A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed. I have Quest for Peace on DVD, and I consider it the worst installment in the entire Superman movie lineup.
Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Agreed. I have Quest for Peace on DVD, and I consider it the worst installment in the entire Superman movie lineup.
Which is why they gave the movie to Zack Snyder, whose last THREE movies really fatally bombed? At least Superman Returns made its budget back.
Watchmen was a niche comic book rated R movie that made $185 million in theaters, not counting home video. Even on a $130 budget I wouldn't call that a "fatal bomb". That's a 1.42 ratio.
Guardians of Ga'Hoole did $140 million on a $80 budget. Again, not great, not terrible. 1.75
Sucker Punch, thus far, had almost made it budget back (78 gross, 82 budget). Definitely a disappointment. I imagine it will do great on home video, though. 0.95
Bryan Singer does have a better recent track record, though.
Valkyrie did 200 mil on a 75 budget. 2.67 Superman Returns did 391 on a 270 budget. 1.45
Guardians of Ga'Hoole did $140 million on a $80 budget. Again, not great, not terrible. 1.75
Sucker Punch, thus far, had almost made it budget back (78 gross, 82 budget). Definitely a disappointment. I imagine it will do great on home video, though. 0.95
Bryan Singer does have a better recent track record, though.
Valkyrie did 200 mil on a 75 budget. 2.67 Superman Returns did 391 on a 270 budget. 1.45
I loved "Superman Returns" despite not liking certain elements in it which I've stated before in countless other threads on the topic. I don't blame Bryan for making the movie that he wanted to make. I was expecting something totally different. I think we got an original story that suffered from being a homage to the Donner films. Singer's comments on continuity of the film also has given me maybe my all time favorite quote from a filmmaker describing continuity in a franchise when he said that it takes place in a "Vague continuity" in Donner's universe. I rolled my eyes at that comment lol.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_EkvOCjc9A[/yt]
Smith talks SR, back before a reboot was announced. Note the Trek reference.
Smith talks SR, back before a reboot was announced. Note the Trek reference.
I believe that he did post a review where he said JJ nailed it.
yea hes mentioned it on his Smodcast too
^ Yep. That's where I heard it. Thanks for that.
Why did you roll your eyes? What's wrong with a "vague continuity"?
Nothing is wrong with a vague continuity except that the film clearly references and expects some of it's audience to know that it is a continuation of "Superman II". The fact that Singer didn't right off acknowledge this in his press junkets bothered me. My point is that he could have come right out and said something like "Yes, the film takes place roughly after the events of Superman II but doesn't entirely acknowledge everything that happened in that movie." Essentially this was a new version of "Superman III" that ignored "Superman III".
The comment came directly from Singer himself. In video interviews and an online interview he gave before the film came out. I will attempt to do a search to see if I can find the exact quote.
Here's an EW article that contains the quote.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1073416,00.html
Here's an EW article that contains the quote.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1073416,00.html
You just summed up my feelings about Lois Lane in general, not just Bosworth's version.
The link you just posted (thanks) seems to say exactly that. I dunno how you can fault him for not saying it when he actually did. He put the idea out there. I had a pretty good idea of how the continuity worked before I saw it on opening night.
And if he didn't come right out and explain it in the explicit terms you seem to have wanted, can you blame him? Dude directed a summer blockbuster and you can't expect him to spill all the beans before the thing even comes out. I thought he was as forthright as he could be within those guidelines.
Last edited:
I don't fault him for making the comments. It's really just a comment that I like to have fun with now. At the time it bothered me, I'm not even saying that he misrepresented the movie either. I just wish he would have been a little more clear rather than just state vague. I'm not explaining myself well at all here. Jackson Archer knows precisely what I'm talking about.
I like that he didn't refer to Superman Returns as a sequel to Superman and Superman II that ignores III and IV. I don't like the idea that you can just ignore some installments in a series. And honestly, I'm surprised that most people don't mind that sort of thing.
I love "Superman II". I appreciated the excuse to watch it again before "Superman Returns" came out based on Singer's statement about 'vague continuity'. Doing so didn't make the movie more enjoyable.
If anything, it made me enjoy the movie less because with "Superman II" still fresh in my mind, it paled in comparison. I remember after it was over, I was wishing there could be a movie with a story and acting as fun as that of "Superman II" and special effects as good as those in "Superman Returns". Maybe that can finally happen now.
If anything, it made me enjoy the movie less because with "Superman II" still fresh in my mind, it paled in comparison. I remember after it was over, I was wishing there could be a movie with a story and acting as fun as that of "Superman II" and special effects as good as those in "Superman Returns". Maybe that can finally happen now.
What version of Superman II have you seen?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0[/yt]
I can't stop shaking my head at how painfully awkward this is.
