Originally posted by chase elMaybe they'll get it right the second time around. S.R. wasn't great, it wasn't even good. It was boring
the movie was great. sorry to dissapoint anyone. Oh... and by the way... they made their money back before the DVD was realeased. So there will be a sequel. They are already interviewing Singer about it
well he did a good job reintroducing the character into modern cinema, that I believed to be the hardest part of bringing back a hero that ws massive in the 70/80's era... that's where brian got it right, as it got brilliant reviews (of course there are a few nasty ones) but overall i was happy they got big blue back, now the fun can begin with the sequels, actually throwing a punch would be nice, i noticed he did no fighting in the first one, not even a flick of his finger
Even the backers of the "Superman Returns", Legendary pictures, still have confidence in financing it again. Here's a quote I saw from Superherohype.com:
-----------------------------------
In a Variety article talking about investors it is mentioned that Legendary is on board for the Superman Returns sequel:
If Legendary is unnerved, it isn't showing. Like Warners, Legendary insists it will turn a profit on "Superman Returns," and has given all indications that it's on deck to co-finance a sequel.
Like Legendary, all the funds argue that they won't be made, or broken, by just one pic. By investing in a slate of pics over the course of several years, they're virtually guaranteed a return of 10%.
-------------------------------
Now all that's left is Singer returning, and 2009 can't come soon enough. =)
well you forget it's a reintroduction... meaning they have to re-establish the franchise, which means go back to the basics and build up from that, which means, the original villain, which means, a similar plot would help bring back the character, which means superman. because I've had to explain the obvious to you bicnarok you are a dum f*cker!
Originally posted by MattDay
well you forget it's a reintroduction... meaning they have to re-establish the franchise, which means go back to the basics and build up from that, which means, the original villain, which means, a similar plot would help bring back the character, which means superman. because I've had to explain the obvious to you bicnarok you are a dum f*cker!
It's SUPERMAN, he doesnt need a reintroduction... and besides, SR didnt even do that... it had Luthor, but spent more time on the 'oh no, i've been gone for five years and lois has moved on and had a kid' angle than anything else, thats not a reintroduction (assuming one was needed, which imo it wasn't)
and watch your language... no personal attacks, whether you agree with him or not...
okay sorry I apologize, that was harsh, but it was still a reintroduction needed for the GENERAL public too, a lot kids didn't know superman was on the big screen in the late 70's, they needed a small background just for them and the GENERAL public who don't follow comic book character like drones, but enjoy a movie with heart and something lacking in most films these days... a sublime plot and a parallel sub plot which this film had.
Originally posted by MattDay
okay sorry I apologize, that was harsh, but it was still a reintroduction needed for the GENERAL public too, a lot kids didn't know superman was on the big screen in the late 70's, they needed a small background just for them and the GENERAL public who don't follow comic book character like drones, but enjoy a movie with heart and something lacking in most films these days... a sublime plot and a parallel sub plot which this film had.
Superman is the most famous superhero EVER. Very few people need an introduction, and even if they did, they could find someone within twenty feet who probably knows the origin already and could just tell them...
This isnt x-men, or a hero that has only existed in comics for the better part of their history... Superman is in every form of media in one way or another...
and most of those kids probably watch smallville too...
i don't know, maybe a lot of kids in america know who he is, but all the kids know spiderman, and only "sort of" know who superman is... my cousin for example, him and his mates, don't know krypton, that he's an alien, they just assumed he was born that way or "something" as he kindly put it. lol
Ah well it did help as it didn't do bad at the box office... but slapping on the failed attempts as well was unfair, as the film cost 200 - 210 million by itself.
Originally posted by MattDay
i don't know, maybe a lot of kids in america know who he is, but all the kids know spiderman, and only "sort of" know who superman is... my cousin for example, him and his mates, don't know krypton, that he's an alien, they just assumed he was born that way or "something" as he kindly put it. lolAh well it did help as it didn't do bad at the box office... but slapping on the failed attempts as well was unfair, as the film cost 200 - 210 million by itself.
Well im in ireland, and my 12 year old brother knew all that, and he's never read a superman comic... most people have watched the reeve movies (i mean, any movie channel shows them all the time over here), if your in uk, do you have sky movies? a year or so ago they had it free for a month or two, they showed superman and superman II constantly...
i just dont think an origin movie is that neccessary...
and to be honest, superman returns, to me, wasnt even that... we didnt see him come to earth as a baby, or find out about his kryptonian heritage, or watch his parents put him in a rocket...