|
Originally Posted by clemente
I actually might buy into this if it was generally known that Bryan Singer was gay. We take it for granted sometime that the general public has the same level of knowlege about film and filmmaker as we do. I don't think most people could tell you that SR was directed by Bryan Singer, much less that Singer himself is gay.
if you search back through the Superman thread, you'll see that even people on this board (myself included) didn't have any idea that Singer was gay until recently. I put gay and Singer together when I saw this photo: http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1191...itz_183139.jpg |
Originally Posted by bballing
I put gay and Singer together when I saw this photo:
http://www.imdb.com/Photos/Events/11...itz_183139.jpg |
Originally Posted by DieselsDen
Believe me...if you look at the press and message boards and other postings about this movie, there is some considerable attention devoted to the sexual orientation of the director and subject matter. Singer even had to go on record stating that SUPERMAN RETURNS was the straightest film he's ever directed (or words to that effect).
When it comes to the "gayness" of SUPERMAN RETURNS, at least one kid (and I hasten to add that he's an otherwise good kid from a good family) I know has admitted his problem with it and why he doesn't want to see the movie. It's ridiculous. It's immature. And it's bigotted. But it has some effect. http://www.canmag.com/images/front/s.../superman8.jpghttp://www.disneyworldtrivia.com/art...irates_225.jpg |
:lol:
|
I'm going to watch "Superman Returns" again when it's on DVD (I might buy it, if I can get it REALLY cheap or free from columbia house), just because I want to see if maybe I missed something. Or maybe wasn't in the right frame of mind when I saw it in the theater. But, I couldn't disagree with you more, I sat watching "POTC2" like a kid. It was just magical to me.
|
POTC 2 was definitely fun, but for my money, nothing beats those whooshing opening credits with that John Williams theme.
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema
Superman Returns still hasn't opened in Germany or Japan. I believe it'll be opening in about 2 weeks, so its international take should get a boost with those debuts.
|
Warners is dropping Supes from about 295 more theaters. Still has it playing in 1700, so they aren't completely giving up on it. Through 6 weeks, that's still a decent amount of screens to be playing on.
Through Wednesday, the US total was $187.4 million. Thursdays take probably puts it at $188 million. It should break $190 mil this weekend. |
Wanna know the problem with the film? Shoddy storytelling. In a recent interview Singer admitted he just didn't "pay attention" to certain details .
|
Saw Superman last night. Including my GF and I, there were 9 people in the theater
|
Originally Posted by LivingINClip
In a recent interview Singer admitted he just didn't "pay attention" to certain details .
|
Originally Posted by LivingINClip
Wanna know the problem with the film? Shoddy storytelling. In a recent interview Singer admitted he just didn't "pay attention" to certain details .
|
Most of the screens are only playing SR in the mid-afternoons or night time only for 2-3 daily showings now.
|
Originally Posted by GuessWho
Saw Superman last night. Including my GF and I, there were 9 people in the theater
Sounds about right for more than a month after any movie is released nowadays. The last movie that seemed to pack houses a month after its release was Titanic. |
What details is he referring to? Anyways, reviewer asks him about Lois remembering about sleeping with Clark and this is what it boiled down to.. She remembers sleeping with Superman, so then the reviewer asked if the amensia kiss is what nelegated her not knowing it was Supes child and who Superman /Clark was and Singer responded that he just didn't pay attention to that detail. Will find link. |
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Have a link to that interview? My guess is he's just referring to the way SR jumps almost 30 years (in terms of technology and fashion) but says it's only been five years in the internal storyline, but if he means more than that, I'd like to see...
I promise you that it wasn't continuity issues between the decades-old "Superman II" and the new movie that soured audiences. Many of the potential viewers had never seen "Superman II" and most would not have seen it recently. The problem was that Bryan Singer did not understand that it's supposed to be fun to be Superman. By making Supes into a lonely sullen Christ-figure, answering the world's prayers, the movie became more about Superman being imprisoned by his isolation and the burdens of godhood, and Singer forgot how exhilarating and liberating the idea of a man flying is supposed to be. Watching "Superman Returns" is about as much fun as going to church. And Brandon Routh lacked the gravitas to actually make audiences take the pretensions seriously. "Batman Begins" got away with being somber and philosophical because Christian Bale made Bruce Wayne into a believable person, with emotions and even a sense of humor, and also, that movie had exciting action sequences. Routh is a stand-in for a symbolic device rather than a character, and he's indistinguishable in most scenes from the computer model they made of him. "Superman Returns" is just a bad movie. |
I have no problem with Singer making a more serious Superman film, which did have plenty of humor. Superman Returns is about a man in crisis. Considering that physically, Superman is only vulnerable to kryptonite, it makes sense that they make a movie that focus on his emotions. And I found that it worked. It's far from a bad movie. No, it wasn't as good as Batman Begins, but it's the most I've enjoyed going to the movies since that film.
|
I'm glad Singer gave us a Superman who is a loner. He's the only one of his kind. Of course he should feel a little isolated. That's why he's Clark Kent part of the time, to fit in. The reason people soured on Superman is because they have it stamped on their forehead that Christopher Reeve is the only person on Earth who is allowed to play that character. Reeve's Superman was great, BUT....he's not above the actual character. Therefore, it is okay to let someone else play the character. Routh did the job. He is now Superman. And I look forward to his next performance in about 3 years...
It's just like James Bond. The character is bigger than the actor. Otherwise, they would have stopped making 007 movies when Connery quit. It's okay to have other actors play the same characters. Really, it is. |
Originally Posted by ScandalUMD
How can you suspend disbelief with regard to Margot Kidder becoming Kate Bosworth and Gene Hackman becoming Kevin Spacey, and then be annoyed that they have cell phones?
I promise you that it wasn't continuity issues between the decades-old "Superman II" and the new movie that soured audiences. Many of the potential viewers had never seen "Superman II" and most would not have seen it recently. |
|
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I have no problem with Singer making a more serious Superman film, which did have plenty of humor. Superman Returns is about a man in crisis. Considering that physically, <b>Superman is only vulnerable to kryptonite</b>, it makes sense that they make a movie that focus on his emotions. And I found that it worked. It's far from a bad movie. No, it wasn't as good as Batman Begins, but it's the most I've enjoyed going to the movies since that film.
|
From the interview LivingInClip posted:
NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her pregnant… BS: Possibly. NRAMA: Then he gives her the kiss, which made her forget that they even slept together. Was the pregnancy a mystery for her? BS: I ignored that part. I just assumed she remembered sleeping with him. Here's something else people might note (specifically the ones who complained about how it's a bad remake of the first film): NRAMA: I was really surprised that the plot of Superman Returns mirrored the plot of Donner’s Superman movie so much. BS: It takes you on the same journey that the original one did but as an adult which was quite intentional. Right down to him sinking in the water. It is not remaking the first one but I wanted to take the audience on the same kind of journey as the first one but with a mature guy who’s going through a dilemma that wasn’t in the first one. It’s in the marketing. I don’t know how to specifically qualify but it has to be understood how to present something that hasn’t been around for a while. The last Superman, Superman IV, in its American release made 15 million dollars. It is still something new and it has to be launched on the flip side of the other movies of its ilk. |
Unfortunately that is likening the marketing SR to how Coca-Cola marketed New Coke disasterously decades ago.
|
This is exactly in line with what he has said before, that Superman I and II are vague history to this film. Here's something else people might note (specifically the ones who complained about how it's a bad remake of the first film): Doesn't work that way. |
Originally Posted by LivingINClip
"They didn't market it properly" now seems to be the standard excuse to use when you don't want to admit that their might be a problem with the actual film. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.