incorporate BONZO action and a big time super-villain for $175 million? Anyone who has faith in that happening, is a poor misguided fool who's in denial."

Transformers had a shit load of action and that only cost 150 million. It's possible to have more action for less money.

" It's called the internet jackass. It was reported ages ago. Don't blame others for your own ignorance, LOOK IT UP YOUR FUCKIN SELF you lazy ill-informed sheep."

The only thing I saw reported was that he was signing autographs. Not showing up at parties in his suit. That was added by you guys and you keep acting as if it actually happened.

But please, if you know where I can find the article that says he was dressing up as Superman do tell. Because the reason you keep telling me to look it up myself is because you know it doesn't exist.

voice_of_superman said...

Transformers had a shit load of action and that only cost 150 million. It's possible to have more action for less money.

yes, if they do a brain transplant between Michael Bay and Singer, i guess that could happen.

Anonymous said...

^^^
Also if they did a brain transplant with Brett Ratner and Singer or how about McG?

If WB wants Superman to be an action film Singer is the wrong man for the job.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Transformers is going to cross the 200 million domestic mark this weekend with the VERY heavily hyped Harry Potter film opening at the same time.

You see what real positive word of mouth can get you Singerman fans?

Unlike The Queer of Steel, Transformers isn’t going to be just forgotten the week after and left to die a slow crawling death when the next big thing hit.

colors said...

I'm not a Hollywood person at all, but it seems to me that if WB thought Singerman had been this huge runaway success, there wouldn't be any doubt about a sequel. Everyone from Alan Horn down would be balls to the wall saying something more like "it's going to happen with or, God forbid, without *sob* Singer."

And that's not exactly what Horn said. *If* WB decides to do a sequel and *if* the script (and other factors, whatever they are) are right and other conditionals, then *maybe* they'd do it... for a reduced budget.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement where I come from.

colors said...

Btw, I didn't know that was the original Optimus Prime from the cartoon. I thought it was someone who sounded similar to him and that was it. But it is cool that Bay managed to bring him back.

An adaptation along the lines of Transformers is what Singerman should've been. Bring in Bay, it's not like he could do a worse job.

Anonymous said...

"An adaptation along the lines of Transformers is what Singerman should've been. Bring in Bay, it's not like he could do a worse job."

Oh trust me Bay could do a worse job. Have you ever seen Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, the god awful Bad Boys 2? I did not love SR but Bay is not a better director than Singer. You think he could make a movie like Usual Suspects that is about characters and not shit blowing up like crazy, no chance.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah not too mention the Island, that was a total piece of shit directed by Bay.

Anonymous said...

^^

Agreed Transformers was pretty good but Bay is not a great director and a lot of his movies have really sucked.

Anonymous said...

Bay’s worse films are still better than Singer’s SR.

Anonymous said...

Watch Pearl Harbor again and you might rethink that one. I don't think there has ever been a worse movie than that, well maybe Batman and Robin.

Anonymous said...

The only characters Singer can write are ones that are metaphoric stand ins for his upbringing as a gay oppressed orphaned Jew.
Which is exactly the characterization he used for Supes, the concept may have worked for X-Men because lucky for him on a deeper level that’s what the X-Men represented.

And since Signer draws all his characterization from his limited personal perspective, he is off his rocker with Supes because he himself knows nothing of being a selfless man of the people.

Anonymous said...

I see much fear in you! Fear that a sequel is imminent. Fear that restart once again post..........

Superman in 2009!

Restart

The buzz on this movie is starting and you can not stop it!

Anonymous said...

"The buzz on this movie is starting and you can not stop it!"

Buzz, oh yeah there's a real buzz about a sequel. People on the street can't stop talking about that Routh guy.....who?

Who are you kidding, yourself?

Anonymous said...

"Is Aint-it-cool-news not a worthy source? I think once again....."Restart

Despite the article being reported on AICN is the same here, it is worth checking out AICN's report for the talkback. Thanks again Restart for highlighting how many people HATE Singer. Nearly as many as those on here that hate you.

I'd say the tide has well and truly turned against Singerman Returns. It's a hatefest towards Singer over there. Wonderful stuff.

Anonymous said...

"The buzz on this movie is starting..."

The only buzz in the Superman world is from the straight guys cheering about the hottie cast as Supergirl in Smallville. Of course there's the usual murmur from the homos who think casting attractive women in a Superman franchise is a mistake and from the emos who consider Smallville poor because it's enjoyable fluff and prefer Returns for it's gay angst

Father Finian

Anonymous said...

There's a funny story out on the Net about Shaquille O'Neal introducing his son to Tom Welling at a movie premeire and referring to Welling as "Superman."
At the SR premeire, they had to tell Shaq who Routh was.

swright said...

"At the SR premeire, they had to tell Shaq who Routh was"

Shag's a Superman freak. I highly doubt he went to the SR premiere and didn't know who BR was.

key_grip said...

^ swright to teh resue when a disparaging word is spoken about Routh!

Dont know what to tell you. I havea friend on the E! creq who did a segment on the premiere and said it was awkward as hell. Apparently a LOT of the celebrities who just show up at the premiere werent sure who he was. Shaq is a Superman freak, and thats what makes it all the more funny.
Let's face it, Routh on the street doesnt really look like he does in the movie.

Anonymous said...

^^

Yeah sure celebrities going to the premiere of SR did not know who was playing Superman. Did nobody know that Chris Reeve was playing Superman either at the 1978 premiere??? He was a total unknown in 1978, nobody knew who he was. This Routh bashing is getting stupid.

Anonymous said...

"I highly doubt he went to the SR premiere and didn't know who BR was."swright (who else)


Again, like you'd fuckin know.

People knew Reeve was Superman. 1978 was much different to Singer's debacle. Routh just isn't a "star"

Anonymous said...

"This Routh bashing is getting stupid."

Why? Just because someone's raised another cringeworthy Routh story. I know it's hard for people like yourself whose bedroom wall is adorned with pictures of Bwandon to accept that not many people know or like young Wouth.

Like it or not, Routh is just another reason Returns was a disappointment.

Anonymous said...

"...and said it was awkward as hell."

Man, you could be Alan Horn himself saying it but unless it's been seen by swright through his fuckin stupid rose colored Younis glasses, it don't mean shit.

Or, in short: swright is just a sheep who is told how to think by Younis

key_grip said...

it's funny b/c people will doubt any story that goes against their view of things unless they see it linked to a real newspaper, yet what real newspaper is going to report that Shaq didnt know who Routh was? Who the fuck would care? Half of their readership probably doesnt know either.
It's just one of those things you have to believe from the people who were there. My friend who works for E! could care less about the Superman franchise (no, he's not Singer BTW) so he has no reason to lie to me about it.

Anonymous said...

Let's be fair everybody: Transformers had bitchin' actions, in fact, some of the most ridiculous CGI I have ever seen, and the story was pretty good, BUT all of the human characters were jokes. Too many yuk-yuk moments for me (even that little Jar-Jar Binks evil robot put me off).

But hey, it was exciting, intense, and fun. And yes, the original voice of Optimus Prime was pretty friggin' sweet. At least Bay's writers paid ATTENTION to the source material, unlike SOME PEOPLE.... wahwahwaghhhh

-cgeer15

Anonymous said...

In a matter of just less than three weeks, Transformers has made as much as Singerman made in its entire run.

Horn and Warner's has to take a look at this and come to the conclusion that Singerman was not a success.

Anonymous said...

Really? Wow. I guess that's what happens when you appeal to EVERY age group below Fifty.

Hmm.... Singerman what age group were you appealing to??? Hahaha.

On a more sobering note, this question could be taken quite literally and I doubt if anyone would be able to give me a straight answer.

-cgeer15

Anonymous said...

"People knew Reeve was Superman. 1978 was much different to Singer's debacle. Routh just isn't a "star"

Nobody knew who Reeve was in 1978 not one damn person, outside of stage and theatre fans. As Swright said Shaq is a huge fan of Superman. Even if he saw it and hated it he certainly knew who was playing Superman in SR going in. Are you saying that all you guys being Superman fans did not know that Brandon Routh was playing him before you saw it? BTW somebody needs to post a credible link to that Shaq story because it reeks of BULLSHIT!!!

Anonymous said...

"Horn and Warner's has to take a look at this and come to the conclusion that Singerman was not a success."

Yeah your right, they should shut down production on The Dark Knight right now because Batman Begins made a lot less than Transformers.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody knew who Reeve was in 1978 not one damn person"

Take it from somebody who was there, at the premiere of Superman Reeve was a star. The buzz surrounding the film was huge, Reeve was seen everywhere, he was being interviewed about Superman world wide prior to the films release. It was NOTHING like Routh's debut.

You saw Reeve on the red carpet prior to seeing the fim itself and you knew who the guy was, then seeing the film only cemented it for you that Christopher Reeve was infact a real find and a star.

Again, yet another attempt to drag Reeve down to the level of poor widdle Bwandon Wotuh, which if it wasn't so silly, would be laughable.

Anonymous said...

"I doubt if anyone would be able to give me a straight answer."

It's a good question. The casting alone makes one feel Singer was after the less discriminating youth demographic, not for people who enjoy good pictures, young or old. In the end he made a fim for the less discriminating homosexual male....and there didn't seem to be many of them taken by the film either. Homosexuals have higher satandards than even Singer gives them credit for (eg They know a real Man Of Steel when they see one, and it ain't Routh!)

Anonymous said...

"Take it from somebody who was there, at the premiere of Superman Reeve was a star. The buzz surrounding the film was huge, Reeve was seen everywhere, he was being interviewed about Superman world wide prior to the films release. It was NOTHING like Routh's debut."

You just described the same situation surrounding SR. WB marketed the shit out of it asshole. It got plenty of good buzz just check the reviews. You want to argue he has been forgotten since it came out fine, but people knew who he was when SR was released WB saw to that. I can't believe there are people on here actually attempting to argue that nobody knew who Routh was at the premiere of SR, you people are seriously fucked in the head.

Anonymous said...

"In the end he made a fim for the less discriminating homosexual male....and there didn't seem to be many of them taken by the film either"

WTF are you talking about. Which part of it was GAY. When he tried to kiss Lois, you know a GIRL, after their flight together or was it GAY when he was saying goodbye to their Son at the END. You people with this SR is gay shit are morons. This is why you think it is GAY, because Singer is GAY, that is all there is to it. Anyone who tries to use the Advocate article as a way of claiming SR is gay, did not read one word of the article. Nowhere did they accuse Superman in SR of being GAY. They were mainly talking about superheroes in general leading double lives and comparing that to some gays that live in the closet with the secret of their sexuality.

Anonymous said...

"You just described the same situation surrounding SR"

Hardly. Routh's picture was on lots of corn flake boxes and all people thought was "That's not the guy from Smallville"

The proof is a year after Reeve played the role he was hardly forgotten, and Welling still going.

Anonymous said...

"WTF are you talking about. Which part of it was GAY. "

Here we go again, the comic book guy's back and he's still fuckin naive to the gay overtones and he's still TOO FUCKIN LAZY and IGNORANT to look it up himself. Look through the index of this very site for references! Google it because just because you can't be bothered keeping up doesn't mean HEAPS of people haven't already commented on the film's "gayness"

What, are you 12 years old?? Are you that blind to the gay overtones and imagery that run through the movie?? I've already said earlier that Singer even gave Routh a costume that Freddie Mercury would've turned down for looking too "camp"

Jesus! This guy's obviously so in love with Singer that it's impossible to consider an earlier, better version of Superman.......

Anonymous said...

^^

Reference something intelligent asshole that says this film is GAY. The Christ imagery people talked about and that was very real in SR just like it was in STM. The point was being made very clear in STM of God sending his son to earth to be their savior and Singer played on that in SR. However the GAY stuff nope not even close. You can reference nothing that makes a lick of sense about SR being gay. I actuallly had one asshole on this site attempt to tell me that when Superman is being stabbed in the back by Luthor with Kryptonite that was Singers way of referencing what it is like to be banged in the ASS. That is how fucking stupid some of the people are that post on this BLOG. SR is not a GAY film and you can reference nothing, not here or anywhere else that makes that case. SR at the end of the day is a film about him coming back to earth, still in love with LOIS and trying to find his place in her life and the world as a whole again, that is all.

Anonymous said...

"Reference something intelligent asshole that says this film is GAY"

LOL, can you believe this guy. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, it's hardly hidden.

You must be the guy who enjoys the "Jackass" movies yet wonders why women don't "get" them.

There is enough gay imagery, casting and themes in Superman Returns for a dozen movies jackass. You keep on displaying your ignorance by continually reverting to the "but he loves Lois" element of the story line. If Superman Returns was anymore gay they'd put it on Broadway.

Superman even copped it in the eye, I mean you must hate it when that happens!!

Anonymous said...

http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/2006/07/story-that-just-wont-go-away.html

Just some of the gay bizz is referenced in this page..........

Anonymous said...

"There is enough gay imagery, casting and themes in Superman Returns for a dozen movies jackass. You keep on displaying your ignorance by continually reverting to the "but he loves Lois" element of the story line. If Superman Returns was anymore gay they'd put it on Broadway.

Superman even copped it in the eye, I mean you must hate it when that happens!!"

You just made my point for me. Did you reference something, NO all you did was act like a jackass and try to insult me. Reference something intelligent that makes a lick of sense or raise the white flag already. I don't care that Singer is GAY and Spacey is supposedly GAY, there is nothing GAY in the film at all PERIOD.

Anonymous said...

"http://singerssupermansucks.blogspot.com/2006/07/story-that-just-wont-go-away.html

Just some of the gay bizz is referenced in this page.........."

I ask you for something intelligent and you give me a link to horseshit rumors about Routh being GAY. Reality he is getting married to his longtime GF and even if he was GAY, SR is still not a GAY film. That is strike 1 of 3 care to try again.

Anonymous said...

"there is nothing GAY in the film at all PERIOD."

I give up. You are unbelievably naive and ignorant. There's more to that link than "horseshit" rumours, as you put it. Did you even read about the LA Times, no. You're just trying for some reason portray the gayness of Returns is a figment of my imagination and my imagination alone, which is patently ridiculous, especially on here of all places!

Go to AICN and check out the talkback as to others' feelings towards the film

SR IS A VERY GAY FILM. Ever met a woman who liked it? I mean a real woman?

Please keep on coming back and displaying your idiocy by telling everyone YOU can't see the gay overtones in Returns. And you know, if a film DOES have gay overtones, DOES THAT MEAN IT'S A BAD FILM???? Didn't hurt "Brokeback Mountain" one bit. Didn't do the Batman franchise any favors, nor Returns....

So, please, please tell us again that there's no gay overtones in Superman Returns, it's priceless!

Anonymous said...

anon vs. anon
The people who bash this movie saying it is "GAY" just want to see that image in the movie. The reason is secretly they want themselves to be banged hard in the ass. Otherwise they would say, I did not like the plot, Actor was the bad choice, etc. Terminal/Father/AP are some of the biggest gay bashers and bigots, they most definetly owns some hard gay porn. That is why they will cry when...........................

Supes flys in 2009!

Restart

Again with smallville. Clark in that serious has more issues then in returns. He tries to braak up Lex's marriage, spies and pushes Lana away more times then I can count, and ignores the hot blond reporter that always wanted to bang him.

Anonymous said...

"Please keep on coming back and displaying your idiocy by telling everyone YOU can't see the gay overtones in Returns. And you know, if a film DOES have gay overtones, DOES THAT MEAN IT'S A BAD FILM???? Didn't hurt "Brokeback Mountain" one bit. Didn't do the Batman franchise any favors, nor Returns...."

You are the one that is sounding like an idiot because you can give me no examples at all. You keep saying GAY overtones, for the millionth time LIKE WHAT? Let me give you a few examples that are pathetic. SR is gay because of the costume. SR is gay because he did not punch anyone. SR is gay because he lifted a giant rock at the end. SR got this attention because of 2 things mainly. 1 Singer is GAY and 2 the Advocate put SR on it's cover and wrote an article comparing gays to superheroes, why they like them and what they have in common. It was not a comparison just of Superman, clearly you did not read the article, you just saw the cover and assummed what was written. None of this shit is based in reality.

Anonymous said...

None of his shit is based in reality huh.



LA TIMES

How Will a Gay Icon Fly at the Box Office?

Superman appeals to gays. Should that be a selling point? Or could it be kryptonite?

By John Horn
Times Staff Writer

June 2, 2006

STUDIOS love magazine stories that breathlessly hype their summer popcorn movies, so you would think that Warner Bros. might have been happy with Alonso Duralde's cover story about "Superman Returns," which gushed, "Superheroes — let's face it — are totally hot."

There was a twist: Duralde's "Superman Returns" story was not in Entertainment Weekly or Newsweek or Premiere. It ran in the May 23 issue of the Advocate, the prominent national gay magazine, next to the headline: "How Gay Is Superman?"

The Man of Steel has been missing from the movies for 19 years, and now that he's scheduled to fly into the multiplex on June 28, his worries may not be limited to Lex Luthor and kryptonite. Even at a time when moviegoers and awards organizations embraced the overtly gay love story "Brokeback Mountain," there may be a different challenge for a mainstream action movie that happens to be attracting a gay following.

No one suggests that Superman in "Superman Returns" is, in fact, gay. But, as several entertainment and cultural writers have noted, superheroes hold obvious — and growing — gay appeal. In addition to being strikingly good-looking, the characters often are portrayed as alienated outsiders, typically leading double lives. In the case of Superman, the beefcake character historically has struggled with romance, all the while running around in a skin-tight suit.

At issue now is whether that gay vibe will broaden the "Superman Returns" audience, or limit it.

Warners has a lot at stake with its long-delayed attempt to breathe life into the "Superman" franchise. The studio's schedule is dominated by pricey sequels, prequels and remakes, but its first such effort this summer, "Poseidon," sank faster than the boat. And "Superman Returns," which will cost about $300 million to release with marketing costs added in, faces formidable competition from the latest installment in the blockbuster franchise "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," which opens nine days after "Superman" lands in theaters.

Beyond the Advocate cover, which features the film's star, Brandon Routh, in costume, industry blogs such as the Defamer website, which has become the online show business bible for many young industry executives, have been as obsessed with "Superman's" gay appeal as Britney Spears' parenting skills and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's new baby girl.

Defamer has posted a number of stories on how gay the "Superman Returns" posters and Topps trading cards make the character look, particularly in one trading card showing Superman literally coming out of a closet. "If Warner Bros. marketing partners like Topps aren't even going to bother pretending, why should we?" Defamer asked. "Be proud, our fabulously caped little Queer-El."

Warner Bros. declined to comment. But the studio is reaching out to some gay moviegoers. Warners has bought "Superman Returns" advertising time on Logo, a year-old digital cable channel in 20 million homes that calls itself "the channel for Gay America."

An informal poll of six veteran Hollywood marketing executives at rival studios revealed sharply divided opinions over how — or even if — "Superman's" gay attention would affect the film. Two of the executives said the focus could actually expand the film's audience, much as gay moviegoers have responded to the "X-Men" superhero series, which has been praised for its metaphorical plots about acceptance. The first two "X-Men" movies were directed by Bryan Singer, the openly gay filmmaker who also made "Superman Returns." Singer did not respond to an interview request.

But four of the movie marketing executives, all of whom declined to speak on the record, said gay "Superman Returns" interest presented two potential box-office problems. First, teenage moviegoers, especially those in conservative states, might be put off by a movie carrying a gay vibe; among some teens, these executives agreed, saying something "is gay" is still the ultimate put-down. Second, the attention threatens to undermine the film's status as a hard-edged action movie, making it feel softer, more romantic, and thus less interesting to young ticket buyers who crave pyrotechnics.

Though "Brokeback Mountain's" gay love story proved to be a Hollywood breakthrough, unequivocally selling a ton of tickets and winning three Oscars, it was essentially an adult drama, which courts a very different audience than the high-octane action crowd that "Superman" needs to attract.

Bob Witeck, whose Washington marketing and public relations firm specializes in campaigns aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual consumers, said an issue for any firm is to entice one constituency without alienating another.

Movie studios, Witeck said, "would love nothing more than to have buzz in [gay and lesbian] neighborhoods where people go to the movies a lot." But a company pitching something like beer narrowly to gay and lesbian drinkers faces a possible backlash. "If you're the gay beer, you're not everybody's beer," said Witeck, whose firm is not working on "Superman Returns."

Warners knows from its own history that too many gay associations can play a role in derailing a big summer movie, particularly one involving an established superhero.

In addition to drawing poor reviews and generating weak word-of-mouth, the studio's 1997 summer release "Batman & Robin" was criticized for having too much homoerotic appeal, including nipples on Batman's suit. George Clooney, the film's star, has joked, "I could have played him straight but I didn't. I made him gay."

The film barely grossed $100 million in domestic theaters, and Warners has said privately that "Batman & Robin" turned out so poorly that it nearly killed off the Caped Crusader franchise (the series was resuscitated with last year's "Batman Begins," a global blockbuster).

Despite the provocative headline, the Advocate story didn't suggest that Superman was gay or that the film contained any subplot about an implicit or overt gay relationship; Warners has not yet shown the movie to journalists and has kept its plot under wraps.

Rather Duralde, the magazine's arts and entertainment editor, wrote that "the iconography of superheroes definitely pushes a button or two with many gay men."

Duralde said in an interview that he tried to speak with filmmaker Singer for his "Superman" story but was rebuffed. "We got a no, for whatever reason. It's anybody's guess," Duralde said.

Despite the gay-branding issues "Superman" might face, there are a number of hit pop culture products that have benefited greatly from gay and lesbian fans.

The 1990s TV series "Xena: Warrior Princess" had a loyal and large following among lesbians (which the show courted) and the rock band Queen maintained a huge audience of young straight males despite the gay imagery of its name, music and stage shows. In comics, it has become increasingly common to not only create new gay characters but also to rework the mythology of long-time heroes to make them gay, as is the case with both Batwoman and Colossus.

Fox's "X-Men" movies, with their themes of a mutant race fighting for respect and acceptance, are also a study in how a studio can find a significant audience in both the gay and straight world.

"Mutant/queer connections," Robert Urban wrote in an article about "X-Men" for the gay media website http://www.afterelton.com , "abound in the films' plot premises, underlying themes, and storyline. Even though none of the individual 'X-Men' characters are actually 'gay' in the movies, as a whole the mutants clearly function as a metaphor for queers."

In the second film in the series, the character Iceman essentially comes out to his family as a mutant. In the most recent "X-Men" sequel, there's a character named Angel whose mutant status is discovered by his father, who then rejects him for being different.

"Yes, it's a popular series with gays, and I'm thrilled," said Lauren Shuler Donner, who served as a producer on all three "X-Men" films. "But they are also popular with everybody who at some point in their life has felt like an outsider."

Urban, a gay musician and writer, said in an interview that "Superman" faces a different challenge than "X-Men."

" 'Superman' is a beefcake movie. 'X-Men' is not," he said. "If you have too much beefcake out there, the 18- to 34-year-old [straight] men may think, 'It's not cool. It's not us.' "

Anonymous said...

"No one suggests that Superman in "Superman Returns" is, in fact, gay. But, as several entertainment and cultural writers have noted, superheroes hold obvious — and growing — gay appeal. In addition to being strikingly good-looking, the characters often are portrayed as alienated outsiders, typically leading double lives. In the case of Superman, the beefcake character historically has struggled with romance, all the while running around in a skin-tight suit."

This right here says it all. They are not saying Superman in SR is GAY. They are talking about the appeal superheroes have to GAYS in general. That is much different than SR being a gay film with gay undertones. WB concern was about perception versus reality. The perception is if a movie is popular with Gays than some will believe that it is because the film itself is in fact gay. That is 100% not the case with SR as this quote clearly demonstrates.

Anonymous said...

"In the case of Superman, the beefcake character historically has struggled with romance, all the while running around in a skin-tight suit.

At issue now is whether THAT GAY VIBE will broaden the "Superman Returns" audience, or limit it."
^^^
I guess Jessica Alba in skin tight blue spandex equals hot and temping while Brandon Routh reeks ambiguously gay vibes.

Anonymous said...

^^

Buddy Gays being attracted to Superman or other heroes does not make him or the film gay. I am getting the sense you are trying to change your argument from SR is a gay film to gay people seem to like it. You do understand there is a very big difference.

Anonymous said...

Singerman isn't gay, he's just a gay icon.

Anonymous said...

Transformers was able to cross way over the 200 million dollar mark in its second week out and amazingly only dropped 48 percent from the previous week with the monster onslaught of the Harry Potter opening.

You see there apologists, if Singerman was actually well received by the general public with good word of mouth it would have been able to at the very least absorb some of the blow from Captain Jack and keep going the week after but instead not only did Pirates sink The Queer of Steel but the Devil wears Prada put the finishing touches to him.

The moral of the story is films with good word of mouth (Which SR did not have) would have been able to stay in the fray after another huge tentpole film opens. Instead Singerman was forgotten the following week because the public thought it boring and sucked.

Anonymous said...

---and moved on to the next big thing.

Anonymous said...

Superman Returns was a gay movie

Remember, homos are sinners who make baby Jesus cry,
Father Finian

Anonymous said...

"Transformers was able to cross way over the 200 million dollar mark in its second week out and amazingly only dropped 48 percent from the previous week with the monster onslaught of the Harry Potter opening."

Harry Potter opening weekend was 77 mil. Pirates was 135 mil that's nearly double and it was the biggest opening ever at that time last summer. There is no comparison, nice try though.

Anonymous said...

Oh he's here!!!

There's been a buzz going around the internet over the weekend saying that somebody had gone public declaring that they couldn't detect ANY gay overtones to Returns and he's on HERE!!!

After I compose myself I'll have to read through in detail what he's posted, and spread the word. Comedy gold like that is hard to come by these days!

I should've checked here first, this is where the Singersuckers get so vocal (and as such, hilarious)protecting the reputation of their "masterpiece"

Anonymous said...

"I think at this point the heads at Time Warner know that Singer’s Donner of Yesterday will never see those kinds of returns because the demo market that made the aforementioned films above such high grosses has no real interest in Singer/ Donner’s Superman."

Now i know that singer Superman Returns sucked. But Donner Superman was and is still a great movie. Singer's Superman sucksd because it was so wildly of on what Superman is. But Donners was very close to the Superman of the Time (aka The Pre-Crisis Superman). Yes i agree, I would love to see a Superman Movie thats closer to todays Superman. But lets not put down a great movie because it's associated with a crappy requel.

Anonymous said...

"Now i know that singer Superman Returns sucked. But Donner Superman was and is still a great movie."

Nah even STM does not hold up that well today. I mean Otis is annoying as hell and the effects are lousy by today's standards. The best thing about it is Reeve he is Superman unlike Routh but the movie is not that great anymore.

Anonymous said...

"Nah even STM does not hold up that well today"

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

Look up user ratings on IMDB if you have to.

A good movie stands the test of time no matter how old it is. SOME of the effects may be dated by today's standards but again DON'T drag others who went before SO much more successfully down to Singer's level. They are chalk and cheese and it can't be done with any credibility.

Anonymous said...

Harry Potter opening weekend was 77 mil. Pirates was 135 mil that's nearly double and it was the biggest opening ever at that time last summer. There is no comparison, nice try though.
^^^
Harry Potter has grossed $140 million since it opened on Wednesday, it's a sure bet if it had opened on a Friday instead it would have come pretty close to last years Pirates opening maybe even beating it.

Still the fact that Transformers held its own up against those kind of week long numbers speaks volumes for how how much people actually enjoyed Bay's film and at the rate its going with Harry Potter now out in all its glory, By the end of July Transformers still has a chance to give the top 3 a run for their money.

That what you call good word of mouth. Not like with SR which ended getting out grossed by Fox's Prada on a per screen capita.

Anonymous said...

Yes, yes we know that SR couldn't even handle a 35 million dollar low budget major release staring Ann Hathaway, please no one mention the box office fight between Dead Man's Chest and SR because there wasn't one to begin with.

Anonymous said...

"Harry Potter has grossed $140 million since it opened on Wednesday, it's a sure bet if it had opened on a Friday instead it would have come pretty close to last years Pirates opening maybe even beating it."

So by that logic you are assumming that Potter will make 423 mil domestic, not a chance in hell at that buddy. It will be lucky to hit 300 mil. Like i said there is no comparison.

Anonymous said...

"Look up user ratings on IMDB if you have to."

STM is a 7.3 with 30,000 votes. big deal, SR got a 6.9 with twice that many votes, i am not getting your point.

Anonymous said...

Again with the money. 75% of the sets are being reused for the sequel saving a ton of cash. Believe me if there was a Pirates of Carb. TV show and cartoon, Pirates would have not made as much money. Same with Spiderman. With so many interpretations of Superman on the TV is a great reason it did not perform as expected.........But I know that..

Superman will be back in 2009!

REstart

I own this site hard. Everytime I make a great comment like above people will just say the movie was gay or insult my grammer. Guess that means I am right.

Anonymous said...

"i am not getting your point"

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

If you had some friends I suppose you could ask them what they thought about the infinitely superior STM. You may be surprised that it's actually fondly remembered as one of the best comic book movies ever.

But go on, be a fuckwit and suggest that STM wasn't that good after all, jackass. You're fooling nobody

Anonymous said...

"I own this site hard. Everytime I make a great comment like above people will just say the movie was gay or insult my grammer. Guess that means I am right."

No, you own nothing. You are a fuckwit of the highest order whose lame predictions ALWAYS fall on their face. You claim to be an "insider" which considering the juvenile things you post is just laughabley sad. Are you 12 years old?

You are a joke who constantly has his ass handed to him, but is just so retarded to get it.

You too are fooling nobody

Anonymous said...

"Again with the money. 75% of the sets are being reused"

What, the ones at Fox Studios in Sydney that are being destroyed as we speak??

You're an insider? Sure.....

You're a know nothing fuckwit

Anonymous said...

"With so many interpretations of Superman on the TV is a great reason it did not perform as expected........."

Yes, Smallville owns the Superman franchise at the moment, doesn't it. That's why Smallville's future is assured and MOS is in limbo

What a fuckwit

Anonymous said...

"i am not getting your point"

And that would be because you are a fuckwit.

You're going to be very lonely if you think STM wasn't that good........

What a FUCKING fuckwit

Anonymous said...

Anon
You call me 12, but you use such big words like "fuckwit". Looks like you just got owned boy. Next time try big words like puerile and benighted if you want to insult someone. You are slso afraid to post your name maybe its because you fear..............

Superman back in 2009!

Restart

Wow stupid people are so easy to insult.

Anonymous said...

"Wow stupid people are so easy to insult."

...says our always proven wrong "insider"

You fuckwit

Anonymous said...

Hahaha, is this guy up there serious? No gay overtones in Superman? That LA Times article pretty much says it all. And no, you are right, the movie can't be "gay." As the film has no genitalia. HOWEVER-> The movie can and DOES have several gay references. And if you can not tell Singer's overwhelming comparisons to his own life, along with themes of alienation/diva behavior, and marketing that INCLUDES Superman coming out of the CLOSET, then you are very silly.

I think the film is morally bankrupt. Not because of the gay angle, but because Singerman is a stalker, and attempted adulterer, who tries to break up Lois' family before he EVER knows it is his kid. Don't be such a selfish prick- Singerman! People that don't have a problem with the mixed moral messages of this film- I think are seriously flawed sociologically.

-cgeer15

Anonymous said...

"If you had some friends I suppose you could ask them what they thought about the infinitely superior STM. You may be surprised that it's actually fondly remembered as one of the best comic book movies ever.

But go on, be a fuckwit and suggest that STM wasn't that good after all, jackass. You're fooling nobody"

I never said it was not any good, i liked it but to me it does not hold up as well anymore. STM was the first big time superhero movie but it is hardly an all time classic like Jaws.

Anonymous said...

In case you are wondering i am not a huge SR fan either. I thought it was ok, not great, not terrible. Singer had all the resources to make it great and did not pull it off, which shocked me since he had the great track record with the X-Men movies. If i had to rank them i would go

STM
Superman 2
Superman Returns
Superman 3
Superman 4

Anonymous said...

"STM was the first big time superhero movie but it is hardly an all time classic like Jaws."

That's your opinion. I'll take the opinion of people like Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert.

Anonymous said...

"That's your opinion. I'll take the opinion of people like Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert."

STM consistantly does not make any top lists of the best movies ever. The Godfather, Jaws, ET, Gone with The Wind those are considered legendary classics. IMDB lists their top 250 of all time according to the users and the Godfather is number 1. STM is not even anywhere in the top 250 according to the users. http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

Time Magazine also does a list of their top 100 every year and STM is never on there either. It is a good movie that people certainly remember but it is not seen as an all time clasic by the public.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah and according to IMDB The Usual Suspects is number 19. I know everyone here hates Singer for SR and i did not love it either but you gotta admit Usual Suspects was a fucking great movie.

Anonymous said...

"STM consistantly does not make any top lists of the best movies ever. "

Huh? Do any comic book films?

Anonymous said...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_the_movie/?critic=columns

Anonymous said...

"Huh? Do any comic book films?"

No but Star Wars makes the list all the time. That is a pretty out there kind of movie to be put on a list with movies like the Godfather. STM is good, still the best Superman movie but an all time classic, no not on that level.

Anonymous said...

"http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_the_movie/?critic=columns"

So what does this prove? 42 of 45 critics liked STM. Big deal most critics liked SR according to RT that was 76% positive and something like 250 reviews were counted for it. I know nobody here is naming that an all time classic, me included.

colors said...

STM, in my book (the only one I care about), is not a classic. Good for the time period, yes, and it definitely boasts a commanding and iconic performance by Reeve. Still, I think aspects of the script a pretty weak, I dislike how goofy the movie suddenly became once the narrative shifts to Metropolis and Lex Luthor was damned annoying in that film.

STM has a lot a going for it but I think it has become pretty overrated.

BTW, there's no comparison between Singerman and any Reeve Superman film. Shit, Singerman makes Superman III look like Citizen Kane.

BTW, did anybody else here check out Superman Redeemed?

Joel1245 said...

"I think the film is morally bankrupt. Not because of the gay angle, but because Singerman is a stalker, and attempted adulterer, who tries to break up Lois' family before he EVER knows it is his kid. Don't be such a selfish prick- Singerman! People that don't have a problem with the mixed moral messages of this film- I think are seriously flawed sociologically.

Yes cgeer15, I agree. I was angry at Supes for 1) trying to break up a family, and 2) peep into the privacy of Richard and Lois. That weirded me out and made me angry. Especially, after Lois asks him on the rooftop of the Daily Planet, "Will you be around?" He replies, "I'm always around." I wanted to yell at him, "No you're not! You were gone for five freakin years, dude!"

Lame, just lame.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, there's no comparison between Singerman and any Reeve Superman film. Shit, Singerman makes Superman III look like Citizen Kane."

Now that is just plain ridiculous buddy. I am no fan of SR but the effects alone put it ahead of Superman 3 and especially 4. You could see the wires in half the flying shots in 4 for god's sake. Nuclear Man what the fuck was that shit? Listen to the commentary on the DVD by Mark Rosenthal one of the screenwriters he spends 90 min tearing the film apart. It made 15 mil at the BO, even with inflation that is like 30 mil today. Reeve himself described 4 as a disaster and 3 was a damn Richard Pryor comedy that was not even funny. Did Singer mess up yes he did SR was not a great film but still much better than 3 and 4, those are 2 of the worst comic films ever.

Anonymous said...

"Did Singer mess up yes he did SR was not a great film but still much better than 3 and 4, those are 2 of the worst comic films ever."

You do have a point. But I'd suggest that 3 & 4 will be remembered long after Returns is forgotten by virtue of the cast alone and in the case of 4, it's earnestness. All you do is pick at "seeing the wires"

You've made your point, why labor it? You think STM WASN'T a great film, fine. MOVE THE FUCK ON because you're not going to convince anyone else of YOUR OPINION. At least you agree Returns was a mess, but you're boring in the extreme in trying to prove STM and Reeve weren't that great

Go away and point out your views on a general Superman discussion forum. It's just like the fuckwits who come here and complain about Smallville!

Anonymous said...

cgeer15
According to you, you must hate the hell out of smallville. Just recently he was trying the mack daddy on Lana right on her wedding day. And you say singer is bad.........thank god in 2009...

Singer will be back!

Restart

He upped the action in X2 he will lay the smack down in the sequel. Trust me I am never wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Hahaha, is this guy up there serious? No gay overtones in Superman?"

Sadly, yes it seems.

He may be interested in the interview linked to Superman Homepage. Aussie Gay Rugby player Ian Roberts talks about his role in Returns in gay magazine "Advocate"

Oscar Wilde wished he could be as gay as Superman Returns

Anonymous said...

"but you're boring in the extreme in trying to prove STM and Reeve weren't that great

Go away and point out your views on a general Superman discussion forum. It's just like the fuckwits who come here and complain about Smallville!"

Where did i say Reeve was not great? That man was my idol and Routh i thought was OK but he can't carry the weight of Reeve's legacy nobody can. I see this BLOG is not much for GEN discussion but i doubt too many people other than the most ardent SR haters in the near future given the oppurtunity will grab for Superman 3 or 4 over SR. Lets face it they are just that bad as films i'm sorry.

Anonymous said...

"Where did i say Reeve was not great? That man was my idol and Routh i thought was OK but he can't carry the weight of Reeve's legacy nobody can"

Sorry, not THAT great then.

Sheesh

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, not THAT great then."

I thought STM was great for 1978 but in 2007 to me it does not hold up as well. Reeve's performance is downright flawless nomatter when the film came out. He is and always will be SUPERMAN!!

Anonymous said...

"Reeve's performance is downright flawless nomatter when the film came out. He is and always will be SUPERMAN!!"

And so say all of us!!

Anonymous said...

ReTard havent you killed yourself via auto-erotic asphyxiation yet?

Anonymous said...

Anon
Again with the sexual overtones. You must not get any. Its OK I understand you ugly and stupid but you can at least bathe. How else will you be able to see.........

The sequel everone is waiting for in 2009!

Restart

Dam I am good. Stupid people are always so easy to insult.

Anonymous said...

^^

Well i think at this point it is pretty clear that if the sequel does not get made it will be solely because WB does not want to do it. Singer seems pretty intent on making it. you don't fly from Germany to NY when you are heavily involved in another project just for a day to meet with Spacey and sounds like he met with WB as well to talk about the sequel unless you are very intent on doing it. I'd be surpised at this point if it does not get made especially since Singer and WB have the understanding ahead of time that it has to be done for no more than 175 mil. A JL movie i think is a ways off. Yes they have an early version of the script but they have no director, no cast and no budget, which is likely to be north of 200 mil if WB is going to do it in grand fashion. If WB approves Man of Steel, when Singer is done with Valkeryie they are ready to go. They have a cast pretty much set, a director, budget, producers everyone ready to start. So it is all up to WB right now, we'll see.

Anonymous said...

To add most of the original sets can be reused. Singer all ready had a sequel in mind when filiming Returns. Proving once again....

Superman in 2009!

Restart

Anonymous said...

Singer isn't a Superman fan. He's a Donner fan. The problem with that is this is 2007, not 1977.

Singer's dated vision of the character and equally dated scripting is competing with much more solid Super Hero fare that is higher in quality both in drama and story content.

In Hollywood, its well known that Paramount, after the launching of the Star Trek franchise with the horrible, "Star Trek the Motion Picture", went back to the drawing board..
The film series was re-launched with "The Wrath of Khan". Every sequel from that point on ignores the first film, and never references it. The fans and studio alike pretend it never happened.

Its very revealing that when Singer is quoted as saying he was going to "Wrath of Khan" the sequel, it was a subconscious admission on his part that Returns was a mistake.

The real fact is this. Whether Singer continues the Superman franchise or not, its destined to NOT have a strong,long lived box office attraction as the Spiderman films have had.
As long as he targets the films directly to the hardcore Donner crowd, and ignores a wider audience, what else can you expect?

If the Superman film franchise didn't have the high quality competition that it does, he could get away with that kind of self serving preferential treatment to the character.
Superman the Movie had no such competition in its day.

This isn't 1977 no matter how much the Donner crowd wants it to be.
I liked the Donner film for its day, but I damn sure hated seeing a retread of it for 2006, and I don't want to see more in 2009.
The sad fact is, without a widespread proactive movement by fans to get Warner Bros. ear, and get Singer ousted, all this chatter and ranting is meaningless.

I suggest this website do more than provide a blog and place to rant.

Anonymous said...

"Its very revealing that when Singer is quoted as saying he was going to "Wrath of Khan" the sequel, it was a subconscious admission on his part that Returns was a mistake."

No that is not why he said that. Singer is a HUGE Star Trek fan he was just having some fun referencing one of his fav SK movies. You are reading more into that comment than i think he intended. I agree with your points about targeting the Donner crowd and i am sure WB knows this. Any screenplay they approve i am sure will have to go in a new direction getting away from that.

Anonymous said...

The "Khan" reference is still a valid sub-conscious admission by Singer, and can be interpreted that way.

Trek fan or not, the only reason to use that specific reference in speaking of a sequel, has its foundation and roots in, and speaks directly to the fact, that the first Trek film was a turkey, and Khan was the correction in direction. (Rhyme intended)

Most Trek fans generally know and understand that.

It WAS a Freudian slip whether you want to see it that way or not

Anonymous said...

...Potter will make 423 mil domestic, not a chance in hell at that buddy. It will be lucky to hit 300 mil. Like i said there is no comparison.


***

The new Harry Potter will not make 423 million domestic by summers end, the reason being that there is too much competition from other big films that are currently out and coming soon that people actually want to see multiple times.

Although it should be right in the mix with everyone and get very close or over the 300 million domestic mark especially with the new book coming this week to add to its buzz.

It’s not Dead Man’s Chest’s fault last year that its only so called blockbuster competition was Superman Returns, which it completely run over and left for dead.

Disney should be thanking their stars that Singer turned out such a forgettable boring film whose only good buzz afterwards was the Spiderman 3 teaser and left the casual folks jonesing for the next big thing to wash the horrible taste of Singerman from their mouths.

swright said...

"Trek fan or not, the only reason to use that specific reference in speaking of a sequel, has its foundation and roots in, and speaks directly to the fact, that the first Trek film was a turkey, and Khan was the correction in direction. (Rhyme intended)"

I don't think he meant to call SR a turkey, but your are correct that he was letting people know that, just like the first Star Trek film the second will bring the action where the first one did not. And fix the problems the fans had with the first one.

But we'll see...

Anonymous said...

"The new Harry Potter will not make 423 million domestic by summers end, the reason being that there is too much competition from other big films that are currently out and coming soon that people actually want to see multiple times."

Like what the Summer blockbuster season is pretty much over with. The only somewhat big release left is The Simpsons, then you have Rush Hour 3 but not until August.

"Trek fan or not, the only reason to use that specific reference in speaking of a sequel, has its foundation and roots in, and speaks directly to the fact, that the first Trek film was a turkey, and Khan was the correction in direction. (Rhyme intended)"

You would have to find a direct quote from Singer himself on his thoughts of the first Star Trek before you automatically leap to the assumption that he is admitting that SR sucked and Wrath of Kahn is his way of fixing it.

swright said...

"Like what the Summer blockbuster season is pretty much over with. The only somewhat big release left is The Simpsons, then you have Rush Hour 3 but not until August"

Don't forget the Bourne sequel.

Anonymous said...

"Don't forget the Bourne sequel."

That will do well but it won't be a massive blockbuster. Supremacy made 176 mil domestic, 288 mil WW.

swright said...

You know I always wondered what would have happened if SR came out after Pirate mania had died down. Would the gross have been higher or lower.

While I believe that word of mouth didn't do it any favors, I do believe that Pirates coming out a week later really hurt the film. If it had come out a couple of weeks after Pirates would it have made even 20 million more?

Anonymous said...

"would it have made even 20 million more?"

Easily, it's second week gross is where it took the biggest hit when Pirates was breaking records left and right. Does BB still make 205 mil domestic if it opened in the same spot, no chance in hell. Yet SR still made more at the BO. Bad word of mouth my ASS.

Anonymous said...

In the UK, SR opened the week after Pirates and it still couldn't even get the number 1 spot for a week.

SR’s word of mouth did stink, that’s why Time Warner is in no hurry to get another Singerman: Queer of Steel out, thanks to Singer the Superman features are back at the predevelopment level of other DC properties like The Flash and Wonderman.

It’s only a matter of time now before like Whedon and Goyer before him, Time Warner announces that Singer isn’t the right man for the superhero big screen adaptation job and tosses Supes into limbo.

Anonymous said...

"Easily, it's second week gross is where it took the biggest hit when Pirates was breaking records left and right. Does BB still make 205 mil domestic if it opened in the same spot, no chance in hell. Yet SR still made more at the BO. Bad word of mouth my ASS."

What ifs, what ifs

Why we’re at it,

what if Batman Begins had 60 to 70 million more dollars added to it's production budget to match that of SR’s than BB would easily grossed an even higher total the summer it came out because Nolon and crew would have been able to pull off Batman stunts the likes that Frank Miller couldn’t have dreamed of in addition to Nolon’s excellent take on the iconic character.

Thus bringing in more repeat viewing from action buffs and casual movie goers who just want to see SFX on the multi plex and Imax screens.

Anonymous said...

"In the UK, SR opened the week after Pirates and it still couldn't even get the number 1 spot for a week."

SR outgorssed BB overseas by 25 mil so what is your point? BB did worse in almost every country.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think he meant to call SR a turkey"swright

Again, like you'd fuckin know!!!

Another example of swright thinking he and he alone knows what people REALLY meant to say.

Just take what's said as read instead of trying to twist it to suit your agenda, dumbass

Anonymous said...

"Another example of swright thinking he and he alone knows what people REALLY meant to say.

Just take what's said as read instead of trying to twist it to suit your agenda, dumbass"

Talk about a contradiction. You are not taking what Singer said as read. You are assumming that he meant Star Trek sucked and the Wrath of Kahn reference was him implying that he thought SR was a mistake. That is a huge leap on your part.

Anonymous said...

"While I believe that word of mouth didn't do it any favors"swright

NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Jesus Christ, talk about a knack for stating the fuckin obvious!!!

What you fuckhead apologists willingly overlook is that a lot of people went to see Returns purely because it was Superman, and LOTS walked out disappointed and thought "what a boring movie", then they told their friends.....FACT

Not as many people went and saw Batman Begins purely because it was Batman, but LOTS of those who did walked out thinking "what a great movie", then told their friends....FACT

All your wasteful discussion about BB edging out SR in BO terms or vice versa means nothing. It's beyond you to weigh up other factors such as audience appreciation when it comes to greenlighting any sequel to the failure that was Returns.

Anonymous said...

"You are assumming that he meant Star Trek sucked and the Wrath of Kahn reference ..."

No fuck wit, I'm taking what he said as read, not trying to interperet anything else other than what he said, NOTHING MORE.

Don't fuckin tell me what I'm "assumming" dickhead

Anonymous said...

"You are assumming that he meant Star Trek........."

.."ASSUMMING".....must be some fag Singer terminology

Anonymous said...

"ASSUMMING".....must be some fag Singer terminology"

Oh that's mature make fun of someone's spelling yet you call someone else a FAG, jackass.

Anonymous said...

"Not as many people went and saw Batman Begins purely because it was Batman, but LOTS of those who did walked out thinking "what a great movie", then told their friends....FACT"

LOL oh OK well shit it's a fact because you say so, well thanks for clearing that up asshole.

"All your wasteful discussion about BB edging out SR in BO terms or vice versa means nothing. It's beyond you to weigh up other factors such as audience appreciation when it comes to greenlighting any sequel to the failure that was Returns."

So you are speaking for everyone again huh. Did Begins make more money than SR? NO. Did Begins get far better reviews? NO. Did Begins sell a lot more DVD's? NO. So what are you basing this so called audience appreciation on other than your own bias against SR??

swright said...

"Again, like you'd fuckin know!!!"

I didn't realize that the retarded kids were allowed on the computer. Let me say this slowly for our slow friend here. IT WAS MY FUCKING OPINION ASSHOLE, THAT IS WHY I SAID "I DON'T THINK"...MY FUCKING OPINION. I'M NOT SAYING I KNOW DIFFERENTLY OR MORE THAN YOU, although I'm willing to bet my IQ may be a bit higher.

By the way, I think it's funny that I seem to have attracted my first internet stalker on this blog. Since you only seem to reply to my posts and take everything I say out of context.

Now anonymous go and wipe the food off of your chin before your mommy catches you playing on the computer. Leave the intelligent debate to the adults.

Anonymous said...

Hey, swright, we know it's your opinion but who do you think wants to hear it FUCKHEAD??

You're soooooo predictable, just post your name because WE KNOW what you're going to post anyway dickhead.

You think you're so important people here want to know what the apologist named swright has to say??? We know already. Surprise us and post something interesting for once instead of "What I think" type blogs....

"leave the intelligent debate to the adults"...coming from you that's rich. You talk a load of shit nonstop on here, then rush over to Superman Homepage to suck up to your Master, Younis to show what a good boy you've been defending Singer and his mess of a movie.

Pathetic, you fuckin sheep

Anonymous said...

"Oh that's mature make fun of someone's spelling yet you call someone else a FAG, jackass"

Well, Singer IS a fag. Unless we're meant to ASSUMME you're one too. Nothing wrong with that, btw. You lot seem to have such a problem with Singer/Routh/Spacey/swright/Younis/Ian Roberts being fags. Good luck to em I say. But they're all still fags

Anonymous said...

"I seem to have attracted my first internet stalker on this blog"

Get over yourself, you're nowhere near important enough to have attracted your own stalker. You're just a bitch that talks alot of shit

swright said...

" You talk a load of shit nonstop on here"

LOL....Point me to one post of yours where you actually said something meaningful.

"Get over yourself, you're nowhere near important enough to have attracted your own stalker. You're just a bitch that talks alot of shit "

Get over myself? Funny that you would say that when you devote 3 FUCKING POSTS to my one post. Oh and I don't give a shit if you want to hear my opinion or not. I'm still going to give it, free country and all. But go right ahead and keep showing us what a big strong guy you are by attacking me and other posters. You are such a tough guy.

Anonymous said...

"Singer/Routh/Spacey/swright/Younis/Ian Roberts being fags. Good luck to em I say. But they're all still fags"

Routh is engaged to be married you walking talking sack of shit. I love all the Bigots that occupy this BLOG. So what if SR was made by a black man and you hated it would you be calling the director a nigger all the time asshole.

Anonymous said...

"I love all the Bigots that occupy this BLOG."

Yes and the reason that you have that is because SSS stopped checking the posts for approval a long time ago. A lot of people keep that option on their BLOG so they can eliminate crap like that. He lets anyone post whatever they want to make his BLOG look more popular.

Anonymous said...

"Get over myself? Funny that you would say that when...."swright

Yada yada yada......

You take the bait everytime asshole!

Anonymous said...

"So what if SR was made by a black man and you hated it ...."

So what if you had half a brain??

Fuck you and your straw man arguments.

Singer is a fag, deal with it.

Anonymous said...

"We hear they're going to gay up Smallville to please the fans of Superman Returns who have been dealt yet another blow by the casting of ANOTHER good looking woman in the program."

"It was bad enough when they cast that woman to play Lois Lane, what were they thinking about?" stated swright, long time fan of homo director Bryan Singer. "I mean did you see that Durance woman with all her curves and good looks? Nothing like the ladyboy look that Singer brought to Superman Returns by casting bulemia casualty Kate Bosworth as Lois"
Smallville has also attracted criticism from Singer's supporters for not dressing Clark in a rubber fetish outfit and for the obvious heterosexual nature of it's storylines.
"Smallville must be stopped" continued swright "It may appear popular by running for all these years now, but Bryan Singer really is the only person who knows what boys want"

Steve Younis reporting

Anonymous said...

"So what if you had half a brain??

Fuck you and your straw man arguments.

Singer is a fag, deal with it."

So by that logic the only smart people walking around are Racist and Bigots, you sir are a JACKASS!!!

Anonymous said...

"It was bad enough when they cast that woman to play Lois Lane, what were they thinking about?" stated swright, long time fan of homo director Bryan Singer. "

Jesus Swright This fucker really is stalking you.

Anonymous said...

"This fucker really is stalking you."

Get over yourselves. I don't discriminate, I dish it out to all apologist fuckwits, like yourself.

Btw, Singer is a fag. Deal with it.

S.S.S. said...

Yes and the reason that you have that is because SSS stopped checking the posts for approval a long time ago. A lot of people keep that option on their BLOG so they can eliminate crap like that. He lets anyone post whatever they want to make his BLOG look more popular.

I answered this in a blog posting a while back; not moderating the comments has nothing to do with making "the blog look popular" (the site hits do that). I'm not a forum moderator and dont aspire to be one. Nor do I want to approve every comment, lest I get accused of filtering out the ones I dont agree with. You comment at your leisure and say what you want here. If you cant handle what someone is saying here, positive or negative, well then there are plenty of structured, sterile, over-moderated environments where you can express yourselves and not have to worry about people using bad words.

Anonymous said...

To all Anon posters:
What the hell is wrong with you all! I know your bigots, but not one insult to my posts? Am I finally getting to you? Do you Now believe.....................

Supes is fine for 2009!

Restart

All joking aside calling everyone names makes you sound like some 6 yearolds fighting in the park. It seems that I am the only voice of reason and fact in this forum! SSS given up your idealistic crusade yet? Come to the darkside my boy we have a better dental plan.

Anonymous said...

SR outgorssed BB overseas by 25 mil so what is your point? BB did worse in almost every country.
^^^
So what's your point? Batman Begins was not a 270 million dollar turkey like SR it only cost 150 million to make and did exceedingly well for its production cost unlike Singerman.

It's called business and Singerman does not deserve the 200 million dollar budget, for The Queer of Steel to make the kind of profit Time Warner desires from Queer-EL it needs to budget Singer's gay metaphoric hero fantasy around a Fantastic Four level budget.

Anonymous said...

"SR outgorssed BB overseas by 25 mil so what is your point? BB did worse in almost every country."


That has to do with the fact that SR played on more theaters, in the US alone SR opened with 4065 theaters and BB opened at its widest release only on 3858 screens.

It’s also safe to assume that SR because of how iconic the character of Supes is had a much wider worldwide release as well than BB, but on a per screen capita BB outgrosses SR.

Anonymous said...

LoL, you apologist seem to think that raw numbers are inductive of the whole story,

you apologist are so desperate to say that SR wasn’t that bad of a flop that you’re willing to forgo all basic economical and business logic to do so.

You all truly live in your own Bizarro World.

Anonymous said...

"Btw, Singer is a fag. Deal with it."

Your an ignorant BIGOT deal with that.

Anonymous said...

"Your an ignorant BIGOT deal with that."

I'll be up all night dealing with that, you FAG

Anonymous said...

"I'll be up all night dealing with that, you FAG"

You know that they say ignorance is bliss. For the record i am not GAY. Just not a closeminded asshole like yourself that clearly hates anyone who is not just like them.

Anonymous said...

"Batman Begins was not a 270 million dollar turkey like SR it only cost 150 million to make and did exceedingly well for its production cost unlike Singerman."

For the 100th time SR cost 204 mil to make not 270 mil asshole. Do you honestly think that WB is sitting aroung blaming Singer for money wasted on idiots like Kevin Smith and Nic Cage? Those deals were made by people who are not even with WB anymore. If you asked Alan Horn what the budget was for SR he is not going to say 270 mil i don't care what fucking articles you try and cite to claim otherwise so get over it.

Anonymous said...

"Just not a closeminded asshole like yourself that clearly hates anyone who is not just like them."

Fuck you, you know nothing. Again, some of my friends are fags.

Anonymous said...

For the 100th time SR cost 204 mil to make not 270 mil asshole. Do you honestly think that WB is sitting aroung blaming Singer for money wasted on idiots like Kevin Smith and Nic Cage? Those deals were made by people who are not even with WB anymore. If you asked Alan Horn what the budget was for SR he is not going to say 270 MIL I DON’T CARE WHAT FUCKING ARTICLES YOU TRY AND CITE TO CLAIM OTHERWISE SO GET OVER IT.
^^^

HA, HA, LOL look at this CRYING apologist crying to bend the laws of business to suit his distorted view that SR was not a huge commercial flop, so what you don’t like the reality of the Superman production tape so instead you choose to be blind to all the verified facts from Time Warner’s own approved investigative journalism?

Well you know what, why don’t go stick your head in a hole and leave your ass up, and maybe one day the Second Singerman will ram you up your ass! But don’t hold your breath since you take so much stock in Horn’s vague face saving soundbites, the man doesn’t seem to be in any kind of a hurry to give you another Singerman Queer of Steel facial!

Anonymous said...

"Fuck you, you know nothing. Again, some of my friends are fags."

Yeah sure you do and i have black friends that i call Nigger all the time. You are fooling nobody asshole.

Anonymous said...

Transformers shows in regard to Superman Returns that a franchise returning from the past (Transformers, Superman) can compete with a massive blockbuster sequel with no problem (Harry Potter, Pirates).

The Pirates excuse is dead. Superman has no excuse for doing poorly now that Transformers is a success when Harry "Made More Than $500 Million In A Little Over A Week" Potter opened a week after, just like Pirates opened after Superman.

Anonymous said...

Yeah sure you do and i have black friends that i call Nigger all the time.


Naw since thier his friends he probably hollas at them with NIGGA.

Anonymous said...

"The Pirates excuse is dead. Superman has no excuse for doing poorly now that Transformers is a success when Harry "Made More Than $500 Million In A Little Over A Week" Potter opened a week after, just like Pirates opened after Superman."

Pirates was the biggest opening weekend ever last Summer and it made 423 mil domestic. Harry will not even make 300 domestic.

Anonymous said...

Hey it wasn't just Pirates that took all the booty away from Singerman, there also was Fox's 35 million dollar The Devil Wear's Prada that took a bite out of Singerman.

Give credit where credit is due, if Ann Hathaway's little film based on a New York Times bestselling novel hadn't hit the screen at the same time as Singer's Queer of Steel than Singerman might have grossed like 20 million something more dollars.

The truth of the matter is SR's only real chance would have been in a really weak summer, imagine what would have happened if SR came out this summer. It would probably gross even less than last summer seeing that all the tentpole films only had a week or two before something equally huge and hyped came out and the other competing studios don’t respect SR enough to give it the two week window.

Fact of the matter is that people were just not excited about Queer-El, not like they are for Spiderman, Pirates, Sherk, Transformers, or Harry Potter. Although it would have been fun to see SR go head to head with the second FF4. The only so called big film opening weekend this summer that SR would have stood a chance against.

Harry Potter will easily get past 300 million domestic near the end of its run if like SR Time Warner leaves it to a slow crawling death.

Anonymous said...

"The truth of the matter is SR's only real chance would have been in a really weak summer, imagine what would have happened if SR came out this summer. It would probably gross even less than last summer seeing that all the tentpole films only had a week or two before something equally huge and hyped came out and the other competing studios don’t respect SR enough to give it the two week window."

It probably would have done worse this summer. Every major tentpole film did not do nearly as well domestic and in some cases WW as their prior films. Spidey 3, some 65 mil less than Spidey 1. Pirates 3 some 100 mil less than Pirates 2. Shrek 3 some 100 mil less than Shrek 2. They are all still big hits but competition hurt their BO compared to their prior films. The problem with you guys is you seem to think that a different version of Superman would have broke BO records. What the hell are you basing that on exactly? You idiots think Batman Begins was the perfect movie. Yet in a weak summer of 05 it only managed 371 mil WW with a 100 mil marketing budget behind it same as SR had. There are other factors at the BO other than just the quality of a movie.

Anonymous said...

Just to further the point about Batman. With inflation in terms of tickets sold Batman Begins only did better than Batman and Robin at the BO. Yeah that's right only better than the shittiest Batman movie of all time. So i ask again what makes you think a different version of Superman presumbly one you would have liked better would have been a bigger hit at the BO?

ApologistPuncher said...

"Just to further the point about Batman. With inflation in terms of tickets sold Batman Begins only did better than Batman and Robin at the BO. Yeah that's right only better than the shittiest Batman movie of all time. So i ask again what makes you think a different version of Superman presumbly one you would have liked better would have been a bigger hit at the BO?"

The answer is OBVIOUS, but since you are an Apologist nut-muncher, maybe not for YOU.

Batman Begins had to deal with the RECENT failure of B&R, and the baggage that went with it. People were thinking it had to do with THAT piece of shit movie, and some were even DISAPPOINTED that it didn't. Singerman Peeps had ZERO recent "stink" attached to it. In FACT, had the OPPOSITE opportunity.

What did BS do with that opportunity? He fucked it in the ass.....

Anonymous said...

"Batman Begins had to deal with the RECENT failure of B&R, and the baggage that went with it. People were thinking it had to do with THAT piece of shit movie, and some were even DISAPPOINTED that it didn't. Singerman Peeps had ZERO recent "stink" attached to it. In FACT, had the OPPOSITE opportunity."

So let me get this straight. BB gets a pass for not being a big hit at the BO because of 1997's Batman and Robin. However the loss of Chris Reeve as Superman and big time competition at the BO accounts for nothing when factoring in SR BO total. That is mighty weak argument.

ApologistPuncher said...

"So let me get this straight. BB gets a pass for not being a big hit at the BO because of 1997's Batman and Robin. However the loss of Chris Reeve as Superman and big time competition at the BO accounts for nothing when factoring in SR BO total. That is mighty weak argument."

Only to the weak-minded, you fucking shitbird...

Christopher Reeve passing should have HELPED the BO, asshole. People would have thought of him and been curious about what they came up with. Which was dogshit.

And "competition"?? Talk about a WEAK argument, you Apologist bitch.

Anonymous said...

"Christopher Reeve passing should have HELPED the BO, asshole. People would have thought of him and been curious about what they came up with. Which was dogshit.

And "competition"?? Talk about a WEAK argument, you Apologist bitch."

WTF are you smoking?? Chris Reeve being dead should have helped the BO. That is like saying if Tim Duncan died tomorrow the Spurs have a better shot at winning the title this year. There are a countless people who have played Batman in the movies, for millions though there is only one Superman. Competition is a weak argument. Guess you flunked out of business school.

ApologistPuncher said...

"WTF are you smoking?? Chris Reeve being dead should have helped the BO. That is like saying if Tim Duncan died tomorrow the Spurs have a better shot at winning the title this year. There are a countless people who have played Batman in the movies, for millions though there is only one Superman. Competition is a weak argument. Guess you flunked out of business school."

You are a fucking clueless piece of shit, aren't you? Comparing sports with sentimentality? Fucking Christ....

Hey, you fucking gimp, did "competition" stop Transformers from stomping the shit out of Singerman's BO?? I mean, Ratatouille the week before, Harry FUCKING Potter the next week, and it stands at $286,000,00+? Yeah, "competition" REALLY affects a films BO, huh?

Not if it's a GOOD one, you Apologist bitch.

Anonymous said...

"You are a fucking clueless piece of shit, aren't you? Comparing sports with sentimentality? Fucking Christ....

Hey, you fucking gimp, did "competition" stop Transformers from stomping the shit out of Singerman's BO?? I mean, Ratatouille the week before, Harry FUCKING Potter the next week, and it stands at $286,000,00+? Yeah, "competition" REALLY affects a films BO, huh?

Not if it's a GOOD one, you Apologist bitch."

Well you are a fanboy so i bet you don't watch sports. Too busy wacking off all day and picking up your unemployment check. You have to put the competition into the right context. HUH is right on your lame ass points. SR made over 200 mil at the BO so because those films made more that means it is because they are better. TF beat the shit out of BB bo does that mean it is better? All those films you named would have done even more than they did had they not been around such tough competition this summer. You want shitty BO results compared to competiton. Look at BB in the Summer of 05. It was up against next to nothing and it made 371 mil WW that is nothing to be impressed with.

ApologistPuncher said...

"Well you are a fanboy so i bet you don't watch sports. Too busy wacking off all day and picking up your unemployment check. You have to put the competition into the right context. HUH is right on your lame ass points. SR made over 200 mil at the BO so because those films made more that means it is because they are better. TF beat the shit out of BB bo does that mean it is better? All those films you named would have done even more than they did had they not been around such tough competition this summer. You want shitty BO results compared to competiton. Look at BB in the Summer of 05. It was up against next to nothing and it made 371 mil WW that is nothing to be impressed with."

Yeah, because we ALL know "Apologists" AREN'T effeminate sissy-boys, huh? I'd kick your emo ass at ANY sport you could think of, shithead. Well, except salad-tossing. You can have that one....

And Batman Begins has a sequel BEING FILMED currently, doesn't it? And you are the SAME asshole touting Singerman's take over Batman Begins, so fuck you. Works BOTH ways.

Kind of like your dad....

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, because we ALL know "Apologists" AREN'T effeminate sissy-boys, huh? I'd kick your emo ass at ANY sport you could think of, shithead. Well, except salad-tossing. You can have that one...."

Yeah what sports do you play fuckhead?? Jacking off to Superman comics is not a sport and neither is diving for dimes at the mall fountain because you are broke.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 207   Newer› Newest»