Superman Returns

[Sunlight_zero36]

Who's his girlfriend?

I went to the cinema and watched this. I t wasn't as good as Spiderman & Batman though. The thing that only captures me is Superman really . I stared at him the whole time . I think he's really cool as in the character. But the storyline wasn't that good.

Nevermind I know who his girlfriend is lol. It's Courtney Ford.

[beansprouts]

Watched the movie yesterday, kind of too long for me, would be better if it's a two hour movie. The baddie, Lex Luther, was more like comic relief than the villain. It was more entertaining for me to watch Lex and co. than Superman, they cracked me up.

[Dagger Lee]

Saw the movie last week. It wasn't too bad and much better than III and IV. The chemistry between Superman and Lois needs improvement. Plus, the movie could've used another villain besides Lex from the comics. Technology nowadays allows for some of the villains to appear on screen anyways.

[atlantean0208]

Saw the movie last week. It wasn't too bad and much better than III and IV. The chemistry between Superman and Lois needs improvement. Plus, the movie could've used another villain besides Lex from the comics. Technology nowadays allows for some of the villains to appear on screen anyways.

Agreed, storyline about Lex and Kryptonite sux, please give us Super-Villain next time, at least if the movie maker is a coward and cannot bring the Ruler of Apokolips, please give US braniac next time

[MrIllusion]

Actually I liked the way the movie didn't focus on superhero vs supervillain. That would have been too similar with the other superhero flicks already made.

When I think about classic hero vs villain setup, I think about about characters like Batman, Daredevil etc, characters that have a beef with specific villains and will ultimately get into a showdown with them. For groups like X-Men or Fantastic 4, the focus is about teamwork and group battles.

Likewise, when I think of Superman, I always think about a hero saving people from burning buildings, sinking ships, derailing trains etc.

For someone who is supposed to be 'unkillable', the only way to make any slugfest interesting would be to have a bigger and badder villain, or a deus ex machina like kryptonite. If filmakers take the former route, there is a danger of turning it into Dragonball, where characters got so powerful their feats became boring.

The original script for Superman Lives (the one Nicholas Cage was supposed to star in) has Superman up against Doomsday, which is probably what some of you guys want to see. It got scrapped due to company politics, but who knows, Warner Bros might just use the idea in the next one.

[atlantean0208]

Actually I liked the way the movie didn't focus on superhero vs supervillain. That would have been too similar with the other superhero flicks already made.

When I think about classic hero vs villain setup, I think about about characters like Batman, Daredevil etc, characters that have a beef with specific villains and will ultimately get into a showdown with them. For groups like X-Men or Fantastic 4, the focus is about teamwork and group battles.

Likewise, when I think of Superman, I always think about a hero saving people from burning buildings, sinking ships, derailing trains etc.

For someone who is supposed to be 'unkillable', the only way to make any slugfest interesting would be to have a bigger and badder villain, or a deus ex machina like kryptonite. If filmakers take the former route, there is a danger of turning it into Dragonball, where characters got so powerful their feats became boring.

The original script for Superman Lives (the one Nicholas Cage was supposed to star in) has Superman up against Doomsday, which is probably what some of you guys want to see. It got scrapped due to company politics, but who knows, Warner Bros might just use the idea in the next one.

and that is why it is considered a FLOP, got crush already on the second weekend by POTCII

[MrIllusion]

and that is why it is considered a FLOP, got crush already on the second weekend by POTCII

Who considers it a flop? Box office returns is a good method of gauging the popularity of a film, as it is heavily influenced by mass appeal. But it is not necessarily a good indication of the quality of a film.

Shows like Shawshank Redemption and Memento don't have high box office returns, yet they rank highly on imdb (Top 250 movies of all time). On the other hand, shows like the Matrix sequels have high box office returns, but are nowhere on that list.

imdb gives Pirates 2 a higher rating than Superman Returns (7.7 vs 7.4). Losing out to what is arguably a better film does not necessarily make it a failure.

Of course, even imdb has its share of criticisms, as user-based ratings are also not an accurate indication of quality. But neither is the box office.

[atlantean0208]

Who considers it a flop? Box office returns is a good method of gauging the popularity of a film, as it is heavily influenced by mass appeal. But it is not necessarily a good indication of the quality of a film.

Shows like Shawshank Redemption and Memento don't have high box office returns, yet they rank highly on imdb (Top 250 movies of all time). On the other hand, shows like the Matrix sequels have high box office returns, but are nowhere on that list.

imdb gives Pirates 2 a higher rating than Superman Returns (7.7 vs 7.4). Losing out to what is arguably a better film does not necessarily make it a failure.

Of course, even imdb has its share of criticisms, as user-based ratings are also not an accurate indication of quality. But neither is the box office.

Clearly you misunderstand the meaning of FLOP, flop doesn't means the movie quality is not good, flop means the movie doesn't make money, means that generally the movie not received well by the general population as more money means more people seeing it.

Superman cost about 260 million to make which include the cost for writing script for previously failed Superman movie effort and also for advertising and publicity. Now as you see from the boxoffice its struggling even to achieve the 2nd century marks. Who care about what the critics says, a movie is for the general audience, more and more audience go and watching it repeatedly means generally the movie is better. Look at Titanic, the wise-a-ss critic butchered it with bad review but its still make 600 million/1.8 billion world and make Cameron the king of the world.

Cameron can even make whatever movie he wants, Avatar and Battle Angel Alita.

Here I give you an example of FLOP:

10. Osmosis Jones
Money lost: $ 61 million
Worth checking out?: Definitely

9. Stealth
Money lost: $ 63 million
Worth checking out?: I wouldn't bother

8. The Postman
Money lost: $ 63 million
Worth checking out?: Not really

7. The 13th Warrior
Money lost: $ 64 million
Worth checking out?: For sure

6. Monkeybone
Money lost: $65 million
Worth checking out?: Probably the coolest movie in the list

5. The Alamo
Money lost: $69 million
Worth checking out?: Actually pretty good

4. A Sound of Thunder
Money lost: $ 74 million
Worth checking out?: This couldn't have been any worse if Uwe Boll had made it

3. Cutthroat Island
Money lost: $ 82 million
Worth checking out?: There's definitely a novelty factor there

2. Pluto Nash
Money lost: $ 93 million
Worth checking out?: This movie is just horrible

1. Town and Country
Money lost: $ 95 million
Worth checking out?: Well, it is the biggest flop ever!

FLOP - when the total box-offce gross cannot recover the movie budget

[MrIllusion]

FLOP - when the total box-offce gross cannot recover the movie budget

I'd like to contend this notion. Shawshank Redemption is the best example of a movie that was received poorly during its theatrical release, but made a comeback with home video and dvd releases. Many say part of the reason is due to the competition it faced from other blockbusters like Forrest Gump, Speed and Pulp fiction.

Wikipedia has a list of these so-called 'flops', with its criteria listed on the same page. But even then, there is a lot of disagreement on its accuracy because several factors are omitted, such as distribution costs, retail profits etc. The point is that gross earnings alone aren't enough to determine the full commercial value of a film.

The other thing to take into account is the lack of mass appeal in films which are otherwise solid, such as low-budget films (Reservoir Dogs), and foreign films (The Seven Samurai).

These films have less-than-stellar box office figures, and may have even incurred losses, but by no means are they considered flops.

Out of curiosity, how are you getting these figures? Are you citing sales on opening weekend or gross earnings? Are they USA or worldwide total?

[babybunny]

The guy who plays Superman fits the role perfectly. He's cute too.

The girl who plays Lois Lane is too fat. And she's not pretty enough for Superman.

[patricia n]

The girl who plays Lois Lane is too fat. And she's not pretty enough for Superman.

you're kidding me? kate bosworth is almost considered anorexic...that's just scary that you think she's too fat.

[0-0-0]

you're kidding me? kate bosworth is almost considered anorexic...that's just scary that you think she's too fat.

kate bosworth has never seemed anorexic in any of the photos i've seen of her, but she's definitely not fat
maybe this is why actresses continue to lose weight

[patricia n]

kate bosworth has never seemed anorexic in any of the photos i've seen of her, but she's definitely not fat
maybe this is why actresses continue to lose weight

more recently, she was spotted hiking by a dj...her face may look big but she definitely lost a lot of weight and was almost considered skeletal. she isn't fat...not yet anorexic. but with hollywood, i wouldn't be surprised if she feels pressured to lose more weight..sadly.

[atlantean0208]

I'd like to contend this notion. Shawshank Redemption is the best example of a movie that was received poorly during its theatrical release, but made a comeback with home video and dvd releases. Many say part of the reason is due to the competition it faced from other blockbusters like Forrest Gump, Speed and Pulp fiction.

Wikipedia has a list of these so-called 'flops', with its criteria listed on the same page. But even then, there is a lot of disagreement on its accuracy because several factors are omitted, such as distribution costs, retail profits etc. The point is that gross earnings alone aren't enough to determine the full commercial value of a film.

The other thing to take into account is the lack of mass appeal in films which are otherwise solid, such as low-budget films (Reservoir Dogs), and foreign films (The Seven Samurai).

These films have less-than-stellar box office figures, and may have even incurred losses, but by no means are they considered flops.

Out of curiosity, how are you getting these figures? Are you citing sales on opening weekend or gross earnings? Are they USA or worldwide total?

The figures is what the movie got from its whole run in domestic theatres only (north america) and not included DVD sales and overseas run. My flop definition only included domestic count only from opening until the last day of its normal release, if you include DVD sales and overseas run that is another comparisons.

Using my flop definition, clearly Superman Returns is a flop compare to POTCII. Just accept it POTCII is the mega blockbuster of 2006 - no argument, already considered to achieve the third century next week even possible to achieve the 4th century marks at the end of its domestic run.

[atlantean0208]

An example of a NOT FLOP super mega blockbuster:

Disney grossed $12.4M on Thursday for its summer blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest to give the Jerry Bruckheimer production a record-breaking opening week tally of $196M in seven days. Off 13% from Wednesday, the Johnny Depp adventure beat the previous record of $192.1M set in 2004 by Spider-Man 2 which launched during the Fourth of July holiday weekend. The webslinger sequel went on to gross $373.4M domestically.

[MrIllusion]

Using my flop definition, clearly Superman Returns is a flop compare to POTCII. Just accept it POTCII is the mega blockbuster of 2006 - no argument, already considered to achieve the third century next week even possible to achieve the 4th century marks at the end of its domestic run.

Err... compared to POTC II, all three Lord of the Rings movies and all three Matrix movies are also clearly flops. Compared to POTC II, even Spiderman 2 is a flop. Comparing the box office figures with a record earner is hardly ideal.

No one is saying that Pirates is not the latest blockbuster. But you're basically claiming that if a movie doesn't earn this much money back in domestic theatres within such and such a period of time, then it is a flop.

That seems to be a very personal opinion that is not in tandem with most movie-goers.

[atlantean0208]

Err... compared to POTC II, all three Lord of the Rings movies and all three Matrix movies are also clearly flops. Compared to POTC II, even Spiderman 2 is a flop. Comparing the box office figures with a record earner is hardly ideal.

No one is saying that Pirates is not the latest blockbuster. But you're basically claiming that if a movie doesn't earn this much money back in domestic theatres within such and such a period of time, then it is a flop.

That seems to be a very personal opinion that is not in tandem with most movie-goers.

LOL you always twist what I've said before, so I said it again, my definition of FLOP is when the boxoffice gross of a movie from its first opening day to the final day of its entire run (not include overseas and DVD sales) cannot cover its movie budget that include its promotion and advertising.

Revenge Of The sith
- production budget: 113 M
- domestic gross: 380 M
- NOT A FLOP

Spider-Man 2
- production budget: 200 M
- domestic gross: 373 M
- NOT A FLOP

Shrek 2
- production budget: 70 M
- domestic gross: 441 M
- NOT A FLOP

Spider-Man
- production budget: 139 M
- domestic gross: 403 M
- NOT A FLOP

POTCI
- production budget: 140 M
- domestic gross: 305 M
- NOT A FLOP

Pluto Nash
- production budget: 100 M
- domestic gross: 4 M
- FLOP - wasted 96 M

Superman Returns
- production budget: 260 M
- domestic gross: 152 M (as of today)
- WELCOME TO THE FLOP CLUB - :P

LOTR 1
- production budget: 93 M
- domestic gross: 314 M
- NOT A FLOP

LOTR 2
- production budget: 94 M
- domestic gross: 339 M
- NOT A FLOP

LOTR 3
- production budget: 94 M
- domestic gross: 377 M
- NOT A FLOP

Matrix
- production budget: 63 M
- domestic gross: 171 M
- NOT A FLOP

Matrix Reloaded
- production budget: 150 M
- domestic gross: 281 M
- NOT A FLOP

Matrix Revolutions
- production budget: 150 M
- domestic gross: 139 M
- A FLOP

[Eliar Swiftfire]

Yeah, Superman Returns did pretty disappointing business in the boxoffice. But then, as visually stunning as it was, it really wasn't the kind of film I would bother watching twice. Oh, my review of it is here

[Cr|sToPhE`]

well my only reaction to this movies is... nothing.... i fell asleep...

[Canuck21]

Pluto Nash
- production budget: 100 M
- domestic gross: 4 M
- FLOP - wasted 96 M

Oh my gosh! Talk about a humongus flop.