Why Warner Bros and DC cannot roll out great movies?

[Superpowers1980]

I saw Fantastic Four and Iron Man, loved them both and I just wonder why the flip DC and Warner Bros cannot make a decent movie and roll it out. Marvel has blasted our senses with the following:

 

Spider - Man 1, 2, and 3

Fantastic Four 1 and 2

Hulk

Incredible Hulk - coming soon

Iron Man

X-Men 1, 2, 3

Daredevil

Elektra

Punisher

and coming soon Antman, Thor and Captain America

 

All of this went on while we got Batman Begins and Superman Returns. First off Superman Returns was considered a failure considering domestic gross of 200 million and Iron Man made 100 million in 4 days. BTW as a Superman super fan, SUPERMAN RETURNS SUCKS ASS, SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS. Batman Begins was ok and Dark Knight BETTER bust loose because DC is falling off. Its so sad and I am beginning to think maybe its Warner Brothers, I mean all these years of backing and they can't get it right. I know I made some choice comments about SR and BB but this post is to WHY DC can't produce and spit out the great superhero movies? Damn DC and Warner I am a DC guy and I am suffering, BIG TIME.

[GPM in ICT]

SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

It's funny how you blast Singer in one sentence yet praise X-men 1 and 2 which Singer and Co were responsable for. As for why it is taking DCso long to do these movies right, well blame corporate America. While you have loved every marvel movie there are a lot of fans who would consider FF 1 and 2, Blade 3, X-men 3, Man Thing, Elektra and Hulk to be horrible. It took Marvel a long time to make a good movie and even longer to get control of their owmn character so that a movie like Iron Man could be made. Personally I go in to each movie with no real exspecations and have only been really disappointed once (in Catwoman). However with the movies that Marvel announced the only one I'm looking forward to is IM2. I'm not sure what take on Tjor they are going to do and it could go horribly wrong. And while DC may be taking it slow, I would rather get movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns (yes I liked it for what it was, it could have been better but it could have been Supes 3 or 4 too) then try to throw just about everything at the wall and see what sticks.

[Blackmada]

I'd like to see DC branch out from Batman and Superman and do Green Lantern and The Flash at least and see how they do. One of DC's problems is they only do Superman and Batman.

 

Marvel is making a movie for just about everyone and who does not get a movie is in one they do make.

[gruntcast]

I saw Fantastic Four and Iron Man, loved them both and I just wonder why the flip DC and Warner Bros cannot make a decent movie and roll it out. Marvel has blasted our senses with the following:

 

Spider - Man 1, 2, and 3

Fantastic Four 1 and 2

Hulk

Incredible Hulk - coming soon

Iron Man

X-Men 1, 2, 3

Daredevil

Elektra

Punisher

and coming soon Antman, Thor and Captain America

 

All of this went on while we got Batman Begins and Superman Returns. First off Superman Returns was considered a failure considering domestic gross of 200 million and Iron Man made 100 million in 4 days. BTW as a Superman super fan, SUPERMAN RETURNS SUCKS ASS, SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS. Batman Begins was ok and Dark Knight BETTER bust loose because DC is falling off. Its so sad and I am beginning to think maybe its Warner Brothers, I mean all these years of backing and they can't get it right. I know I made some choice comments about SR and BB but this post is to WHY DC can't produce and spit out the great superhero movies? Damn DC and Warner I am a DC guy and I am suffering, BIG TIME.

 

 

Totally agree with on the Superman Returns, it made my stomach turn @loll@ But the first 2 bats movies were great along with the first 2 Superman movies (Reeves) , and Batman begins and Dark knight looks like it maybe the best Batman to rival the first Batman movie.

[ARROW]

Chalk it up to politics, egos and a lack of faith (or outright fear) in creative types to make something thar works.

Superman Returns was a hot-potato property that took 20 years to come to the screen. It went through several incarnations and gestations and still it was POS. Singer has made better product before, but he's not a comic-book guy. Kevin Smith IS a comic book guy, but he's a lousy mainstream director--and Smith's intended take on Superman was no better from the sounds of it.

Warners wants the next big hit.......and they are very reluctant to sink their money into something unless its got hit written all over it. Singer got the green-light because of his rep with X-men, but obviously, his approach to Superman was flawed.

The superhero genre is tricky to pull off right, as the uneven nature of a lot of superhero releases show.

The films demand a certain verisimilitude, a specific kind of honesty about the material to work.

Not everyone making these movies LIKES or understands comics.

That's not to say that only comic-book geeks should make superhero movies--many geeks are lousy creators/storytellers, and horrible filmmakers.

 

Marvel has taken some of the studio politics out of their films now, by producing and bankrolling them on their own. Warners is a huge congolmerate with layers of people all looking to put their stamp on a film like Superman.

What Warners needs is someone with the clout who is willing to stand up and champion the project, or the right people for the project and keep the politics away from those folks. They have to have faith that they can make a movie like Iron Man, instead of another Catwoman.

Unfortunately, Warners seems to think that superheroes seem better suited to the animation division--as most of their better superhero films appear there. They need to give the same degree of hands-off to the live-action folks--and I do not see that happening right now.

[Superpowers1980]

SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

It's funny how you blast Singer in one sentence yet praise X-men 1 and 2 which Singer and Co were responsable for. As for why it is taking DCso long to do these movies right, well blame corporate America. While you have loved every marvel movie there are a lot of fans who would consider FF 1 and 2, Blade 3, X-men 3, Man Thing, Elektra and Hulk to be horrible. It took Marvel a long time to make a good movie and even longer to get control of their owmn character so that a movie like Iron Man could be made. Personally I go in to each movie with no real exspecations and have only been really disappointed once (in Catwoman). However with the movies that Marvel announced the only one I'm looking forward to is IM2. I'm not sure what take on Tjor they are going to do and it could go horribly wrong. And while DC may be taking it slow, I would rather get movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns (yes I liked it for what it was, it could have been better but it could have been Supes 3 or 4 too) then try to throw just about everything at the wall and see what sticks.

First off I don't like X-Men 1 or 2, pay atttention dill weed, it was just a list of how many movies Marvel has produced in 10 years. Ye sI personally hate singer and his crappy dead beat dad version of Superman not to mention his poor casting skills. But the discussion was about why DC can't produce more than 3 films in 10 years and most were mediorce?

[pooda]

i think u guys have to put this $h!t in perspective. everyone wants comic movies that are close to the books, but real life steps in and let u know how silly some of the stuff that happens in these books are. i love th ff comics, but as movies they suck. the average movie is 101 mins, thats hardley enough time to put 35 or some odd yrs of books in to a film. budgeting is an other problem. do u know how much it cost to make good cgi ?,let alone put 3 or more characters that need to display talents that can only be CGI'ed( x men, ff) thats why x men movies were so/so. too many people, not enough time. believe it or not, everyone that watch movies, dont read comics. studios have to make a movie to appeal to everyone some kind of way, thats how they get paid. dont get it twisted, comic fans are why alot of movies are made, but dont think ironman made 100 million fans alone. my mom thinks downey is the best thing moivng and thats why she went to see it. dc movies try to keep things simple, just like the book. they have more of a realistic way of explaining $h!t. they use cgi when needed and use a lot of props instead. you guys forget that before marvel got their $h!t together, all of their movies were crap! captain america(1991), fantastic four(1991), various made for tv hulk movies and whatever else they made before 98' superman is an iconic movie(reeves), the flash was good for its time and in 1989, batman was better than any comic movie at its time. they also showd you that you could change a character's look and still keep him on top. im a dc/marvel fan, i just hate that 15 years after dc has been doing the d#mn thing, marvel steps up( keep in mind ,only 1/2 of their movies were good) and everyone forgets what dc did for movies.

as far as other people in the dc universe? i would like to see more of them, but...as much as it hurts to say this, theyre not as known as marvel characters by the general public. this may be the reason: marvel has had a cartoon on almost every year since.....forever. and they werent afraid of crossing characters( allways a marvel team up, even if its not a group cartoon) or expanding past a couple of main charaters. besides the superfriends, dc didnt do that until now(j.l.a./l.o.s./t.t cartoons).

 

 

[pooda]

SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

It's funny how you blast Singer in one sentence yet praise X-men 1 and 2 which Singer and Co were responsable for. As for why it is taking DCso long to do these movies right, well blame corporate America. While you have loved every marvel movie there are a lot of fans who would consider FF 1 and 2, Blade 3, X-men 3, Man Thing, Elektra and Hulk to be horrible. It took Marvel a long time to make a good movie and even longer to get control of their owmn character so that a movie like Iron Man could be made. Personally I go in to each movie with no real exspecations and have only been really disappointed once (in Catwoman). However with the movies that Marvel announced the only one I'm looking forward to is IM2. I'm not sure what take on Tjor they are going to do and it could go horribly wrong. And while DC may be taking it slow, I would rather get movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns (yes I liked it for what it was, it could have been better but it could have been Supes 3 or 4 too) then try to throw just about everything at the wall and see what sticks.

First off I don't like X-Men 1 or 2, pay atttention dill weed, it was just a list of how many movies Marvel has produced in 10 years. Ye sI personally hate singer and his crappy dead beat dad version of Superman not to mention his poor casting skills. But the discussion was about why DC can't produce more than 3 films in 10 years and most were mediorce?

 

dude...dont call names, were all talking on a public fourm. if he's wrong, you can kill what he's saying by being right. but saying $h!t lie that will just start a fight like on the other fourms!

[Superpowers1980]

SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

It's funny how you blast Singer in one sentence yet praise X-men 1 and 2 which Singer and Co were responsable for. As for why it is taking DCso long to do these movies right, well blame corporate America. While you have loved every marvel movie there are a lot of fans who would consider FF 1 and 2, Blade 3, X-men 3, Man Thing, Elektra and Hulk to be horrible. It took Marvel a long time to make a good movie and even longer to get control of their owmn character so that a movie like Iron Man could be made. Personally I go in to each movie with no real exspecations and have only been really disappointed once (in Catwoman). However with the movies that Marvel announced the only one I'm looking forward to is IM2. I'm not sure what take on Tjor they are going to do and it could go horribly wrong. And while DC may be taking it slow, I would rather get movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns (yes I liked it for what it was, it could have been better but it could have been Supes 3 or 4 too) then try to throw just about everything at the wall and see what sticks.

First off I don't like X-Men 1 or 2, pay atttention dill weed, it was just a list of how many movies Marvel has produced in 10 years. Ye sI personally hate singer and his crappy dead beat dad version of Superman not to mention his poor casting skills. But the discussion was about why DC can't produce more than 3 films in 10 years and most were mediorce?

 

dude...dont call names, were all talking on a public fourm. if he's wrong, you can kill what he's saying by being right. but saying $h!t lie that will just start a fight like on the other fourms!

I hear you, it just made me mad because he didn't read before he responded. I do agree with some of what you said. Superman 1 and 2 are still the best, nothing beats the first Superman movie and Chris by far is the best cast comic hero. Spider - Man 1 and 2 take huge loads from the fist 2 Superman movies as blueprint. Dc has 3 masterpieces but they do need more. DC has cornered the animated market beating the the snot out of marvel as far as quality and story telling but their projects take way to long. We need the following:

A new Superman movie, something worthy excluding anything from Singer including the actors

Captain Marvel -- i heard this one is in the works and the Rock is Black Adam

Wonder Woman -- long over due

Green Lantern -- that would kick major ass

Flash --

Teen Titians

Doom Patrol

Their is so much, but Warner I am sure is screwy and messing things up

[JayC]

First watch the name calling, there is no reason for it.

 

Second it's not entirely fair to say DC can't roll out a good movie. Batman Begins was a great movie and Dark Knight looks to be as well. I think DC's biggest issue is once you get past Superman, Batman and maybe Wonder Woman the familiarity of most DC heroes with the general public is not as high as Marvel characters have. Could be all those cartoons Marvel put out in the 90's paid off with making their characters more well known. Also Marvel has pumped out alot of movies but not all have been Box Office hits. Really X-Men, Spider-Man and now Iron Man are really the only ones I would consider to be huge hits. Also look at how long it took for Marvel to get it right. Look at all those bad straight to DVD movies Marvel put out in the 90's while in the 80s and 90s it was DC who had the hit movies while Marvel didn't. One other factor is DC is owned by Warner Bros which is a very large company so Im sure that means more corporate red tape that has to be cut through to get anything approved.

[JoeRhyno]

I was just going to bring up the Captain America, Punisher and defunk Fantastic Four movies that came(or didn't come) out in the 80s/90s, lol..

 

Jay brings up a good point, if you're not a comic book, besides a handful of characters, you're not really going to know a lot of the DC characters.

 

And for the record over half those marvel movies you listed were sub par if that a few of them stinkers!

[pooda]

SO DOES BRYAN SINGER, THE WRITERS, and THE CAST OF SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

It's funny how you blast Singer in one sentence yet praise X-men 1 and 2 which Singer and Co were responsable for. As for why it is taking DCso long to do these movies right, well blame corporate America. While you have loved every marvel movie there are a lot of fans who would consider FF 1 and 2, Blade 3, X-men 3, Man Thing, Elektra and Hulk to be horrible. It took Marvel a long time to make a good movie and even longer to get control of their owmn character so that a movie like Iron Man could be made. Personally I go in to each movie with no real exspecations and have only been really disappointed once (in Catwoman). However with the movies that Marvel announced the only one I'm looking forward to is IM2. I'm not sure what take on Tjor they are going to do and it could go horribly wrong. And while DC may be taking it slow, I would rather get movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns (yes I liked it for what it was, it could have been better but it could have been Supes 3 or 4 too) then try to throw just about everything at the wall and see what sticks.

First off I don't like X-Men 1 or 2, pay atttention dill weed, it was just a list of how many movies Marvel has produced in 10 years. Ye sI personally hate singer and his crappy dead beat dad version of Superman not to mention his poor casting skills. But the discussion was about why DC can't produce more than 3 films in 10 years and most were mediorce?

 

dude...dont call names, were all talking on a public fourm. if he's wrong, you can kill what he's saying by being right. but saying $h!t lie that will just start a fight like on the other fourms!

I hear you, it just made me mad because he didn't read before he responded. I do agree with some of what you said. Superman 1 and 2 are still the best, nothing beats the first Superman movie and Chris by far is the best cast comic hero. Spider - Man 1 and 2 take huge loads from the fist 2 Superman movies as blueprint. Dc has 3 masterpieces but they do need more. DC has cornered the animated market beating the the snot out of marvel as far as quality and story telling but their projects take way to long. We need the following:

A new Superman movie, something worthy excluding anything from Singer including the actors

Captain Marvel -- i heard this one is in the works and the Rock is Black Adam

Wonder Woman -- long over due

Green Lantern -- that would kick major ass

Flash --

Teen Titians

Doom Patrol

Their is so much, but Warner I am sure is screwy and messing things up

 

yeah!...they did superman a great wrong with that movie! i understand your point about how marvel makes block busters....but if you look at the quality of these movies today, they all suck in a since. see, i dont mean theyre bad films, they just let u down. i loved ironman, its just a shame that i lilked tony more. pretty much EVERYHING! ironman did in the movie, they showed on tv and trailers. its pretty much like that with everything now, it's like i get up and go to the movies to see talk scenes. i watched spiderman 2.5 and was like " what the hell!, why did they leave out all this fighting!, instead of showing him talk to mary jane's ugly a$$, they should of showed this!" if thats how theyre going to do movies now, i might as well watch them on dvd with the extras.

[Cloud]

The Marvel movies I consider success are:

Ironman

SPiderman1,2

Dare Devil Dir cut

X-men1,2

Hulk

Blade(didnt watch any so can't comment)

 

DC on the other hand has

Batman

Batman Returns

Batman Begins

Superman,1,2,Returns

 

 

I don't think Superman Returns was bad at all. It's still a lot better than X-men3 or Spiderman3.

Mostly Supes and Bats but they are all great movies.

[pooda]

The Marvel movies I consider success are:

Ironman

SPiderman1,2

Dare Devil Dir cut

X-men1,2

Hulk

Blade(didnt watch any so can't comment)

 

DC on the other hand has

Batman

Batman Returns

Batman Begins

Superman,1,2,Returns

 

 

I don't think Superman Returns was bad at all. It's still a lot better than X-men3 or Spiderman3.

Mostly Supes and Bats but they are all great movies.

i think that the hulk, daredevil,x men 1, and superman returns suck hard!

[coolhandmelo]

You know what is funny...

Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.

Essentially the movies are the same, Superman the Movie's plot ripped out and put in 2006 context. The way I see that film, is it was Bryan's "love letter" to his childhood and to the character of Superman. Let's face it, Superman had been gone from the public eye for years. DC's only really hero that has been in our face since the late 80's and 90's was Batman. Even after the Animated sereis ended, the shelves were still full of Batman figures. Superman was always just an extra hero to help out Batman. Anyway, The Singer crew had to reintroduce Superman to a world where everyone likes their heros flawed. I think that was one of the points Bryan was trying to get across, the world marched along and changed in a lot of ways (morally)from when Superman was around(why the world doesn't need Superman)and now how do we fit this character who has always pretty much been a squeaky clean image of goodness into a world that is very damaged. Is there a place for Superman?

I always read about the films that were supposed to come out to reintroduce Superman, all dark and twisted. Superman in black latex suit with wires and junk coming out of his body...sorry but that's not Superman to me. What was great about SR to me, was that the Singer and Crew embraced the vision that Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz set out to create back in 1978.

Another thing I don't get is when people complain about the performances....The way I saw it, Brandon Routh protrayed the Man of Steel with as much charisma and compassion that the immortal Christopher Reeve gave that character. Kevin Spacey as Lex? Come on, he was perfect, menacing and yet still had a sly sense of humor(I never thought Gene Hackman did Lex that well, maybe it was just the wigs didn't do it for me). Kate Bosworth? Okay, her Lois wasn't the "His Girl Friday" Lois I always expect but at lease she doesn't have a horse face like Margot Kidder....

Why do people complain about the love story in SR? Wasn't there just about the same mush in 78 movie? Can anyone remember the "Can you read my mind" sequence that was pretty mushy and for the time, cheesy. What? Was it the whole love triangle thing with the kid that people didn't like? Well, after 7 seasons of watching Tom Welling and Kristen Kreuk go back and forth:

 

Clark: I'm sorry

Lana: No, I'm sorry Clark.

Clark: I love you Lana but I can't be with you

Lana: But Clark you can tell me anything.

Chloe: Hi guys! It's Chloe and I love Clark!

Lex: Yes it is I Lex and I love Clark also...Let's move to Massachusetts!

 

Come on, you guys should be used to the soap opera that is Superman!! There's always been that element to Superman even going back to the old George Reeves show.

The kid, well, hey it's a sign of the times. There are lots of single moms and people who get into relationships with someone who has a kid. Again, I think Singer and Co. were just trying to modernize Superman. Same thing with the plot of "land." In the 78 version Lex used a nuke missle. In SR Lex used the Kryptonian Crystals all for the same purpose the whole "my father said land yada yada" deal.

 

It's like I said, to hate on SR is just kind of dumb. Okay maybe you didn't like it but just take a step back on see SR for what it is....a 2006 version of the 1978 film with better costumes, sets, and special effects. Be happy Superman didn't get warped into some "Matrix" kind of fluff. It's a tribute movie and if Bryan gets the chance I'm sure with the sequel he will take those same elements and put his own spin on it and give us something new and exciting and something that is a little bit of a throwback just like X2.

 

Final thought: I think Chris Nolan's Batman films are the closest we are going to get to perfection when it comes to Batman. Sure Tim Burton's Batman was pretty to look at but plot wise he totally screwed that up...but I guess that's another post.

Batman Begins was perfection. The Dark Knight will be perfection with a side of fried gold!

[pooda]

You know what is funny...

Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.

Essentially the movies are the same, Superman the Movie's plot ripped out and put in 2006 context. The way I see that film, is it was Bryan's "love letter" to his childhood and to the character of Superman. Let's face it, Superman had been gone from the public eye for years. DC's only really hero that has been in our face since the late 80's and 90's was Batman. Even after the Animated sereis ended, the shelves were still full of Batman figures. Superman was always just an extra hero to help out Batman. Anyway, The Singer crew had to reintroduce Superman to a world where everyone likes their heros flawed. I think that was one of the points Bryan was trying to get across, the world marched along and changed in a lot of ways (morally)from when Superman was around(why the world doesn't need Superman)and now how do we fit this character who has always pretty much been a squeaky clean image of goodness into a world that is very damaged. Is there a place for Superman?

I always read about the films that were supposed to come out to reintroduce Superman, all dark and twisted. Superman in black latex suit with wires and junk coming out of his body...sorry but that's not Superman to me. What was great about SR to me, was that the Singer and Crew embraced the vision that Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz set out to create back in 1978.

Another thing I don't get is when people complain about the performances....The way I saw it, Brandon Routh protrayed the Man of Steel with as much charisma and compassion that the immortal Christopher Reeve gave that character. Kevin Spacey as Lex? Come on, he was perfect, menacing and yet still had a sly sense of humor(I never thought Gene Hackman did Lex that well, maybe it was just the wigs didn't do it for me). Kate Bosworth? Okay, her Lois wasn't the "His Girl Friday" Lois I always expect but at lease she doesn't have a horse face like Margot Kidder....

Why do people complain about the love story in SR? Wasn't there just about the same mush in 78 movie? Can anyone remember the "Can you read my mind" sequence that was pretty mushy and for the time, cheesy. What? Was it the whole love triangle thing with the kid that people didn't like? Well, after 7 seasons of watching Tom Welling and Kristen Kreuk go back and forth:

 

Clark: I'm sorry

Lana: No, I'm sorry Clark.

Clark: I love you Lana but I can't be with you

Lana: But Clark you can tell me anything.

Chloe: Hi guys! It's Chloe and I love Clark!

Lex: Yes it is I Lex and I love Clark also...Let's move to Massachusetts!

 

Come on, you guys should be used to the soap opera that is Superman!! There's always been that element to Superman even going back to the old George Reeves show.

The kid, well, hey it's a sign of the times. There are lots of single moms and people who get into relationships with someone who has a kid. Again, I think Singer and Co. were just trying to modernize Superman. Same thing with the plot of "land." In the 78 version Lex used a nuke missle. In SR Lex used the Kryptonian Crystals all for the same purpose the whole "my father said land yada yada" deal.

 

It's like I said, to hate on SR is just kind of dumb. Okay maybe you didn't like it but just take a step back on see SR for what it is....a 2006 version of the 1978 film with better costumes, sets, and special effects. Be happy Superman didn't get warped into some "Matrix" kind of fluff. It's a tribute movie and if Bryan gets the chance I'm sure with the sequel he will take those same elements and put his own spin on it and give us something new and exciting and something that is a little bit of a throwback just like X2.

 

Final thought: I think Chris Nolan's Batman films are the closest we are going to get to perfection when it comes to Batman. Sure Tim Burton's Batman was pretty to look at but plot wise he totally screwed that up...but I guess that's another post.

Batman Begins was perfection. The Dark Knight will be perfection with a side of fried gold!

no dude...they were not the same. this is 2008, if u cant even get supes to look like the comic, well......in the 70's reeves looked the part. but lets be honest, they were a little more loose with who they let be superheroes. superboy, i mean man( if u can call him that) looked really weak. can we all say.....UPGRADE!

[hellion]

dude, theres gonna be a JLAS movie coming out, i just dont know when. I read it on wizrard. anyways, even though they make a good dc mopvie, theres something about the dc universe that cant top the marvel universe. i dont know what it is. ok yeah whatevers.

[ARROW]

You know what is funny...

Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.

 

 

Superman the Movie is a HORRIBLE film. What saves it is the performances of Chris Reeve and some of the directing from Richard Donner. The script is horrendously bad, and the villains are written as total jokes, and the ending is just out to lunch.

But that all said, the movie has some wonderful moments which is what makes it memorable.

 

Superman Returns is a weak film because it bases its premise off an equally weak film: Superman 2.

Again, a poorly written piece, with another flimsy resolution. The only reason the polt device of havine Clark and Lois sleep together was to legitimize the film as an adult piece, and not just kiddie fare.

That was taken and run with to create Superman Returns--creating a precedent for the Superman character that renders him incongruous with his values.

 

Look, the film sets this up itself: Kal-el takes off to search for Krypton and survivors. That clarifies an obsession with his heritage. Its not just some passing notion, he leaves Earth understanding that relevatistic factors will mean he's away for an extended period of time. He is forsaking is guardianship of Earth for personal reasons.

Then he comes home empty handed, has yet another encounter with Luthor, and in the process........lo and behold, discovers Lois has borne his child.

 

And now Clark Kal-el will just allow the sickly son of Superman to be raised by Lois and her husband, while Superman is just.........y'know.........."around".

That's an abrogation of the fundemental stated values of the character that the movie itself lays out.

All of a suddent he's got an heir, and he'll just carry on as before?????

 

Horse hooey. It doesn't jibe at all. The bastard son of Superman was a mistake, something writ only to give the story some cute lines and some contnuity with the previous movie.

 

I asked myself why did it need that? It forsakes a number of things, one being the element of Superman being the last of his kind.

With the kid now, there's a overriding consideration that he HAS TO revisit time and again, because that's his stated nature. Far beyond his love for Lois, he's now got an HEIR--something that will DEMAND his constant guidance.

Something he cannot supply and remaind true as earth's guardian.

This is why the inclusion of the kid into the story is a major stumbling block. It sets up a precedent that takes the character of Superman far away from what he is.

This isn't a dilution, like Supergirl would be--its a serious deviation.

At least with Supergirl there's a character that has a cognitive persona, they can standalone from the get-go.

The kid..........is baggage. It means that the character of Lois now has to address the fact that she has a superhuman child to raise, crippling that characters use in follow-up films.

I'm all for the evolution of characters in stories, but there's certain thinks that work for certain characters and certain things that don't.

The kid doesn't work.

 

I wish.........hope........they just chuck out Superman Returns, like Superman 3 & 4 and forget the lil' bastard was ever borne.

[Ares6009]

Alot to read, but I didn't see this explored (?)

 

What about consistency? Of the movies listed, with the exception of the Punisher, the casts for Marvel have remained stable. With DC, you have multiple Supermen and Batmen. I think people get discouraged by that. Look (if you're old enough to remember @loll@ ) at the Christopher Reeve Superman series. While it was stable, people loved it. Up until the 4th, that is. Now, if you put those aside and pretend you never saw them, I could see someone really going nuts for Routh and Co, as that would be the starting point for them. Same with Batman. Remember when Keaton first came out, everyone loved that one too. The only problem is when people see these movies, it makes an impression on them, and if you change what they expect to see, that's when you get the conflict.

 

For example, what's going to happen when Maguire's contract is up and he decides he doesn't want to play Spider-man anymore? If they find someone else (hahaha - Harry Potter's about the right age and build!) what will you think then?

 

I think both parties put out excellent movies. You just have to be relative about it. I prefer Reeve as Superman because that's the one I grew up with. Nothing against Brandon, but he will never be able to replace him in my eyes. But that doesn't mean I thought the movie was bad. It was what it was. Could have done without the whole kid thing, but like Highlander 2, maybe they'll just write that out if existance somehow. Amazing special effects too. You couldn't do half that stuff believablly back in the day.

 

That's my two cents. Take it as you will.

[pooda]

Alot to read, but I didn't see this explored (?)

 

What about consistency? Of the movies listed, with the exception of the Punisher, the casts for Marvel have remained stable. With DC, you have multiple Supermen and Batmen. I think people get discouraged by that. Look (if you're old enough to remember @loll@ ) at the Christopher Reeve Superman series. While it was stable, people loved it. Up until the 4th, that is. Now, if you put those aside and pretend you never saw them, I could see someone really going nuts for Routh and Co, as that would be the starting point for them. Same with Batman. Remember when Keaton first came out, everyone loved that one too. The only problem is when people see these movies, it makes an impression on them, and if you change what they expect to see, that's when you get the conflict.

 

For example, what's going to happen when Maguire's contract is up and he decides he doesn't want to play Spider-man anymore? If they find someone else (hahaha - Harry Potter's about the right age and build!) what will you think then?

 

I think both parties put out excellent movies. You just have to be relative about it. I prefer Reeve as Superman because that's the one I grew up with. Nothing against Brandon, but he will never be able to replace him in my eyes. But that doesn't mean I thought the movie was bad. It was what it was. Could have done without the whole kid thing, but like Highlander 2, maybe they'll just write that out if existance somehow. Amazing special effects too. You couldn't do half that stuff believablly back in the day.

 

That's my two cents. Take it as you will.

 

 

i think that has little to do with it. it sucks when a person youre used to playing a character dosnt play them anymore, but.....look at the facts, spiderman 1&2, ironman, batman begins, they stuck pretty much to the comic stories, with good directing. but look at all the bad movies, daredevil, hulk, blade3, FF 2, ghost rider, spiderman 3(it was ok) elektra, superman returns, x men 1 &3, blade 3, batman & robin, batman forever. all of these movies sucked from poor stories, and stupid twist to things better off left alone.

[coolhandmelo]

Wanna talk about bad movies....I just saw the fabled 1994 FANTASTIC FOUR movie today....aw man....Compare any of the movies we are talking about on this thread to that one and Superman Returns looks like Shakespere to that piece of trash....

Although, for as crappy as it is, there is a kinda of charm to it...man, I must be losing it!

[pooda]

Wanna talk about bad movies....I just saw the fabled 1994 FANTASTIC FOUR movie today....aw man....Compare any of the movies we are talking about on this thread to that one and Superman Returns looks like Shakespere to that piece of trash....

Although, for as crappy as it is, there is a kinda of charm to it...man, I must be losing it!

 

i seen some of it too....pure crap!

[gruntcast]

You know what is funny...

Every time I hear someone bash SUPERMAN RETURNS or Bryan Singer, I really have to laugh, simply because if you hated SR then you hated Richard Donner's SUPERMAN THE MOVIE.

 

 

Superman the Movie is a HORRIBLE film. What saves it is the performances of Chris Reeve and some of the directing from Richard Donner. The script is horrendously bad, and the villains are written as total jokes, and the ending is just out to lunch.

But that all said, the movie has some wonderful moments which is what makes it memorable.

 

Superman Returns is a weak film because it bases its premise off an equally weak film: Superman 2.

Again, a poorly written piece, with another flimsy resolution. The only reason the polt device of havine Clark and Lois sleep together was to legitimize the film as an adult piece, and not just kiddie fare.

That was taken and run with to create Superman Returns--creating a precedent for the Superman character that renders him incongruous with his values.

 

Look, the film sets this up itself: Kal-el takes off to search for Krypton and survivors. That clarifies an obsession with his heritage. Its not just some passing notion, he leaves Earth understanding that relevatistic factors will mean he's away for an extended period of time. He is forsaking is guardianship of Earth for personal reasons.

Then he comes home empty handed, has yet another encounter with Luthor, and in the process........lo and behold, discovers Lois has borne his child.

 

And now Clark Kal-el will just allow the sickly son of Superman to be raised by Lois and her husband, while Superman is just.........y'know.........."around".

That's an abrogation of the fundemental stated values of the character that the movie itself lays out.

All of a suddent he's got an heir, and he'll just carry on as before?????

 

Horse hooey. It doesn't jibe at all. The bastard son of Superman was a mistake, something writ only to give the story some cute lines and some contnuity with the previous movie.

 

I asked myself why did it need that? It forsakes a number of things, one being the element of Superman being the last of his kind.

With the kid now, there's a overriding consideration that he HAS TO revisit time and again, because that's his stated nature. Far beyond his love for Lois, he's now got an HEIR--something that will DEMAND his constant guidance.

Something he cannot supply and remaind true as earth's guardian.

This is why the inclusion of the kid into the story is a major stumbling block. It sets up a precedent that takes the character of Superman far away from what he is.

This isn't a dilution, like Supergirl would be--its a serious deviation.

At least with Supergirl there's a character that has a cognitive persona, they can standalone from the get-go.

The kid..........is baggage. It means that the character of Lois now has to address the fact that she has a superhuman child to raise, crippling that characters use in follow-up films.

I'm all for the evolution of characters in stories, but there's certain thinks that work for certain characters and certain things that don't.

The kid doesn't work.

 

I wish.........hope........they just chuck out Superman Returns, like Superman 3 & 4 and forget the lil' bastard was ever borne.

 

 

I also agree with you @loll@ , . another thing is it's morally questionable for Supes to pursue Louis, because it is unfair to her boyfriend who not only help save supes but is a really nice guy, he's not some controlling, abusive guy and has spent more time with supes's, kid kind of help raising him while the father was absent. I found it kind of creepy when supes was x-raying into Louis's place watching them. I guess I feel for the boyfriend cuz my bro is raising a child thats not genetically his, the birth father took off when my bro's wife was pregnant, and when he occasionally comes to visit it causes all kinds of chaos and the kid (3) is not clear who this guy is.

[GPM in ICT]

I apoligize to Superpowers for taking what he typed out of context, but he just kinda lumped all those Marvel movies together.

 

Now on to something I thought about this afternoon. You really have to take marvel and DC as completely different animals when it comes to how they handle things. If your asked JOe blow off the street to name superheroes you'd get Batman, Superman, Spiderman and Hulk almost every time. With the last Hulk movie Marvel basicly took the Hulk off the map as a merchandising figure for five years. I mean outside of comics has there really been anything Hulk releated that got people talking about the character? No not really. Sure there have been comic stories, but everything else has been negatively impacted by the first Hulk movie, Hulk toys didn't sell because stores remembered how they were stuck with HUlk toys from the first movie (I don't anytime they snuck the Hulk into ML or anything like that, I mean something the Hulk name had to carry on it own). DC doesn't want to have Superman or Batman taken off the board as a merchadising cash cow. There's just too much money at stake to not have anything with the Superman or Batman likeness all over the place for fives years. For the last sixteen years batman has been a constint on TV, Movies and toyshelves. While not being nearly as large, Superman has always been an Iconic presence too.

 

So Warner Bros is very protective of Batman, Superman and most of the DC catalog. They realize what a misstep can do to a character (cough Batman and Robin cough). But let's see how Marvel handle having to change a lead in one of it's established francises or how severalaverage movies do for Marvel Studios. Warner Bros can afford to screw up a Superman or Batman movies that they have sunk 200 million into, Marvel can't.

[Superpowers1980]

Its just that in 10 years we are sitting on the sidelines while Marvel is making huge leaps and bounds. I know not every movie they made is good, heck I couldn't sit through Elekra or Daredevil -- 1/2 hour into it and I was done. I just wish DC or Warner (probably warner) needs to really boost up their movies. DC has a wealth of characters that are known, heck Iron Man is not an average name to the general public but people are into super hero movies now. Because Iron Man was a success so far they are really planning on rolling out the movies, I even heard an Ant Man movie. If they can make LOTR then we can see a New Gods film, come dudes we need Darkseid on the screen before Thanos. I know not every Marvel film is great but they hauling them out. Warner doesn't need to haul them out but we need more than a developing script and I heard JLA has been shelved due to the writer strike and now Wonder Woman is going to be animated instead of a live action movie WTFlip??? As a DC fan I am biased, but I do read Marvel (I am reading the Hulk and I LOVE IT) and read more Marvel than DC in the mid 90's until DC got their act together. Maybe this is like with the DC Universe classics, we waited for years and cried at the thought, cool Marvel Legends and no DC counter point, then blam DCUC IS KICKING A$$, maybe this movie thing is coming up for DC, Warner has to be taking notice.

 

side note: I was affected by fans buying up all the new Joker figures, went to TRU and Wal-Mart Friday and Sunday and the new Joker figures gone while at least 3 cases worth of goons and Batmen on the shelf. Only Joker they had were the smaller versions I was pissed. Then someone came in and bought all the Aquaman figures from TRU. That sucked, came back and the next day they cleared all the Harley figures, after that they cleared all of wave 2 and left a complete wave of 1, PLUS I KNOW FOR A FACT AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE HAS AN INSIDE GUY AT TRU who holds stuff for him and the counter, double fooey!!!