The Further Adventures of Superman - Page 2

Brainiac. City Shrinkin'. Gimme.

Just throwing some ideas out there...

I read this on Wikipedia ...

Sounds like a good sequel to me. Brendan Fraser came to mind as evil Bizarro.

Well, with McG, Brett Ratner and a talented-but-inappropriate-for-this Tim Burton as the alternatives offered, I think Singer was a good choice. Granted, I agree with you about his disappointing hit/miss ratio on RETURNS but it could have been far, far worse.

Unfortunately, I think you're absolutely right.

The villain should be one of those two-bit greaseballs from the 50s TV show.

And he should wear a fedora, and say "youse". Also, he should have a chunk of kryptonite for no good reason.

While I'm not openly advocating Doomsday, it's hard to not see the WB start to think "Hey, maybe we were right with all that black suit, giant spider stuff." And Doomsday would be in line with that thinking.

But we should all feel about Doomsday the way we feel about Venom. Who's to say he'll suck onscreen? This isn't the case of Gambit, where everything about him sucks conceptually. Visually, he's can't-miss- a giant monster thug who just wails on Superman over and over again. Methinks Bryan Singer has the restraint to avoid this character, but if he was mandated, who says he couldn't be interesting as a no-frills megamonster?

Since Gotham was mentioned during a newscast in RETURNS, I guess a Supes/Bats showdown is also inevitable.

Well, no more inevitable than it was when they mentioned Metropolis in Batman Forever.

I wonder if the numbers improved slightly over the actual holiday. I used to hate working at the theater on the actual fourth. Even the lowest grossing about to disappear movie would be packed to the gills.

Haven't seen this yet, but for some reason I am really hoping that it is considered a success. Don't know why.

Superman/Batman will happen eventually. We will all beg for it not to but then we'll smile from ear to ear the first time a set photo leaks showing them together in their outfits.

Well, that was back when the SUPERMAN franchise was really dead. Now, with both Bats and Supes back in play (I guess), it seems more likely.

I'm all for the teamups. You'd think the studios would be all over it, assuming it's not about budget concerns. Consolodation of audiences. Suppose they'll wait until they wring any goodwill out of both franchises, then put out a teamup that nobody will care about. Yes, that seems likely.

There's just no large interest in Superman on his own. BATMAN will get a couple more flicks to flesh out his big villains but I don't think there will be another SUPERMAN movie that doesn't involve him working with some major DC hero, probably Batman.

Yeah, I have to admit, as a huge fan of both of their new incarnations, I'd be pretty excited for Batman/Superman. They've just cast them both so well, and with them both alive and kicking now (Batman more than Superman probably) it would be pretty cool somewhere down the road. Please God, no Wolfgang Peterson, but someone special could do this. And for anyone saying that they can't do this well, watch the animated "World's Finest". Perfect team-up, even from a Lex/Joker standpoint.

I don't think this film version of Superman can effectively exist in another movie with another superhero. He's God, basically. He can do essentially anything. People expecting a Superman/Batman team-up are forgetting that Donner's (and subsequently Singer's) version of Superman is nothing like the "Man of Steel" that most of us are accustomed to. If we're talking about Brandon Routh's Superman meeting Christian Bale's Batman, I don't see it working. The franchises are far too divergent to mesh together, and they should probably stay that way.

I'd rather see what happens next in another installment of each franchise than slow that process down with a cross-marketing campaign.

I think it could work. Nolan and Singer took great pains to ground these fellows that wear tights in a sense of realism (oxymorons aside). I don't see how they are all that divergent in terms of the rules of their respective worlds.

I do agree with Robot on the issue of each needing another movie....Superman especially. He needs a villain to take him down a peg in the next film. He does need to have some vulnerability that makes it beneficial for him to team up with Batman.

I imagine both characters will limp ahead in their solo sequels and then, unless box office and/or perceived success improves significantly, save the team-up for a mutual #3. Of course, by then, Goyer might have made his FLASH and Whedon his WONDER WOMAN, so who knows what desperate measures Warner execs could resort to?

I think a Justice League movie for characters like Flash and Wonder Woman makes more sense than giving every single comic book character their own movie. The X-Men formula is something to look at...though it is of course a different animal. The X-Men have been tied together for a long time. Their development happened as a team book. Justice League was done after each of these characters had been established.

Still I wonder how much of a market there is for individual movies about THor, Iron Man, Captain America, etc.

Iron Man is the only comic book character that I want to see get the big-screen treatment. Even moreso knowing that Jon Favreau is doing it.

Captain America is going to be tough to translate to a movie.

It's getting to the point of being a mixed bag for what's left of the comic book movies. IRON MAN stands the best chance of clicking with audiences. Nick Fury is one I'd like to see done right. But I don't imagine any of the remaining DC crop exciting a large audience and would only get a buzz started if lumped into one film.

A Captain America movie, if done right, could be the crown jewel of superhero movies. Even better than Spiderman 2, which I worship.

Of course, when I say if done right, I mean with the ideas I have, so that means nothing. I would gladly blow somebody at Marvel if they could guarantee an opening in WWII with the Red Skull.

Look at that damn costume that CA wears. Make it too faithful and it looks like shit. Make it too live-action-friendly and it looks like shit. I think it's going to be tough as shit to do Captain America without him looking like a complete ass.

I don't know that the latest animated incarnation was very much less powerful than the Donner/Singer version, and they made it work quite well.

No doubt, it would be a very delicate balance and tall creative order, but I think it could be done. However it would require a greater emphasis on Batman as detective that the movies have been pretty much opposed to doing, but maybe coupled with Superman for the fireworks they could explore that angle.

Think of the flag in "Saving Private Ryan". Faded, tattered, off color, but still Old Glory. That's the way to go.

A first Cap film would have to take place in WW2. Not a groundbreaking thought but there is just no way around it.

The latest animated version was based on the Post-Crisis "Man of Steel" Superman. Donner's version, and the version Singer uses, is the Pre-Crisis, more or less Silver Age version. There's an immense gulf of differense.

Neither of these franchises are in play. SUPERMAN is quite likely done, and BATMAN hangs on by a thread. There is still plenty of time for WB to cut their losses on BATMAN and just fold the sequel.

Or they could cut the budgets from 180-200 mil. to the 110-140 mil. range.

Why would they bother? Even if they could cut the budget that low, the chance that they get a runaway hit the 2nd time out is slim so the profits will still be marginal. And with the lukewarm reception to SR a sequel is likely to pull in less. It's too big a gamble.

Yeah, I know. The whole thing feels deader by the minute. I guess that's why I said "I guess."

Batman Begins had decent legs and nice reception overall. A sequel budgeted at 130 million might actually make money back from domestic grosses. I can't think of anything in a Batman movie that should make Warners spend 200 million on it. Of course I think this is about a wider problem regarding studio bloat on any film that is budgeted above 60 million.

Superman is of course not looking good at this point.

I was just referring to Superman. Batman is still viable.

I think some of you are remembering Batman Begins as a bigger hit than it really was.

According to Box Office Mojo...

Batman Begins
Production Budget: $150 million
Domestic: $205,343,774
Foreign: $166,510,009
Worldwide: $371,853,783

In America, it was only the 8th biggest grossing movie of the year, just behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.


I definitely was remembering Batman Begins as a bigger hit than it actually was.

No that is about what I remember...except I thought the production budget was 185 Million? Maybe that is with publicity factored in. Either way 200 million dollars domestic for a movie that doesn't appeal to the kiddies isn't bad...especially with a lot of the mainstream public expecting something like Batman and Robin. Again, if they can get the total budget down to something like 140...I think they will do at least 200 Million domestic again. The movie really did have a good reception amongst the peoples. I can see anticipation building enough over three years to where it would perform better.

I remember Begins being a consistent film week after week and being around for quite some time.

It's kind of ironic how things have turned around where Marvel can seem to do no wrong and DC is the one struggling.

I wonder if the vulnerable, flawed approach simply works better on the Marvel characters, since they were originally conceived with those traits in mind, and audiences don't warm to it when it's applied to the more mythic characters like Batman and Superman.

You mean just like it was only a few years ago? What's interesting is how fast the cycle has repeated. A few years ago, you had Marvel on a high with the Spidey and X-Men films, DC on a low, struggling to figure out Superman and Batman. Then, DC seemed to get a boost by following the Marvel playbook by making decisions which (at least in theory) seemed well-considered and respectful of the characters, resulting in early enthusiasm for BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS...all the while Marvel started to lose fanboy favor with DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, HULK, FANTASTIC FOUR and presumably GHOST RIDER. And then, just as fast, BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS are seen as underperformers and Marvel's got a blockbuster with X3 and a kick-ass trailer for SPIDER-MAN 3.

But I think you're right. Today's audiences can better relate to Marvel characters, who all seem like (basically) ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, while DC characters are far removed from our own experience, unless you're an alien with superpowers or a billionaire with a cave.

Sounds weird with it being a summer comic book movie, but BB2 might be one of those movies that WB greenlights to please the critics given its better-than-the-average-comic-book-movie critical response.

How was merchandising? They didn't go all out like they did on the previous movies.

A Batman sequel would have the benefit of The Joker, his most identifiable and popular villian. If they cast a well-known actor, that alone would create some much-needed buzz for the film and get people interested in the film.

Begins wasn't a blockbuster but a sequel has potential if done right.

I don't think it's necessarily about relatability, I think it's about pereception. People don't want to see Superma or Batman as vulnerable conflicted men because for years they've been portrayed as the mighty, god-like hero, the Sun God and the Lord of the Underworld. They go in expecting one thing and get another, and it's jarring. Batman may be a little more accepted because of Miller's Dark Knight, but Superman never had a break-out reimagining of that calibur (or at least one that broke into the mainstream) -- he's always been the Man of Steel, the invulnerable hero, and I don't think people want to see him wrestle with having a son and whether or not Lois still loves him.

I think the fact that both Batman and Superman have been done in many incarnations before has muted the reception to their newest installments. I'm not going to dive back into the BB debate, but it made a decent profit and was generally well recieved by audiences, and has done even better on DVD. I think the way the previous franchises trailed off into shittiness turned off a lot of people, and not following movies, didn't get terribly excited about new installments. I don't think people are really disliking "Superman Returns", just not a ton of people are rushing to see it on the big screen. I think it will expand its audience enough on DVD to warrant a less expensive sequel.

When you compare Spider-Man and X-Men, done in live action properly for the first time, it fires people up more than seeing the 5th Batman and Superman movies.

Neither Batman Begins or Superman Returns have the colorful and kinetic style of the Spider-Man films, or the omnium-gatherum of superpowered characters that the X-Men films supply to keep the eye busy.

When I saw Batman Begins & Superman Returns there was nothing but a theater full of adults; not a kid to be found (although I'll excuse Superman b/c it was at a midnight screening).

My love more DC's library far outweighs my interest in Marvel's, but DC's films suffer from familiarity, fresh in the mind failures (or long absences), and two reboots that take a character-driven, muted approach, and skimp on the spectacle.

Say what you will about Batman '89, but I very clearly remember a packed theater of people going batshit insane, and having a blast. When I saw Batman Begins, the audience reaction mirrored the film's subdued quality, w/ Superman Returns occasionally getting the rah!-rah!-rah! treatment.
This is all kind of funny b/c when I saw Spider-Man it was a pretty dour and tedious affair in terms of audience reaction, hell, some five-year old kid even begged his mother to leave during the first Spider-Man/Green Goblin fight. Then I saw the box-office take and critical reception, and was genuinely fucking shocked. I guess you never can tell.

I don't care for Joss Whedon, but if the guy can get a handle on my beloved Wonder Woman and give DC and the WB the movie they've truly been waiting for, then my hat is off to him.

Yeah, but isn't this negating the pride factor? These studios and their tentpole movies, they are often so desperate- none of them can save face after a disastrous movie showing. WB essentially promised their investors a new "Superman" franchise- they have to do at least one more before they cave in. Look at FOX and "Daredevil", which both underperformed and was generally disliked- they promised an "Elektra" spinoff, and dagnabbit, they weren't gonna stop until they made one!

It would be even more embarassing, after all these years in development, if WB just walked away with their tail between their legs, closing up shop in a "Superman" series. Particularly with FOX's smug attitude in the wake of "X-Men: The Last Stand", in that they weren't interested in a straight sequel.

I certainly wouldn't say that Daredevil underperformed, even moreso considering it was a February release, was dead center in the Bennifer fiasco, critically panned, and is a generally unpopular superhero. It cost just under 80 million and grossed just over 100 million domestically. I remember there being a lot of buzz during the DVD release, which made me eventually pick it up (Hey, it's a good, shitty little movie). If anything, I would rule Daredevil as a sleeper hit.

Does that $80 million include P&A? Because if it doesn't (and I'm pretty sure it doesn't) and considering how poorly received it was critically, then I would say it wasn't that solid of a release. And that's being kind.

Did you expect it to gross over 100 mil? I sure as shit didn't.

And how it was received by critics is irrelevant, I'm talking about if it made money or not. And yeah, I think it made more than it deserved. I expected 50 mil at best.

I recall a big ad campaign. I remember $50 million being thrown around.