Superman: The Reboot --- Its official

[ancient]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Not neccesarily. Superman Returns earned $200 million domestically at the box office. X-Men: The Last Stand earned a little over $215 million. Not that big of a difference. Also, X3's budget inflated when Brett Ratner came onboard, from $175 million to a reported $200-225 million, averaging just around the same budget expenses for Returns. So X3 was a financial success, but just barely, and it hardly "trounced" Returns. If anything, the films were even at the box office. Critically, though, that's another story...

Ah, I must've been thinking of international numbers because I recalled a number in the 400's. I'm too lazy to research this, so I'll take your word for it. However, my point still stands that X-3 made more. It had a higher budget, then again it was paying 3rd movie salaries to Halley Berry, Patrick Stuart, The Wolverine Guy, Ian McWhatsits, and so on.

[darkwing_duck1]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

Agreed 100%.

My response to the "as dark as the character allows" comment, is this:

The character of Superman allows NO darkness.

That is simply not what Superman is supposed to be. He *must* be a nice guy. Somebody who actually smiles and enjoys his work. Somebody everyone can look up to and respect. Somebody who is ALL good and NO bad. The ultimate Boy Scout, as it were. Darkening all that - in any way - would completely ruin Superman as a character.

To paraphrase "What's So Funny About...": People who want a dark Superman really want Manchester Black. And look what happened to him.

I think a "Dark Superman" is a bad way to go, but to show that Superman, like everyone else, has a "dark side" (sorry, people for the pun) is a valid way to approach the character.

Superman in the DCAU (aka the "Timm-verse") was all the good things about Superman, but also very human, and was capable of sometimes being a little less than perfect. He still did the right thing in the end though.

I remember one memorable bit in JLU when Luthor was goading Superman, trying to get Supes to kill him (as a different dimension's Superman had done earlier in the season) and forever ruin his reputation. He had Luthor by the throat and had his eye-beams heating up and it looked like he was about to do it when he stopped, got it together, and said:

"I am NOT that man...right now I wish to God I WAS, but I'm not..."

Very human AND very Superman at the same time...

[theenglish]

You can have some dark elements to the film without making the character dark. I would definitely want a much more family friendly film than some of the recent efforts. When I saw Superman returns, my wife and I were hoping for children and we sat in front of a father and his son who was maybe four or five. The kid giggled and squealed every time Supes came on the screen and spent the whole time asking his dad questions about how many people Superman can help, not how many he can punch.

Now that I am the proud father of films, I would love to have a decent film that wouldn't give my kids nightmares if I took them to see it.

[Captain Craig]

ancient wrote:

---

Ah, I must've been thinking of international numbers because I recalled a number in the 400's. I'm too lazy to research this, so I'll take your word for it. However, my point still stands that X-3 made more. It had a higher budget, then again it was paying 3rd movie salaries to Halley Berry, Patrick Stuart, The Wolverine Guy, Ian McWhatsits, and so on.

Close. I wouldn't argue a rounding up but the actual number since we are on the topic is $391m.

Keep in mind that is not $391m that goes entirely back to the studio. Warners did not net $391million from Returns, that is the gross amount in ticket sales. Studios have a profiit sharing system with the theaters. The first 2 weeks typically favor the studio, at least US domestically, the heaviest in a 60/40 or 70/30 style split. It then tapers down over the movies run. They also have to do this internationally although I've yet to hear if its similar, better or worse.

This is why Warners has been dissapointed with Returns, because well its theatrical returns(no pun intended) were not that great when its all said and done.

Bottom line. Superman Returns did not make/net the studio $391m and that is where people get confused. The devil is in the details and I tried to give them in a condensed concise way. Hope it helped.

[zephramc]

Stone_Cold_Sisko wrote:

---

They did say darker 'as much as the characters allow' or something, which is a good sign.

Superman seemed pretty dark, and definitely creepy, in SR, what with stalking Lois Lane and all. I shudder to think how much more darker the character could be.

[theenglish]

zephramc wrote:

---

Superman seemed pretty dark, and definitely creepy, in SR, what with stalking Lois Lane and all. I shudder to think how much more darker the character could be.

People always seem to quote that part as being something wrong with Superman. The point I got from it though was that at that point in the film he was so completely out of touch with his humanity that he doesn't even understand that he is acting incorrectly. It stressed his isolation from the people around him.

[A beaker full of death]

theenglish wrote:

---

People always seem to quote that part as being something wrong with Superman. The point I got from it though was that at that point in the film he was so completely out of touch with his humanity that he doesn't even understand that he is acting incorrectly. It stressed his isolation from the people around him.

Jesus. That in and of itself tells you -- that isn't our Superman.
Superman doesn't look to humanity to learn how to behave. Superman leads the way. He is something for the rest of us to aspire to.
My Superman is anyway. I didn't recognize that sulking adolescent in SR.

[theenglish]

Right, but that was the point of the movie. He is NOT our Superman at the beginning of the film, but becomes so by the end when he rediscovers his humanity in the midst of the crisis with Luthor and the kidnapping of Lois and her son.

The problem is that the setup is completely lacking. The film has a problem in its execution IMO, not in the story itself.

[Guy Gardener]

I just had a complete epiphany!

The reason that Superman is such a deush, and disconnected from the people around him and even repeating the same phrases over and over again, like reality is on a loop is that Kal has been in Space in a box for 5 years in the same way that Tom Hanks spent a couple years on an island talking to a coconut in castaway.

He's completely batshit.

Then again considering that he is insane, maybe he's hallucinated his return to earth many times during the voyage to krypton and back that he is not completely sure that this is really earth and he's not just falling deeper into the grips of space maddness in his dinky space ship during it's massive interstellar journey...

If he erased Lois' memory of their love affair at the end of the second movie... Why doesn't lois think that she was raped, since she doesn't remember consenting to shagging the guy?

[LutherSloan]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

^ That's for sure. As disappointing as X3 was compared to the previous two instalments, I'd still rather watch it a dozen times in a row than subject myself to a repeat viewing of Returns.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I'm with you there.

[nx1701g]

^ I will admit it - I bought Returns the day it came out on DVD and I've watched it only half a dozen times only.

[Guy Gardener]

LutherSloan wrote:

---

I'm with you there.

Why not just masturbate with a cheese grater if you're refraining to decide between such horrible choices?

[ancient]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

I just had a complete epiphany!

The reason that Superman is such a deush, and disconnected from the people around him and even repeating the same phrases over and over again, like reality is on a loop is that Kal has been in Space in a box for 5 years in the same way that Tom Hanks spent a couple years on an island talking to a coconut in castaway.

He's completely batshit.

Now that actually makes sense. The movie presented the stalking as perfectly normal, and with no consequences at all. Essentially, the movie presented Superstalker as if it were no big deal.

If he erased Lois' memory of their love affair at the end of the second movie... Why doesn't lois think that she was raped, since she doesn't remember consenting to shagging the guy?

Like a lot of things in SR, the whole kid plotline was just an illogical contrivance to move the soapy drama forward with the obvious real-world consequences completely ignored. It was like a lifetime movie or something.

[Captain Craig]

nx1701g wrote:

---

^ I will admit it - I bought Returns the day it came out on DVD and I've watched it only half a dozen times only.

It was given to me that year at Christmas by my brothers girlfriend. She felt so proud of her choice I kept it. I've watched it all of twice. However, I have watched the plane sequence a few times. Its the only part of the movie worth a damn really.