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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a Marvel... and I'm a DC

Just a quick post here, to bring to your attention quite possibly one of the funniest video spoofs we've seen in a long time. It's a series of videos that spoof those popular Mac and PC commercials where they portray the PC as being stiff and nerdy while the Mac is hip and versatile. They're a pretty witty critique of the current state of affairs with the Marvel and DC Comics film franchises, and have some especially amusing criticisms of Singerman. Awesome work by ItsJustSomeRandomGuy.



There's actually 3 other videos in the series, and all are great. Check them out here:

Part 1
Part 3
Part 4

I'll be back with some more news next week.

SSS

Here's a Superman Movie We'd Pay to See!

Thanks to everyone who sent us this link over the past few weeks. We weren't going to post this at first since it was just a fan-made trailer (albeit one of the BEST we've ever seen). But the online response to this thing has been pretty impressive to say the least so we figured we'd give it some more pub here for those of you who havent seen it, and maybe, just maybe, people in "high places" will get some ideas from it.



Big kudos to "WormyT" on this. This must've taken him/her a LONG time to do, as video manipulation like that isn't easy by any means.

This isn't to say we're officially endorsing the casting choices in the video, though we know there's a large portion of the fandom that would be all for it. We just love the story possibilities you could get out of something like this. This trailer looks like Superman's version of Spider-man 3.

Now why does a minute and a half fan trailer elicit such an overwhelmingly positive response among fans when a two and a half hour epic film is met with a lukewarm at best response? Is it the super-villains? a ton of action? a classic-looking Superman? a Lois who can emote better than a doorknob? no super children in sight? Whatever it is, sign us up for Superman Reborn.

Singerman is Making People do BAD Things!

Well as we await any sort of serious news about whether a Singerman sequel is ever going to happen or not or what Singer's next new film project will be that he's going to do before he TOTALLY starts working on the sequel next March, we thought we'd bring these "fun" little news bit to your attention. Apparently Singerman is such a bad film, that it's driving people to commit all kinds of heinous crimes. That's right folks, people across the globe are literally being driven mad from watching the film and taking it out on their fellow man!

Take this first story from Japan for instance, about a bank worker who was paying a Canadian man to give her English lessons and got more than she bargained for:

It's not always the teachers who fall foul of the system, though. A bank worker we'll call Fumi paid a Canadian man to give her private English lessons. He started by suggesting they watch a movie to get used to hearing English. Fumi agreed and they began watching "Superman Returns."
"As soon as we sat down he put one of his arms around my shoulders and thrust the other one between my thighs. When I tried to move his hands away, he grabbed hold of my hand, tried to force it toward his crotch and said to me, 'I'm a Superman too, you know,' "
Fumi tells Shukan Post. "When we got out of the movie theater, he had the hide to tell me that our lesson had gone into overtime and he wanted to be paid more for it. I paid him 5,000 yen for the cost of a single hour's lesson and never contacted him again."

Anyone else find it ironic he was going to teach her English by taking her to a movie with so little dialogue? Also I guess the guy must've picked up on the whole "super rape" thing and thought this was OK? Somewhere Jon Peters is smiling.

But the evil this film is spreading hasnt stopped there folks. Take this next story about a murder alibi from the UK where a man killed another man with a baseball bat:

He was arrested at his mother's home in Spring Rise, Kettering, Northants, but told police: "I'm telling you on my baby's life, I didn't have anything to do with it."When he was interviewed Spouse said: "All I know is he got stabbed by Stelios." Spouse said on the night of the killing he went to a pub for drinks and then watched the film Superman Returns at a friend's house.

So was he watching Singerman at the time of the murder or did Singerman drive him to it?? He'd sure as heck have a motive, and in my book a good defense. I mean who WASN'T infuriated beyond rational thought after seeing it?

Hmmm but the plot thickens. The European Commission recently found high levels of lead and chromium in some of the Singerman toys, so perhaps that's what's driving people to do these things? Whatever it is, Singerman and his insidious plot to make us all into sexually harrassing, bat wielding criminals must be stopped!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

If You Can't Beat Them, Hire Them??

Well here's another rumor to add to the fire, and since there's been next to nothing of relevance lately (other than the Singer slappies at IESB personally attacking people who write letters to WB) we're going to talk about it. A recent report on JustJared.com says that POTC star and former Kate Bosworth boyfriend, Orlando Bloom was seen in Hollywood with Singerman producers Mindy and Jon Peters and the movie’s "director," Bryan Singer. (there's no word if Peters showed him his junk.)

What can you take from this? Well if I was a a betting man, I'd say that it has something to do with a supporting role, not that they'd actually be getting him to play Singerman himself. I'd say it's most likely for a bigger role as some kind of villain. While Bloom is a talented actor, he's about as masculine as a bouquet of daisies, so the thought of him playing any serious kind of super-villain is a bit laughable to me. Do we really want to see a pretty boy General Zod or Metallo? Not that we want to see another Singerman film to begin with mind you. I just cant help but laughing at the thought of Brandon Routh fighting Orlando Bloom in an "epic" hero/villain battle. It's going to look like something out of Zoolander.

And say didnt Alan Horn fess up to the fact that the first Singerman missed the mark especially with young male audiences due to an overall lack of action? Well hey, everything should be "A-OK" now, because you know that NOBODY screams action and brings in the young male demographic like ummm... Orlando Bloom? Last I checked, he was female eye candy. Then again, Singer does like him some chick flicks. Seriously, are they even trying anymore?

Singerman 2 to be Shelved in Favor of the JLA Movie?

Take this one with a BIG grain of salt, but Moviehole has an article up today quoting "inside sources" close to W.B. Studios saying that they may be shelving any plans for Singerman 2 to move ahead with the Justice League of America movie featuring Superman as a lead character.

"I heard from a pretty reliable source this weekend – who, has some top contacts himself – who essentially confirmed that the WB are thinking of putting the next “Superman” movie into turnaround, and instead will just use the character in the new “Justice League” movie. (Funnily enough, Batman would not be involved in the new film – he’s too big to waste on a film like this, apparently).

Having now heard the same from about half-a-dozen reliable insiders, I checked in with a couple of sources near the Water Tower itself, who wouldn’t confirm nor deny the reports, but definitely haven’t dismissed that it’s a possibility. One of them would only say that there “could be something in [that]”

If true, that's quite interesting. The evidence would also seemingly be starting to mount against Singer getting the chance to have another go at the rotting corpse of Superman he left us or at the very least delaying it.

It seems they'd be taking Superman for the JLA film as a way to help try to drum up support for the Superman character after the lackluster box office from the first Singerman film. If the JLA film was a monster hit, the article muses, they might then go ahead with a Singerman 2. But does that make much sense? If someone is able to make the JLA a monster hit using Superman (hopefully, correctly this time) why would W.B. then want to turn around and hand him back to the guy who screwed it up the 1st time? Unless of course they mean, they'll go ahead with another Superman film perhaps not with Singer attached to direct again, but that's not really clear.

The article also states that they think Brandon Routh would most likely be donning the tights again in the JLA film, but I'm not too sure about that. If you believe some of the rumored script ideas for the JLA movie Routh's Superman wouldn't exactly be in continuity with it, although let's face it his Superman wasn't in continuity with ANYTHING. Another thing to consider is that he might have the stigma of being part of Singerman attached to him, and if WB's unhappy enough with the Singerman franchise to bale on it, or at the very least delay it for a while, why would they want to risk the public associating the two films by having the same star in the same role?

UPDATE: IGN has admitted hearing the same rumor over the weekend.

Singerman's Next Flight Could Be Delayed.

Just one day after Brandon Routh did an interview to remind the general public that he had not been sucked into a black hole and was still in fact here on the planet Earth, comes a report in today's Variety that the next installment of the Singerman travesty errr trilogy could be delayed due to Singer agreeing to make another film with United Artists and one of the few people with an ego bigger than himself, Tom Cruise. Some interesting bits from the article:

"United Artists toppers Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner have
greenlit their second film, an original thriller that Bryan Singer will direct
as his next feature...

The film will delay Warner Bros.' hope of mounting a
sequel to "Superman Returns" in the near future."

Hmmm... this is quite interesting on two fronts. First and most obivous, if Singer is directing this World War II film as his next project and they haven't even gotten to the pre-production phase yet, there's no way in hell it's completed in time that they start doing a Singerman sequel early next year for a 2009 release as has been speculated. As Variety says, it has to delay any kind of Singerman sequel, unless of course now that W.B. has cleaned it's "superhero house" with the exception of the Batman franchise, perhaps plans have changed?

Which leads me into the second front. Could this be the first sign that Singer is possibly on the way out of the Superman franchise? While it may be just wishful thinking on our part, seeing him taking on a film like this at this point in time does raise some eyebrows. Are Singer's "principles" somehow compromised by WB's mandate for a more action-oriented film with a scaled down budget? Or could the studio, who had a rough go of it in 2006, be looking for a new creative direction with a director who can do more with less? Too bad Zach Snyder is already signed on to do The Watchman next year. Now there's a guy who can do a comicbook justice. At one time, Singer was supposed to do a film in between Singerman and a potential sequel, but that was supposed to be part of his deal with WB and the project would be a WB project. This film has nothing to do with WB.

Some Superman "fan" sites have claimed this report is false, but offer no clue as to how they would know this? Given this report is from a credible industry source like Variety, I'm inclined to believe it for now. WB has made no official statement as of yet.

If you build it, they will come... Sometimes

"This is SPARTA!"

Well no. This is Singer's Superman Sucks. That image up there is Sparta, or more specifically, "300," the latest film from Warner Bros. that proved marketing works - as long as you listen to what your audience wants.

Grossing 70.9 million dollars, this tasty little masterpiece just became the highest grossing film ever to open in the month of March and is third behind The Matrix Reloaded and The Passion of the Christ for R-rated films. 300's opening included an estimated $3.4 million from 62 IMAX screens, surpassing Singerman as the biggest IMAX debut ever.

As Brandon Gray from Box Office Mojo pointed out...

Warner Bros. waged a striking marketing campaign for 300, based on the picture's hyper-stylized, digitally-enhanced look, the mythology of Ancient Greece and the high stakes premise of 300 Spartans fighting a vast army in the Battle of Thermopylae, replete with passing references to freedom to recall past audience favorites like Braveheart and Gladiator.

Steve Daly of Entertainment Weekly broke it down...

A tight 60-day live-action shoot began in fall 2005, and Warner got busy positioning 300 to the obvious fanboy-heavy, Sin City-loving audience. The studio organized a Q&A panel with director Zack Snyder and writer Frank Miller last July at San Diego's Comic-Con International, where they showed preview footage so gory and spiked with nudity it couldn't be posted on the Internet, thanks to MPAA rules about trailer content.

According to Snyder, Warner had given up on trying to appeal to a female audience. Then a pair of test screenings changed all that. "We got, like, a 100 percent recommend from women under 25," says the director. "They don't even get that kind of score on a romantic comedy." Why did women respond? In Miller's original graphic novel, Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo, appears only in passing. In the movie, Queen Gorgo (Brit Lena Headey) is a front-and-center partner to Leonidas, calming his nerves in bed (while both are very, very naked) and getting her own new subplot about political corruption as Leonidas marches off to war.

"At first I very much disagreed with it," Miller says. "My main comment was 'This is a boys' movie. Let it be that."' But the Snyders felt strongly that Leonidas needed something specific to fight for, and that female ticket buyers needed someone to identify with. The preview scores vindicated them. "Those numbers came back, and Warner said, Wow, we need to rethink this a bit," says Snyder. Instead of spending big on one 30-second Super Bowl TV spot, Warner sprinkled previews into more female-friendly TV shows, including Grey's Anatomy, Heroes, Lost, and American Idol.

---

If you missed it, the key was test screening and audience Q&A, something that is routinely done for big budget motion pictures but was reportedly undervalued by Singer during the production of Singerman. Warner Bros. pulled out all the stops but they seemingly ignored the one thing that would drive the film to boffo business: word of mouth.

It was by far, the most anticipated film opening in June. "More than any other studio, Warner Bros. has embraced the summer tentpole strategy. Spending huge sums to produce and market big titles, the studio regularly produces $200 million gambles that would make Vegas high-rollers blush." (Link) "On top of the $50 million or so it spent on its own marketing, Warner lined up promotions with Duracell, Samsung, Pepsi's Tropicana, Quaker, Aquafina, and Frito-Lay brands as well a Got Milk? campaign. Giant "S's" were projected on Chicago's Sears Tower, Niagara Falls, and other recognizable sites in about 10 major US cities. Sky divers made an "S" in parachuting formations in Boston, Dallas, and several other cities on June 27. (Link) "By the time 'Superman Returns' [opened], the 'S' logo was used to sell everything from soft drinks to motor oil. And toy manufacturers hoped that products like the Superman InflatoSuit would help to revive a sluggish licensing industry." (Link) Routh was seen on the covers of countless magazines, often more than once, and he, Bostworth and Singer made various appearances at press junkets worldwide. Warners also dumped a boatload of cash into Singer's blogs and ComicCon marketing. As Warners VP of targeted marketing, Viviana Pendrill once said, "you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about big releases like 'Superman,' 'Batman' and 'Harry Potter.'"

In terms of release, they covered all the bases. Print distribution was at blanket saturation levels. "Warner shipped out a whopping 8,500 prints of the film in North America, insuring there wouldn't be a cineplex in America that wasn't likely to have the big fella flying in." (Link) The studio "decided to wait until the World Cup ended July 9 to go outside Asia and Australia, launching in mid-July in Brazil, France, Mexico and the U.K.; it will wait until mid-August to open in Germany and Japan." (Link) Release date was carefully chosen; it was "perhaps the best date any studio has had in years: the Wednesday before a Tuesday holiday -- essentially giving "Superman Returns" a seven-day weekend." 'We're in good shape, and we have the primo date of the summer with a very long weekend ahead of us,' declared Warner Bros. distribution prexy Dan Fellman. 'Now it's up to the movie gods.'" (Link)

They should have started with the script writing gods, because an entertaining film will market itself.

"'Superman isn't caught up in the same angst that other characters like Spider-Man or Batman are,' says Gaetano Mastropasqua, Warners' corporate senior VP of global promotions and partner relations. 'Superman stands for truth, justice and a positive way of life.'"

Obviously, the suits in marketing had a handle on the big picture.

"In marketing Singer's version, Warner Bros. has paid particular attention to the comicbook's fan base, some of whom were wary of previous incarnations and expressed their opinions so on high-trafficked Internet sites. Last summer, in the midst of shooting, the studio flew Singer via private jet from the film's Australian location to San Diego, where he screened footage at the annual Comic-Con comic book convention. The response was enthusiastic.

'You are never going to satisfy everybody,' says producer Michael Uslan ("Batman," "Batman Begins"), who has started a new company called Comic Book Movies with financier M. Jonathan Roberts. 'But if you can't satisfy the main part of the fan base, you are going to have problems. These are people who are not only schooled in the characters, the mythology and the history but also in the creators over the years. They know what they like.'"

So what happened with Singerman? Was it the film itself? Why yes. Yes! We think it was.

Word of mouth is arguably, the single most important aspect of any film's success, and good WOM is directly related to how well a film reaches people. Look at the 2002 film year, for example. Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, a Los Angeles-based company that monitors box-office results, said...

"Without question, the two movies that exemplified the year (2002) were 'Spider-Man' and 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding.' They couldn't be more different in terms of budgeting, marketing, everything. But they were both mega-blockbusters. It just says that moviegoers are open to anything. As long as it's a good movie of course."

The Kevin Smith NY Comic Con Footage

Thanks to a number of readers who submitted this over the past week. Sorry for the delay in getting it up. Here's the clip of Smith talking about Singerman at the N.Y. Comic Con a couple weekends ago. Instead of getting the details second hand, it's always more interesting to hear them directly from the source. Note how the audience is just eating up every bit of it. Guess that's what happens when you get a room full of people who understand the character of Superman. Why couldn't Warner Brothers do that?

Kevin Smith Thinks Singerman is Boring... and a Rapist

Well you can add another name to the list of people in the comic/film industry who have come out to voice their issues with Singerman. The latest one being Hollywood director and comic writer Kevin Smith, who by his own admission is a huge fan of the Man of Steel. As you may recall, Smith was actually brought on the Superman Lives film project a few years ago before Jon "Let me show you what boys have" Peters ultimately scared him off the project with talk of gay robots and polar bears.

Smith appeared at last weekend's New York Comic Con and conducted a Q&A session for fans. Some of the fan questions had to do with his impression of the group of comicbook films that have been released recently. According to numerous reports, Smith responded with the following regarding Singerman:

"It was kind of....boring," he said, before launching into a diatribe on the lameness of Lex Luthor and the silliness of pitting a superhuman alien against a real-estate scam artist. "I'm gonna get a mortgage at .4 percent!" Smith joked. He said that X3 was better than Superman Returns, and also went off on another tangent, about supposed logic problems with the film.
According to Smith, the logic problems occur if you accept Bryan Singer's premise -- that Superman Returns picks up where the second film leaves off, with Superman having sex with Lois, then giving her an amnesia kiss and taking off to go find his relatives and whatnot. When Lois finds out her kid in Superman Returns can throw a piano, and is therefore Superman's kid, why is she not very surprised? She should have no memory of having sex with Superman, so
when she visits him in the hospital, shouldn't her first question to him be -- Smith's words -- "When did you rape me?"

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say that Singerman was boring or pointed how stupid the Luthor land scheme was, I might have enough money to make my own $200 million disaster. Smith also echoes our earlier point about Singer's giant cop-out of using the first two film's continuity but only where he sees fit. If you're going to pick up where another film left off, you've got to do it all the way. You can't just pick and choose where you want because the audience has no idea what's in continuity and what isn't. Despite the lameness of a lot of Richard Lester's Superman II, that's what people know since that's what was released to the public, the vast majority of the audience will never see the Donner cut (although as one of our astute readers pointed out, in Donner's cut Supes turns back time anyway so the sex never happened so Singer is still screwed.) Sticking with that, you've got Lois who has a kid with superpowers who never remembers sleeping with an infinitely powerful being (well, some of the time at least) who she knows could use his powers to do pretty much anything he wants to someone. No, that's not creepy at all... Good job Singer!

Mailbag: February 24th

Been a bit busy the past week or so, but wanted to take the time to answer a few of the deluge of emails we've gotten recently about our views on certain hot topics regarding Singerman, etc. Instead of emailing readers back and forth, we thought we'd just address the most common comments/questions here on the blog. We did this once before back in August and figured we'd give it another shot here since the emails picked up again.

So now let's get on to the mailbag (user names and emails have been omitted to protect the innocent):

"Hey! I cant believe this blog is still up and running and still getting so many comments! Kudos to you on the dedication. I think the blog has actually outlived the interest in this crappy movie. If they feel the need to punish us with a sequel, I'll look forward to getting the "real news" here."

Thanks, and that's the beauty of these things I guess. There's so much that goes on now with films after the theatrical release between the DVD's, financials, awards, etc. that there's usually something every couple of days worth noting. Plus the fan response has been great, and knowing there are a LOT of people out there who share our feelings about this keeps us going.

"I was just wondering whether or not you post on any Superman-related message boards on the Net like SuperHeroHype, Supermanhomepage, BlueTights (LOL), etc. and what your screen name was?"

Posting on message boards isn't really our thing. Every once in a while we'll peruse a couple of them just to see fan reaction to certain things, but we've never had a serious urge to really post much. There seems to be a lot of vitriol on message boards (especially on one certain board anytime we post anything here) and too many people think that their opinion is THE ONLY opinion that matters. We have our opinions on things and feel strongly about them but don't begrudge others who feel differently (why do you think we dont moderate the blog comments?). SuperheroHype is an excellent site as a news source though and seems to be the most neutral out of those you listed.

"It's funny how you mock SR for not getting any worthy Oscar nods and make fun of Bosworth for her Razzie nomination, but yet you mention nothing about the TEN Saturn Awards that SR was just nominated for. A little unfair, no?"

The only reason we even mentioned the Oscars was because of that silly poster WB put out to the Academy. In our opinion at least, the Oscars are really the only one of all these silly awards that are handed out this time of year, that really mean anything. The fact that Singerman didn't get nominated for any of the awards outside of one for visual effects was no real surprise to us, just like the fact that Date Movie wasn't nominated. The fact that WB thought the film was worthy enough to grab a nomination is what we found truly humorous.

We pointed out Bosworth's Razzie since it had to do with one of our major critiques of the film, her abysmal performance. The Razzies are the anti-Oscars that are sort of a tongue-in-cheek thing in Hollywood. If she wins, and is a good sport and actually accepts it like Halle Berry did a few years back, we'll give her all the credit in the world.

As for the Saturn Awards, I'm not sure why the fact we didn't post that they were nominated would surprise you? This is after all a blog about for people don't like the film. Do the sites that shill for Singer post anything even remotely critical of the film? I must ask though, is a nomination for one of these really that big of a deal? What is a Saturn Award nomination supposed to mean? I see films like Snakes on a Plane and X-Men 3 nominated for Best Film awards. Are you sure you really want to put yourself in league with those kinds of movies? (although we TOTALLY would) Kate Bosworth for Best Actress??? C'mon now.
This all seemed a bit odd to me so I did a bit of digging into just how these awards work and why they were nominating such bad movies like Singerman. Well as it turns out they're pretty much like the Oscars where they have committees of film professionals who nominate films in the genre, but low and behold look at what we have here!!! Who's name should appear as one of the committee heads for the Saturn Awards? None other than Bryan Singer, himself! And who else do I see as committee heads? Brandon Boyce, who wrote Apt Pupil for Singer, and WB executive Bradley Marcus! Hmmm very interesting to say the least, that explains a LOT of things.

"Hey SSS, I found the following image throughout my travels on the internet. Thought you might get a "kick" out of it. LOL. Sort of sums up these two movies, no?"

Heh, that is pretty cool. OWNED indeed. Could you imagine those two facing off in a potential Justice League movie? Talk about a mismatch.

Well that's it for the mailbag. Feel free to email us HERE with any comments, questions, suggestions, death threats, etc.

Singerman: My Creepy Valentine

Just in time for Valentine's Day, an emailer sent us this YouTube link to a video compilation of scenes from Singerman set to some rather creepy music that highlights the "Super Stalker" aspect of the film that we all "loved" so much. This is pretty damn funny, and we give kudos to "jmariamellinas" whoever you are. Enjoy.



If you have any more videos send them in to us, we'd love to see them.

The Singerman Ripple Effect?

<-- Singer seems to have gotten some practice hanging on to Singerman. Hey may need it.

Well it's been quite the bloodbath the past few days over at the W.B. Studios Superhero Department. Last Friday, Joss Whedon announced that he'd been relieved of his duties on the long-in-development Wonder Woman project. The following day David Goyer announced on his MySpace page that he and W.B. have gone their separate ways on doing The Flash film. Then on Monday they announced that they've brought in Shawn Levy to helm the project.

While there's noting truly earth-shattering about a film changing directors, it's the timing and the apparent reasoning behind the changes that caught our attention. Some of the reasons for the "irreconcilable differences" sound AWFULLY familiar to some of the criticisms people had of Singerman. Coincidence? Perhaps not. Check out what Whedon had to say on his website about his dismissal:

"I had a take on the film that, well, nobody liked.

We just saw different movies, and at the price range this kind of movie hangs in, that's never gonna work. Non-sympatico. It happens all the time. I don't think any of us expected it to this time, but it did. Everybody knows how long I was taking, what a struggle that script was, and though I felt good about what I was coming up with, it was never gonna be a simple slam-dunk."

Now what is Whedon's writing style? And what do Buffy, Angel, and Serenity all have in common? That's right they have a dark, edgy tone to the characters. Also keep in mind this was just days after it was announced that WB had purchased a Wonder Woman spec script to allegedly avoid any copyright issues with Whedon's. Latino Review got a hold of that spec script and reviewed it as:

"The spec that Silver picked up ROCKS! A fun filled adventure packed girl power action movie in the 1940s! 1943 to be exact...Overall, a very great read. The writers did their homework. As a comic book character origin movie - it is just as good as Batman Begins.I can see why Silver supposedly took it off the spec market. If I was a betting man, I figure this is the origin story that Warners might stick with. My note to the studio is to not touch the script, leave it intact, get yourself a good director and shoot this script. It is all there on the page."

LR also points out that WB buys this excellent spec script and says something along the lines of committing to Whedon’s contemporary version, then the very next day Whedon is off the project. Why would you take a spec off the market when you own the rights already?

Now let's compare that to what went down on The Flash project. On his MySpace Goyer is quoted as saying:

Well, I've been waiting a few months to relate this news -- but I am sad to say that my version of The Flash is dead at WB. The God's honest truth is that WB and myself simply couldn't agree on what would make for a cool Flash film. I'm quite proud of the screenplay I turned it. I threw my heart into it and I genuinely think it would've been the basis of a ground-breaking film. But as of now, the studio is heading off in a completely different direction.

Sound familiar? The following day it comes out that Shawn Levy will be replacing him, and The Hollywood Reporter tells us that:

"Despite Levy's previous films, including Cheaper by the Dozen and The Pink Panther, they have "no intention of making Flash a comedy," but they do intend to "aim for a lighter movie than previous Warners Bros comic adaptations, such as Batman Begins and Superman Returns." Goyer was in part responsible for the former's script, his Flash was said to be "dark themed" as well."

Hmmm, sensing a theme between these two? A lighter, more action-oriented film? Didn't like the previous director's dark, overly serious take on a historically "lighter" character? Who does that sound like? Yup that's right folks, Singerman.

While Batman is a hero historically depicted to be of a darker and more cerebral nature lending himself to a writer like Goyer, characters like Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Flash are not. Wonder Woman and the Flash were slated to be WB's next big new superhero franchises launched after Singerman, but now seem to be years away from seeing the light of day. Is WB trying to avoid repeating the mistakes that it made with Singerman especially now that most of the damage from the lackluster box office and home video sales has been assessed by the studio's bean counters?

It seems to me that there's a MAJOR rethinking of the studio's comic book projects not named Batman at this point, thanks in great part to some of the major shortcomings of Singerman. Whedon and Goyer were both paid millions of dollars for their efforts, so the fact that Singer signed on to write the script for the sequel doesn't exactly assure him of helming the project. We can only hope that someone out there writes an outstanding spec script for an actual Superman film, and WB kicks Singer to the curb.

Miscellaneous Bits: 2/2/2007

There's been a lot going on recently. So here's a few interesting tidbits from around the World Wide Web that we thought we'd lump into one big blog posting for you.

• If you thought we disliked Singerman, wait until you see this guy's website! We were laughing so hard at the photoshop gallery that we were almost crying. Case in point. --> [BrandonRouthIsNotSuperman]
  


• Apparently the guy who coined the name "Super Man," Friedrich Nietzsche, wouldn't have been a big fan of Singerman either. [PopMatters]
  
  
• Time Warner had a nice 4th Quarter of 2006. No thanks to film and home video divisions though. Say, who was their main summer tentpole film again? [Bloomberg]
  
  
• Now is the time to go write a Singerman 2 spec script. W.B. may buy it off you to cover their butts when Singer and Co. steal some of your ideas, because W.B. just TOTALLY did that with Wonder Woman. [/film]
  

If you have anything else, keep sending them into us! The feedback has been great recently.

Non Speaks on Singerman!

<-- Non says "You Suck Singer!"

Recently, Jack O'Halloran, who played the mute Kryptonian villain "Non" in Superman The Movie and Superman II, did an interview with the website Ringside Report about his life in the boxing ring and Hollywood. O'Halloran talks a bunch about playing Non, what went down on the set of the first two Superman movies, and he also gives his thoughts on the recent Singerman movie, Brandon Routh, and Bryan Singer.

GM: What do you think of the new Superman movie: Superman Returns, that came out in 2006?

JO: You know, I thought that the kid (Brandon Routh) got away with it, but I think that Bryan Singer is too much of a CGI guy. I think that they ruined and wasted a lot of very good talent. It is very difficult to replace Gene Hackman, but the kid ended up doing a good job as Superman.
...
now they do this new film, and they change the costume, which I thought was a bad idea. There was too much CGI. You had great actors in Kevin Spacey and Frank Langella, who didn’t have enough screen time.

There wasn’t enough screen time for Clark Kent as Clark Kent. The kid should have been Kent a lot more, and the storyline sucked.

I think he meant to say "Christopher Reeve" at the end not "Gene Hackman." But this is interesting to hear. It's the honest opinion of a guy who worked on the classic films who no longer has any ties to W.B., etc. and can actually speak his mind on the topic without worrying about who he offends. Needless to say we couldn't agree more with his assessment. I wonder if he knows about the $10 million of CGI that was left on the cutting room floor? Now we just need to find out what Terrence Stamp and Sarah Douglas think.

Finally a Nomination Worthy of Singerman!

Singerman may have been shut out of any nominations for any of the big Oscar categories, but dont cry in your pudding just yet folks. There may still yet be some hardware in their future. The nominations for the 27th Annual Golden Raspberry Awards, or Razzies as they're more commonly known, were released the other day, and snagging a nomination for Worst Supporting Actress is none other than Singerman's gal pal Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth! (Wasn't she a lead actress BTW? We use that term loosely of course). The Razzie press release reads as follows:

Any honest Academy member will admit that Oscar voters are dealing with slim pickings for 2006. But at the other end of the quality scale, voters for this year's 27th Annual RAZZIE® Awards had literally dozens of deservingcontenders to choose from. And choose they have…and RAZZ the nominees they will,in ceremonies to be held at 7:30pm/PST on Oscar eve, Saturday, February 24 at Hollywood's Ivar Theatre.

RAZZIE® regulars Jenny McCarthy and Carmen
Electra are competing with LOST star Michelle Rodriguez, Kristin Chenoweth and Kate Bosworth (as an ultra-lame Lois Lane in SUPERMAN RETURNS) for Worst Supporting Actress.

It's nice to finally see someone from the film getting the recognition they deserve. We'll all be keeping our fingers crossed for her.

Apparently the Academy Laughed as Hard as We Did

Don't fret friends, we're back from a minor vacation and full of some great stuff coming at you in the next couple days. Well it looks like nominations for the Oscars came out today, and guess who was conspicuously absent from any of the relevant nominations? Yeah, Singerman. Despite WB's silliest efforts, Singerman didn't sniff a single nomination for any of the top categories. Not that anyone here thought they would mind you. Well OK maybe that guy in the comments who keeps insisting the sequel is now in production did, but hey, a guy can dream can't he?

Though like we predicted they might they did snag a nod for visual effects. Though if I were them, I wouldn't be beating my chest. When you make a $210 million film wouldn't you think the special effects would be something "special?" If only we could say the same for the directing, writing, acting, music, costume design, etc., etc., etc. And hey check out who they're up against! That super-mega hit Poseidon!! and Pirates of the Caribbean 2...again. Seriously does anyone really think this award ISN'T going to POTC2? Was anything in Singerman even remotely as good as the CG Davey Jones?

Good Writing to Get Rid of Bad Writing

I was contacted recently by some people who have started up a letter-writing campaign to oust Singer and his cronies and change the direction of the Superman movie franchise . They advocate even doing a "Hulk-like" reboot where they wait a couple years for everything to die down and then go in a new direction if that's what it takes to get it right. Since the film is a disappointment both artistically and financially, and there seems to be some internal difference of opinion with the franchise, and no firm commitment has been made to a Singerman sequel at this point other than Singer signing on to do a script, I thought this could be just the right time for something like this to get some attention.

Their approach is a bit different than what you've seen here at SSS. They advocate more of a "use honey for the bears" approach, whereas we've been known to just beat the hell out of the bear with a stick. Their site is dedicated to taking a more positive approach to contacting the powers that be at WB, namely Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov, and relaying their disappointment and dissatisfaction with the film in a professional manner. Their website is just up and running and in blog format. It basically just lays out their mission statement, and provides updates, commentaries, and some sample letters that you can use. Their also appears to be an email list of some kind.

Personally I've already fired off a letter to both Horn and Robinov. At first I tried using my trusty Singerman Kryptonite pen however anytime I tried writing the words "action" the pen stopped working, go figure. In all seriousness, I know people have been writing letters to W.B. since the film unspooled back in June, but now might not be a bad time to fire off another one to hammer the point home to the people in the "ivory tower."

More Year End Review Goodness

Now that we've finally awoke from our alcohol induced comas from New Year's Eve, and have taken a look around Al Gore's internet, it appears that a fair number of media outlets were a little "late" with some of their 2006 box office reviews. Go Figure. Here's a look at a little more of the talk going around entertainment circles in year end summaries about just how big of a turd Singerman really was.

• The New Yorker (NY) - "But “Superman Returns,” with its underwritten script and its bland hero, was not just boring but superfluous: in the digital years since the 1978 “Superman”—which have also seen five “Batman”s, two “Spider-Man”s, and three “X-Men”s—the airborne crusader has lost his wonder. But Warner, in late October, announced that it would make yet another “Superman” film. Variety earlier summed up the situation as follows: “Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What’s more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries, and merchandising—even subsid DC Comics." So there you have it: the business model swallows the studio, which, obliged to supply its conglomerate outlets and subsidiaries, cannot prevent itself from repeating a failure."

• Movieweb - "2006 will be talked about as a year that was great for the business side, but terrible for the artistic side, and, I've gotta tell you folks, it really wasn't that great in either aspect. Superman Returns, probably one of the most over-hyped and over-marketed flicks in recent history, was the 5th highest grossing movie of the year at just over $200 million... and it LOST $70 million."

• Hollywood Reporter (CA) - "Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Pictures, which arguably had one of the most anticipated slates of the year, had difficulty delivering and dropped from a first-place market share in 2005 to fourth place because of such misfires as "Poseidon," M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" and a disappointing "Superman Returns," even though the superhero's long-awaited return did climb above the $200 million mark domestically."

• Fort Collins Weekly (CO) - "It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s the biggest flying turkey of the year. As the Man of Steel, newcomer Brandon Routh did a super impression of balsa wood in tights. "

• Wilmington Morning Star (NC) - Best wig of the year: Kevin Spacey's, playing Lex Luthor in the five-hour snoozathon called Superman Returns.

• Austin Chronicle (TX) - Most Forgettable: Superman Returns. I can't remember anything about this picture. Can't remember faces, mise-en-scène, not one damn thing. Somebody flew, right? And I recall now that the remarkable Peta Wilson had a bit role she'd never be reduced to in a just world.

• The Billings Outpost (MT) - It has its slow moments and gets a little too wrapped up in the psychology of its core characters... He pushes a small continent into orbit, for God’s sake!

• Monsters and Critics - "The next award goes to ‘Superman Returns’ in the Needs More Action category. I was more psyched to see this movie than the Scarlett Johansson sex tape. On paper the film had everything working for it, an unknown as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Bryan Singer calling the shots. So where’s the action? He’s the Man of Steel, punch somebody already! It’s cool that bullets bounce off your eye, but knock somebody out with more than your kick ass breath!"

• The Village Voice (NY) - Superman Returns (all downhill from the credit sequence...)

• Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - "'Happy Feet' was a much-needed big hit for Warner, which had been less than overjoyed by the $200 million gross of "Superman Returns."

You noticing a trend here yet?