SUPERMAN Movie Franchise...Likely Dead Again

[AndyDursin]

With a box-office gross dropping faster than a speeding bullet (keep in mind this story was filed BEFORE this weekend's crashing in-take), I think if this story is accurate it might be the end of the line for the Man of Steel on-screen again, because it ain't reaching $200 million domestically.

You know where I'm coming from, so I will say shame on Bryan Singer for producing a bland, tedious film with a concept that was unappealing right from the get-go. Even worse, the direction that possible sequels COULD go in was even more unappealing to me as a Man of Steel fan...I wanted to see Superman, not SUPERMAN SPY KIDS!

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 0114-2892r

Superman' sequel may not fly

LOS ANGELES, July 11 (UPI) -- Movie industry insiders say Warner Bros. Pictures will not consider a Superman sequel unless "Superman Returns" tops $200,000 million in the United States.

In any case, any "Superman" follow-up would have to operate on a smaller budget, TMZ.com reported. Warner Bros. President and Chief Operating Officer Alan Horn is said to be so concerned about the costs of special effects that any sequel would be limited to a $150 million budget, $55 million less than that of "Superman Returns."

"Superman Returns" was off to a good start, grossing $52.5 million its opening weekend and $74 million over the five-day Fourth of July holiday. But as Variety's box office guru Ben Fritz noted, "not as fast as a speeding bullet."

Warner Bros. bypassed European and Latin American territories during the World Cup, and its second weekend in release overseas, "Superman Returns" dipped 55 percent to take in $9 million in 14 markets.

Though perhaps there would be a bigger chance of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN happening now if Superman can't carry his own franchise -- or at least the fey Bryan Singer version of him.

[Eric W.]

Not surprising.

[romelWF]

and honestly: not necessary... do we need of every superhero a franchise? and what are they expecting? superman has had 4 movies already, a couple of TV shows which are still running... so maybe people dont really want another movies series about some hero they have everywhere anyway...

i hope they skip turning this into another sequelmania... epsecially with this horrible kid-idea... yawn... when do they learn, that there are some older people, too who want to go and see a movie... not every movie has to have kids in it...

[AndyDursin]

The issue with the kid was more troubling to me in terms of future installments than this particular film, but I still found it wholly unappealing. It's as if Singer didn't have enough confidence in Superman as a character and needed to "revise" his surroundings by adding things like him being a deadbeat dad. Really, what's the point of him having a child to begin with? I don't want to see Spider-Man or Batman with a kid (who does?), so why Superman? And what would the point of sequels be -- him raising a Super-Child?

His reported love affair with the Donner movie was evident but yet he failed totally to channel the goodwill and humor those Reeve films had in abundance. This may, in fact, have been the most joyless of all the super-hero adaptations we've seen (even THE CROW had more emotion invested in it), and given the character it was totally misguided.

And not only was Brandon Routh not Christopher Reeve, but he wasn't Tom Welling or Dean Cain either.

[Eric W.]

I think the thing with the child is the most obvious thing of all: A safety valve and a back door that someone can use somewhere down the road if they feel like it...or they can forget about it. *shrugs*

[romanD]

yeah, just like with the Xmen movies... in case Routh would have gotten too expensive for thenext movies they'd get rid of him and make themovies about his son.. Superman -Reborn -Out of School - Graduated or something like that.

Maybe they thought that the kid-element is something new in the Superhero world, but yeah, it has more a spy kids-vibe to it.

well, still have to see the movie, opening here in 2 weeks... but the trailer in front of POTC2 didn't generate any reaction in the audience. Nobody seems to care...

[mkaroly]

Two of my best friends absolutely loved it and felt it was fresh and entertaining. It will have a life on DVD (especially when the director's cut comes out). Again, I thought it was too dark- Batman would have felt more at home in this movie that Superman. And I didn't like the Superboy subplot- I would not pay to see a movie about Superboy. I agree with Andy in that it had none of the goodwill and humor that Superman I and II had.

[MarkB]

Okay, I've been holding off on making any comments for a while, but I really feel a need to speak up now.

I went and saw SR for a second time, and guess what? Yup, I LOVED it. It is now my favorite movie of the summer. Almost all of the story problems I (and others) thought were there are actually explained in the movie. The filmmakers just don't feel a need to hit the audience over the head with every explanation.

I'm really starting to think that the internet is starting to ruin our ability to enjoy a movie on its own terms. A movie like this is discussed, dissected and dismissed, often before anyone has even seen it. If you go into the theater with unrealistic expectations and preconceptions, it's almost impossible to judge a movie fairly.

I don't have a problem with someone not liking the movie, but it seems like some people online are practically dancing with glee over its demise. But this is a case where I think the critics had it right, and that the public simply never gave it a real shot. Remember, it opened well below expectations. That's with good reviews, and BEFORE word of mouth could get out.

I'm starting to think today's society just doesn't feel a need for a character like Superman. Which is pretty much the theme of the movie, if you think about it. (I've already written an essay on this very topic; I hope to find an appropriate outlet for it soon.)

I'm also disappointed to see how the backlash has snowballed into ridiculous exaggeration, to the point where I'm wondering if these people even saw the same movie I did.

Where did this "deadbeat dad" stuff come from? Superman didn't even know the kid existed. Once he was aware of Jason's existence, it's clear he wants to be a part of his life, but Lois doesn't want him there. They've moved on; the kid already has a family. Superman is simply respecting that (even though it pains him), and its obvious he will be there if Jason ever needs him. Doesn't sound like any "deadbeat dad" I've ever heard of.

I also don't understand why people think the next movie would turn into The Adventures of Superboy. The whole subplot involving Jason and his superpowers is played down about as far as it can be and still exist. I have no reason to expect that things wouldn't be handled as subtly on any sequel made by these same fimmakers. (Actually, there is a lot to be mined there dramatically -- remember, the kid is half-human. Who knows what powers he may or may not have.)

Anyway, if you were looking for nothing more than an action-packed rollercoaster ride, I can see why you were disappointed. And apparently that's what most audiences were looking for, judging by POTC2's box office take. Nothing wrong with that. Rollercoasters are fun, but I don't find myself discussing their themes and subtext once I exit the ride. I appreciate Singer & Co.'s efforts to provide a movie with some deeper characterization and more emotional depth.

I hope the movie does well enough to warrant a sequel from this team. I think they deserve the chance.

Mark

[AndyDursin]

I also don't understand why people think the next movie would turn into The Adventures of Superboy. The whole subplot involving Jason and his superpowers is played down about as far as it can be and still exist. I have no reason to expect that things wouldn't be handled as subtly on any sequel made by these same fimmakers.

Singer has commented on-record that sequels would go in a far-reaching direction that he's concerned the audience may not be ready for, and that the end of the movie set that in motion.

But this is a case where I think the critics had it right, and that the public simply never gave it a real shot. Remember, it opened well below expectations. That's with good reviews, and BEFORE word of mouth could get out.

I disagree. It opened moderately well for a franchise that's been off-screen for nearly 20 years, but dropped off like a rock. That's entirely word of mouth. BATMAN BEGINS didn't open all that impressively either but held its audience a lot better than this picture did.

I'm starting to think today's society just doesn't feel a need for a character like Superman. Which is pretty much the theme of the movie, if you think about it. (

Neither does Bryan Singer, apparently, because he invented this character of his offspring which no other interpretation of this character has had. To me, I feel it's because Singer feels the character doesn't stand on his own.

The thing that annoyed me the most about the movie was how Lois Lane writes this big essay about why we don't need Superman, and yet the movie NEVER EXPLAINS WHY WE DON'T NEED SUPERMAN! I mean, it's pretty clear after he saves the shuttle the world needs Superman...just one of many things I found totally irritating about the film.

I'll give it another chance on DVD later this year, but I highly doubt Kevin Spacey's material will be any more amusing the second time around, nor John Ottman's obnoxious score will be any more effective.

[AndyDursin]

This isn't quite the story I had read but it has some of those comments from Singer on sequels:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.ph ... 3&id=36674

Doesn't have the stronger comment he made about the tenor of the sequels, though.

[MarkB]

Singer has commented on-record that sequels would go in a far-reaching direction that he's concerned the audience may not be ready for, and that the end of the movie set that in motion.

I take that to mean that he's intending to follow up on the father/son angle, with Superman having to deal with being outside of the boy's family. I haven't seen anything indicating that it's going to become the next installment in the SPYKIDS series. I agree, that would be the worst-case scenario, but I simply don't see that happening, based on the way things were handled in this film.

I can see why some people might not want the next movie to focus on complex interpersonal relationships, but I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's balanced with other, more traditional, superhero elements. (It is still Superman, after all. )

I disagree. It opened moderately well for a franchise that's been off-screen for nearly 20 years, but dropped off like a rock. That's entirely word of mouth. BATMAN BEGINS didn't open all that impressively either but held its audience a lot better than this picture did.

Sorry, Andy, but by the first Friday of its release even you said, "....but considering the budget of SUPERMAN RETURNS and past 4th of July movies a $16 million Friday night gross on its first weekend in release is nothing spectacular at all. If you assume it's going to gross just over $50 million (maybe less?) on the three days of its proper opening weekend (on over 4000 screens too), that has to be a bit of a disappointment."

Again, that was going into its opening weekend. Most industry articles I read considered it a disappointing opening as well.

Neither does Bryan Singer, apparently, because he invented this character of his offspring which no other interpretation of this character has had. To me, I feel it's because Singer feels the character doesn't stand on his own.

I disagree. Bringing in the child is a way to illuminate another, previously unexplored facet of Superman's character. I think, if it's handled properly (and again, I've seen nothing so far that would indicate that it wouldn't be), that it's a valid dramatic choice. You obviously think otherwise.

The thing that annoyed me the most about the movie was how Lois Lane writes this big essay about why we don't need Superman, and yet the movie NEVER EXPLAINS WHY WE DON'T NEED SUPERMAN! I mean, it's pretty clear after he saves the shuttle the world needs Superman...just one of many things I found totally irritating about the film.

Lois is clearly projecting her own feelings in this article. Just like she has had to learn to stand on her own two feet and live her life without Superman, she thinks the world should learn to do the same. She's trying to say that we should take care of our own problems instead of waiting around for someone to solve them for us (at least that's what I took from it, since it's one of the dominant themes in the movie). Of course, one can conclude that she's not so bitterly opposed to his assistance by the end of the story.

I found the film leaden and completely misguided...and I highly doubt Kevin Spacey's material will be any more amusing the second time around, nor John Ottman's obnoxious score will be any more effective.

I, too, thought the film was "leaden" the first time around. The second time I realized that it was simply more subtle than I expected, with a lot of depth if you're willing to look for it. Spacey isn't supposed to be "amusing," he's supposed to be dangerous with the occasional flash of wit. He's not simply humorous (like Hackman played him); he's been hardened and made bitter by his incarceration.

I still disagree with your opinion of Ottman's score. I think it was a perfect combination of the old and the new, and I'm still listening to the CD almost daily.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Mark

[Edmund Kattak]

There is an hour and fifteen minute special on HBO this month that I caught yesterday called BOFFO! TINSELTOWN'S BOMBS AND BLOCKBUSTERS. In this documentary, many of the giants in the industry (some culled from other DVD documentaries and supplements) talk about the mechanics of what makes a blockbuster. What I found interesting was the fact that some of these people lose sight of what makes a good movie. While they all acknowledge that a good screenplay is the heart of what makes a good movie, I still think that they lose sight of this.

I like Bryan Singer. I think he has a good visual sense and seems like a good fellow. However, if you take a real look at his films, can you honestly tell me that he has really made anything that will stand the test of time and be counted along with the likes of CITIZEN KANE, THE SEVEN SAMURAI, THE GODFATHER, CHINATOWN, et. al? THE USUAL SUSPECTS was OKAY, albeit a little overrated; APT PUPIL was mediocre and wasn't a big box office attraction; X MEN was so-so and X2 a little better than so-so. In all of these films, I see that the common denominator are weak scripts. SUPERMAN RETURNS is yet another example. I have no doubts that if Singer gets a project in which he has access to people of the likes of Eric Roth, Akiva Goldsman, William Goldman, Robert Towne, Charlie Kaufman, etc, he can make a truly engaging and perhaps profitable film.

But this SUPERMAN RETURNS film was such a big letdown for me. At $10.00 a person these days, along with the usual bullcrap of finding parking, good seats and concession prices, I want to be more that just entertained for 2 hours. I want some substance along with the entertainment and not just lazy scene construction and missed plot points. I want to leave that theater knowing that, "Gee, that 2 hours and 37 minutes was worth my time and effort," instead of working my ass off to save for a house or visiting with friends/relatives that I haven't seen in ages.

What it simply boils down to is this: Hollywood needs to get smarter by recognizing that their audiences are not dumb. Despite our criticisms of how dumb audiences might be, I do not think that they are in general. It may very well be the product of carefully orchestrated marketing that gets people to the theaters opening weekend, but it certainly must be word-of-mouth freom many of these audiences that causes a film to drop 55 percent in box office revenue for weekend two.

I don't know the answers.

[AndyDursin]

Sorry, Andy, but by the first Friday of its release even you said, "....but considering the budget of SUPERMAN RETURNS and past 4th of July movies a $16 million Friday night gross on its first weekend in release is nothing spectacular at all. If you assume it's going to gross just over $50 million (maybe less?) on the three days of its proper opening weekend (on over 4000 screens too), that has to be a bit of a disappointment."

OK Mark You got me! I did say that, and yes by regular expectations for "blockbusters" it was on the low end. On the other hand BATMAN BEGINS showed you don't need to have a huge opening to get to $200 million. PIRATES when it opened only scared up $50+ mil or so and made over $300million

What I'm saying is word of mouth did not help this movie at all. It had a healthy ENOUGH opening that if audiences loved it nearly as much as critics in GENERAL did, it would be coasting well over $200 million by this point. It could have kept on going. Instead it's died and died quickly.

Frankly I think there is a niche of hard-core Superman fans who would've been in love with any movie that opened with Williams' theme and that credit roll. I think this picture had tons of problems that the "fanbase" glossed over, and despite this rabid element of people defending the movie on every corner of the internet -- explanining WHY it hasn't done well, and having an excuse and justification for its every flaw -- I believe those shortcomings have been confirmed by audiences negatively reacting to it...but that's just my view.

I disagree. Bringing in the child is a way to illuminate another, previously unexplored facet of Superman's character. I think, if it's handled properly (and again, I've seen nothing so far that would indicate that it wouldn't be), that it's a valid dramatic choice. You obviously think otherwise

I do because that's NOT Superman. Maybe in Bryan Singer's world of single parents and "modern day reality" -- and all the other elements he talked about adding to the character -- but I feel it's something he's interjecting because it's important to HIM. It's not important or vital to telling a good Superman story (and if it was, why has nobody else bothered to address it since 1938). For me he could have remade MR.MOM and made his point. I didn't feel like it belonged here at all.

I mean, listen, we know Singer had an agenda in X-MEN with the mutant element being a parallel for homosexuality/alternative lifestyles, and he has every right to bring that to the surface (it's subtext that's there anyway, but he kind of hammered it home a bit, especially in the 2nd film). Here, though, I felt he was applying his agenda awkwardly where it didn't exist before, and while the kid himself wasn't objectionable, the CONCEPT of it I felt was just lame and inappropriate.

[MarkB]

I do because that's NOT Superman. Maybe in Bryan Singer's world of single parents and "modern day reality" -- and all the other elements he talked about adding to the character -- but I feel it's something he's interjecting because it's important to HIM. It's not important or vital to telling a good Superman story (and if it was, why has nobody else bothered to address it since 1938). For me he could have remade MR.MOM and made his point.

What Singer has done is make Superman relevant again. It's not Superman himself who's changed, it's the world around him that's changed. He still stands for the same ideals, it's just that today's world, sadly, finds those ideals old-fashioned. Heck, they even had Perry White change the old "truth , justice and the American Way" to "truth, justice and all that other stuff." I don't think it was a cynical move on the filmmaker's part; instead, I think they probably knew that today's audiences would giggle at such quaint notions.

That's more of a reflection on today's society than on the character of Superman. I think that's one of the main points of the film. And I don't think escapist-seeking audiences want to see that reflection.

And no, I'm not one of those rabid Superman fans, and haven't been to any of those forums. (This forum and FSM are about the only message boards I read with any regularity.) Never read the comic book. Loved Donner's film, was disappointed with II, and liked III and IV even less. Haven't watched any of the TV shows. This film is something I've been discovering for myself. Believe me, I'm as surprised as anyone that I've done a complete 180 on this movie. But the deeper I look into it, the more I love it.

I just wish everyone could see what I'm seeing in it.

Mark

[MarkB]

One last thing concerning the kid: If you are willing to accept that Superman would sleep with Lois Lane in SUPERMAN II, you have to be willing to accept that there might be consequences. Remember, those seeds weren't planted in this film (pun intended).

Mark