Superman Returns (Bryan Singer, 2006)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Two early reviews:

Hollywood Elsewhere: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives ... byblue.php

Boston Herald: http://news.bostonherald.com/blogs/step ... efer/?p=63

[hearthesilence]

EW did a huge piece on this:

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1204671_1_0_,00.html

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION. About $63 million went to earlier aborted attempts to develop it (with $20 million going to McG and another $20 million split between J.J. Abrams and Brett Ratner - JFC, I wouldn't pay them 20 cents much less $20 million). Another $200 million to film it. Another $100 million to market. In order to break even, it probably needs a $600 million worldwide gross, and only 2 comic movies have done that: Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. Think about. $600 million worldwide, just to break even. No loss and NO PROFIT. Thank God I don't invest in Time Warner stock.

[Barmy]

Have any other gay flicks made $600 million?

Here's a negative review:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists ... 60615.html

[hearthesilence]

Wasn't there some orc-on-orc action in Lord of the Rings? Maybe some male raptors getting it on in Jurassic Park.

It'll probably make $600 million worldwide, at least $500 for sure, plus extra $$$ for DVD rentals/sales. Still, $363 million??? Christ, it could be Batman, Superman, the whole freaking Justice League plus Spider-Man thrown in for good measure, NO movie should cost that much.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Wasn't there some orc-on-orc action in Lord of the Rings? Maybe some male raptors getting it on in Jurassic Park.

It'll probably make $600 million worldwide, at least $500 for sure, plus extra $$$ for DVD rentals/sales. Still, $363 million??? Christ, it could be Batman, Superman, the whole freaking Justice League plus Spider-Man thrown in for good measure, NO movie should cost that much.

Agreed. Unless this movie is completely stinky and word of mouth kills it, I think it will do amazing business. I wouldn't be surprised if it smashes a few box office records on its opening day/weekend. Cause y'know, Warner Brothers is gonna hype it to the sky. It reportedly as a nice, nostalgic glow to it (Singer has described it as evoking a '30s and '40s vibe while calling it his first date movie) that I'm sure people will flock to in order to escape the crappy current reality of Bush America.

But having seen several of the trailers, it certainly looks like a lot of the money is up there on the screen.

[Kirkinson]

Maybe some male raptors getting it on in Jurassic Park.

Well, if you remember, all the dinosaurs on the island were female until some of them spontaneously became male so they could breed. So, depending on how you look at it....

[David Ehrenstein]

I had no idea he was gay

Don't tell me you missed the juciest gossip spectacular to hit Hollywood since I-don't-know-when!

Somebody fill him in. I'm laughing too hard.

And yes this has direct bearing on Superman Returns

[Jeff]

David Ansen loves it. I must admit, this bit has me intrigued:

If Jean Cocteau had directed $200 million action movies, they might have looked a little like this.

Corliss is a fan too.

[Faux Hulot]

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

[Antoine Doinel]

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

It will probably make that worldwide in its first two weeks and then proceed to make a crapload of money once the DVD comes out. A penny spent is a penny earned I guess....

[cdnchris]

You can't really blame the $363 million total on Singer and his crew, though (though yeah, $200 mill is still too much) It's more Warner and their cluelessness as to what to do with this franchise.

[hearthesilence]

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

Yeah - that's enough to feed, oh I don't know, EVERYBODY.

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

It will probably make that worldwide in its first two weeks and then proceed to make a crapload of money once the DVD comes out. A penny spent is a penny earned I guess....

Most likely yes, but the question is - how much profit are we talking about? I don't want to turn this into a Money Magazine discussion board, but it has to do REALLY well to make a decent profit...it's possible it won't make anything until it sells a boatload of DVD's. I mean, "The Break-Up" may be far more profitable than this.

[pzman84]

I don't know about you guys but Superman has never really appealed to me. It's not that I don't like comic book characters, it's just there isn't much depth with him. I mean, take Batman. He doesn't have any superpowers but actually has to try to stop the bad guys. Or the X-Men. Their powers are a curse and they are defending people who hate and fear them. Superman doesn't have these things. Nothing but Kryptonite can hurt him. He is loved by the public. He is, well, Superman. I don't read a lot of comic books so I could be wrong. However, plenty of my friends feel the same and plan on not seeing the next movie, even if they spent $363 mil on it.

[Antoine Doinel]

Basically, this monstrosity cost $363 million. THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE MILLION.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

Yeah - that's enough to feed, oh I don't know, EVERYBODY.

I read that last night, and I think it took this long to sink in.
That's not just insane; it's immoral.

It will probably make that worldwide in its first two weeks and then proceed to make a crapload of money once the DVD comes out. A penny spent is a penny earned I guess....

Most likely yes, but the question is - how much profit are we talking about? I don't want to turn this into a Money Magazine discussion board, but it has to do REALLY well to make a decent profit...it's possible it won't make anything until it sells a boatload of DVD's. I mean, "The Break-Up" may be far more profitable than this.

Yeah, I don't want this to turn into the Wall Street Journal either, but I think it's safe to assume that they'll at least break even with money from the theatrical run. DVD sales (as is the case for most moderately budgeted films) will be where the money making comes in. Also, I'm sure there is going to be a fair amount of coin made when it comes time to sell the TV rights (if that hasn't already been done).

The thing with franchise/blockbuster movies is that they will keep bringing in money a few years down the line with all the tie ins, cross promotions, video games and probably multiple format releases (I'm guess at least 2 DVD and 2 HD-DVD editions each).

Also, keep in mind that this going to be rated PG so in addition to the fanboy audience, there will be a lot of families going to this as well. And if I recall correctly, between now and August there are virtually no new, high profile kids flicks' opening at the BO, which means parents with bored kids may be trudging them out to Superman Returns (where the bored kids will fall asleep during the 2.5 hour running time).

[David Ehrenstein]

Superman never much appealed to me either.

I much prefer Jimmy Olson.

http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/jacklarson.html

[sevenarts]

I don't know about you guys but Superman has never really appealed to me. It's not that I don't like comic book characters, it's just there isn't much depth with him. I mean, take Batman. He doesn't have any superpowers but actually has to try to stop the bad guys. Or the X-Men. Their powers are a curse and they are defending people who hate and fear them. Superman doesn't have these things. Nothing but Kryptonite can hurt him. He is loved by the public. He is, well, Superman. I don't read a lot of comic books so I could be wrong. However, plenty of my friends feel the same and plan on not seeing the next movie, even if they spent $363 mil on it.

I do read a good amount of comics (though not too much superhero stuff), and that's always been my take on Superman as well. Just not nearly as interesting a character as, well, most anybody else in comics. I always thought he was most effective as a kind of symbolic cipher used to play off of other characters -- I love the idea of him interacting with Batman, or the way he's used in Rick Veitch's The Question. On his own, though, there's just not enough to sustain a very deep story -- his biggest conflict, at least in his earlier days, was always earning Lois Lane's love, and apparently that's a big theme in Singer's movie as well. Which basically brings the whole story down to the level of your average love story melodrama. Unlike other comic book characters with more complex dynamics, this is not a story that can only be told through Superman.

One of the reasons I always loved Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns was the chance to see Batman totally kicking Superman's ass. Miller also brings out the establishment vs. anti-establishment dynamic in his stories -- Superman is the total government, patriotic, establishment superhero, whereas Batman is the underground rebel. So anyway, I probably won't be seeing this. Looking forward to Nolan's next Batman movie though.

[Faux Hulot]

In high school, I knew guys whose biggest professed fantasy was to rescue a woman from a gang of marauding rapists -- your basic adolescent power fantasy with an added layer of American puritanism (and probably some patriarchal/alpha male thing going on too). When I think of Superman fans, I always think of those guys.

[colinr0380]

In high school, I knew guys whose biggest professed fantasy was to rescue a woman from a gang of marauding rapists -- your basic adolescent power fantasy with an added layer of American puritanism (and probably some patriarchal/alpha male thing going on too). When I think of Superman fans, I always think of those guys.

That's interesting. It seems that Supergirl played with this kind of scene when Helen Slater gets to earth and her first encounter is with two potential rapists, who she easily manages to beat up!

Not to mention that Robocop has a twist on a similar scene, so it must have been something in the ether at the time!

Surely Superman has always been a film to appeal to the athlete, alpha male though? After all the mere act of putting on a pair of glasses makes the powerful, high-flying 'man's man' into a nerdy, nervous albeit dependable office-drone who no one looks at twice, let alone Lois Lane!

In that sense, following on from my rant about Million Dollar Baby, doesn't that change into Clark Kent dramatise much more effectively many 'college jock' or professional athlete's fears about losing their 'special powers' and turning into an also-ran, trapped in an office, lusting unrequitedly after their co-workers?

[Matt]

Aside: If you nerds haven't read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay yet, you should.

[Andre Jurieu]

It will probably make that worldwide in its first two weeks and then proceed to make a crapload of money once the DVD comes out. A penny spent is a penny earned I guess....

Most likely yes, but the question is - how much profit are we talking about? I don't want to turn this into a Money Magazine discussion board, but it has to do REALLY well to make a decent profit...it's possible it won't make anything until it sells a boatload of DVD's. I mean, "The Break-Up" may be far more profitable than this.

Yeah, I don't want this to turn into the Wall Street Journal either, but I think it's safe to assume that they'll at least break even with money from the theatrical run. DVD sales... there is going to be a fair amount of coin made when it comes time to sell the TV rights... franchise/blockbuster movies is that they will keep bringing in money a few years down the line with all the tie ins, cross promotions, video games and probably multiple format releases (I'm guess at least 2 DVD and 2 HD-DVD editions each)...

You also have to think of a franchise as an ongoing option. It's not just the profit to be made on this film (which will be considerably smaller due to expenses), but the potential profits of sequels. Even if they make a small profit on the first one, if the film is successful enough to sustain interest within the general public, they can make an endless amount of sequels. These sequels will not cost as much for development as the first film required and hence will probably be more profitable. That $363 million will not appear like a bad investment if they make 3, or 5, or 10 films that all make $200 million each in profits.

Also, one of the rules for when a business evaluates whether or not to start a project is that they should ignore sunk costs. Hence all the money that was sunk into developing this film over the years - money going to Tim Burton, Nic Cage, Kevin Smith, McG, Brett Ratner (Jesus, this list is making me sick), and JJ Abrams - has to be ignored in order to evaluate the potential of the project as conceived by Singer & Crew. So really, Warner Bros. is only evaluating their profit based on the $200 mill that Singer used for the film.

I don't know about you guys but Superman has never really appealed to me. It's not that I don't like comic book characters, it's just there isn't much depth with him. I mean, take Batman. He doesn't have any superpowers but actually has to try to stop the bad guys. Or the X-Men. Their powers are a curse and they are defending people who hate and fear them. Superman doesn't have these things. Nothing but Kryptonite can hurt him. He is loved by the public. He is, well, Superman.

In high school, I knew guys whose biggest professed fantasy was to rescue a woman from a gang of marauding rapists -- your basic adolescent power fantasy with an added layer of American puritanism (and probably some patriarchal/alpha male thing going on too). When I think of Superman fans, I always think of those guys.

Surely Superman has always been a film to appeal to the athlete, alpha male though? After all the mere act of putting on a pair of glasses makes the powerful, high-flying 'man's man' into a nerdy, nervous albeit dependable office-drone who no one looks at twice, let alone Lois Lane!

In that sense, following on from my rant about Million Dollar Baby, doesn't that change into Clark Kent dramatise much more effectively many 'college jock' or professional athlete's fears about losing their 'special powers' and turning into an also-ran, trapped in an office, lusting unrequitedly after their co-workers?

Yeah, this whole "he's the arrogant, popular, patriotic, alpha-male, pro-establishment, jock" is kind of the lazy way to interpret the character. Of course I fully admit to being guilty of using this interpretation as well, since that's the general reason/excuse why I never really read the comic book. I think the only reason I am interested in Superman in any way is because this whole image is kind of a façade for a overly insecure dude who is actually a freakish alien in a foreign land and is completely overcompensating for the fact that he doesn't belong. I think it's interesting that no one will ever fully treat him as a fellow human being. In some ways, I kind of think he is Clark Kent for most of his life and he's just learning to enjoy being Superman now. This also makes his defeats that much more interesting, because everyone expects him to win (I'll admit I'm also a Yankees fan, but I'm also always interested to know what it's like in their locker room when they fail miserably - it has to be hard to deal with failure when you have that much pressure) and it's also interesting to see how others react to having their sense of security shaken. I've heard that the comics themselves are moving away from this interpretation and are fully embracing the fact that "Superman Rocks!" nowadays, which I really think is a wasted opportunity (I've heard he recently lost all his powers, but is now coming back stronger than ever - m'eh).

Aside: If you nerds haven't read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay yet, you should.

Word!

[essrog]

Aside: If you nerds haven't read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay yet, you should.

I second that. I don't give a rat's ass about comic books, but this book is illuminating and absorbing, and definitely helped me understand their appeal. It also includes a cool passage about how Citizen Kane inspires the titular characters to revolutionize the art and narrative of comic books.

To stay somewhat on topic, Superman is significant in the book for the way he shapes Kavalier and Clay's creation, The Escapist.

[Matt]

To stay somewhat on topic, Superman is significant in the book for the way he shapes Kavalier and Clay's creation, The Escapist.

Not to mention that Superman's creators, a couple of Jewish teenagers named Siegel and Shuster, inspired the book and served as models for its main characters. I mentioned it because the above debate about Superman's appeal as an All-American hero is one of the themes of the book, complicated by the ethnicity of (and sexuality of one of) the fictional creators.

[hearthesilence]

(I'll admit I'm also a Yankees fan, but I'm also always interested to know what it's like in their locker room when they fail miserably - it has to be hard to deal with failure when you have that much pressure)

Not baseball, but remember when the Utah Jazz was favored to beat the Bulls in 1998? It was the second Finals that featured the Jazz and the Bulls, not to mention Jordan's last, and of course MJ won that series with "The Shot."

After the game ended, I heard the Jazz players quietly cleaned out their lockers while John Stockton and Karl Malone just sat in silence - they didn't move an inch, like they were in shock.

Later, one reporter asked Stockton what he thought of MJ's possible retirement, and Stockton just sneered and walked away, muttering something like, "He'll be back, they'll all be back..."

Even better, find a picture of Charles Barkley right after the Suns lost the Finals to the Bulls - I can still remember the expression on his face. Remember The Seventh Seal, what Jöns and Antonius saw in that girl's face as she was burned on the stake? Compared to Barkley, she looked euphoric. This was a guy who won the MVP, who was still at his peak, and yet looking at the face, he must've thought "this is the closest I'll ever get." That was his best chance at a title and he failed.

[sevenarts]

this is possibly the only message board ever where charles barkley and ingmar bergman could coexist in the same sentence. cheers.

ok, carry on now.

[Andre Jurieu]

Not baseball, but remember when the Utah Jazz was favored to beat the Bulls in 1998? It was the second Finals that featured the Jazz and the Bulls, not to mention Jordan's last, and of course MJ won that series with "The Shot."

After the game ended, I heard the Jazz players quietly cleaned out their lockers while John Stockton and Karl Malone just sat in silence - they didn't move an inch, like they were in shock.

Later, one reporter asked Stockton what he thought of MJ's possible retirement, and Stockton just sneered and walked away, muttering something like, "He'll be back, they'll all be back..."

Even better, find a picture of Charles Barkley right after the Suns lost the Finals to the Bulls - I can still remember the expression on his face. Remember The Seventh Seal, what Jöns and Antonius saw in that girl's face as she was burned on the stake? Compared to Barkley, she looked euphoric. This was a guy who won the MVP, who was still at his peak, and yet looking at the face, he must've thought "this is the closest I'll ever get." That was his best chance at a title and he failed.

Man, I remember watching that Jazz vs Bulls game and being absolutely sick in my stomach when Jordan hit that shot. Talk about reffing for a star-player (just like that phantom-foul on that Wade drive tonight). I always liked and respected Michael, but man was I bored by having the Bulls win every year. I really wanted John Stockton to win a title considering he was such an unselfish player (same goes for Nash, but Cpt. Canuck needs to learn how to take a big-time shot for himself). Plus, now all I have to remember Malone by is the fact that he appeared on WCW and hit on Kobe's wife. I appreciated what Barkley did that year, but there was not a hope in hell of him winning the title that year. The Suns were way less-talented than the Bulls.

Anyway, I guess the reason I picked the Yankees in my example was that they are the equivalent of Superman. Everyone simple expects them to win everything, every year, just because they are so damn physically talented. In the above examples, the Bulls are really Supermans since they just walked over every team back in the day without breaking a sweat (except when MJ had the flu - that was just nuts). I guess the basketball equivalent of watching the Yankees blow a World Series to the D-Backs or blow a series to the BoSoxs, is watching the Lakers get dominated by the Pistons a couple of years ago. The Lakers had a team with 4 future Hall-of-Famers and they absolutely stunk up the joint against a team that wasn't supposed to be able to score. That locker room must have been a downright frosty after they lost that series, unless of course Kobe and Shaq were at each others throats. That would have been ... AWESOME! Anyway, back to Superman being gay.