[TonyD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

Really? What the hell happened there? And it's another Warner title just like the upcoming botched Speed Racer BD. Interesting.

For the record I own the Sony BDP S-300 that only has DD+ (come on Sony, where's that firmware upgrade?) however I still want studios to put DD TrueHD on all their titles because i'll want that later.

SR was released with a trueHD track on blu-ray.

it was a pack in with a BR player a while ago.

there is rumor of it appearing at retail.

[Chuck Mayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Favate

Tim, I agree with this assessment of the movie. It's crazy that people talk about it like it was some kind of creative and financial failure. It was neither! When I saw it, I thought that, finally, the series was back with a film that - like the 1978 original - was worthy of the legend.

All this talk about creators trying to squeeze their way into the franchise seems just a way of exploiting a perception that the movie somehow didn't work and getting themselves in there.

I'll say it again: The movie was unfairly saddled with the costs of all the failed attempts to get the series going in the 90s (Tim Burton, Nick Cage, Kevin Smith, McG, etc.) so it would have had to do Dark Knight numbers to satisfy anyone. But the truth is it was a financial - and IMO creative - success.

Not correct. The actual budget for SR (ie what was on-screen), not counting the numerous failed attempts, was over $200M, somewhere around $220M, I believe. Which is what the film made. It is by no means a failure, but it is not a success either. When you spend $20M on a film and make $5M, that's OK. When you spend $220M on a film and make $20M...that's not. You don't gamble monstrous budgets like that for minimal gross. But it did make money, so it's certainly not a failure. But WB hasn't beat down the bush on the sequel yet, because they aren't sure what II will bring. They took a while on TDK as well, and I'm certain it was the DVD sales that told them a better story.

I also don't think it was a creative failure, but it didn't strike a chord with average moviegoers.

And Tim, I had NO idea why Superman cared for Lane at all. None. I don't know why Marsden's character liked her at all. Two years later, SR works less and less for me each time I see part of it. I like Routh, I like the suit, I see some of the design choices as good ones - the narrative is just weak.

I do love the opening shot, though. Just incredible.

[Kachi Khatri]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

. I like Routh, I like the suit,.. .

That's about all that did me for SR.

Superman IS an 'alien' and should engage into battles with powerful beings in the universe, not his damn emotions (which has already been done). Leave the emotional aspects for mere mortals to tackle, not the 'Man of Steel'.

[todd s]

I still think the space plane scene in SR would have been the best way(even over the helicopter rescue in Superman '78) to introduce the world to Superman. From the first super-fast blip on the radar to the quick glimpse Lois sees of a man like figure flying past the window to the dramatic stopping the plane in the stadium. It would have been iconic.

[Andy Sheets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

Not correct. The actual budget for SR (ie what was on-screen), not counting the numerous failed attempts, was over $200M, somewhere around $220M, I believe.

What's amazing is I don't even know where the money went. The plane rescue looked pretty cool but other than that, what in the film really justified such a budget?

[Patrick Sun]

I guess you didn't follow the production blog entries for Superman Returns in 2004-2005.

[Tim Glover]

Watching SR in HD-DVD on a 1080p Sony Pearl Projector (112 inch screen)....you can see where some of that budget went to. Seriously, despite the softness to it, the CGI shots are incredible and the action moments look real. Not just the plane rescue but the final hour...the plane/boat events and the crystal imploding in water sequences.

There's really not one moment (effects wise) that pulls me out. Can't say that with most of the films today. And the action served the film well, instead of creating simply cool ways to impress.

Chuck, Lane was hurt when Supe left for 5 years without saying a word. Had a kid, no word...she does have some reasons to be a tad bitter and cynical eventhough her heart still belongs to Superman. I thought she played it just right.

[RobertR]

Add me to the list of people who didn't like what Singer did with SR. Zero chemistry between Bosworth and Routh, LOATHED Spacey's Lex and his absurd evil plot, and have no use at all for the kid plot (completely uninteresting, useless character). I don't want the kid's existence referred to in any way at ALL in the next film, don't want Bosworth as Lois, and please, no Lex.

[Andy Sheets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

I guess you didn't follow the production blog entries for Superman Returns in 2004-2005.

No, I don't pay much attention to that stuff. So what was happening in those?

[Patrick Sun]

It's a lot of stuff that showed up on the extras of the Superman Returns DVD and HD DVD/BD. There were lots of quicktime videos of the different aspects of production, art design, director comments, Routh's weight training, location scouting, et al.