Brandon Routh no longer under contract for Supes!

[60'schild]

You're not "completely" wrong.

If anything, Singer deserves another shot. At least he understands the
public's connection to the Bronze Age media Supes, even if he fumbled
it for the general public in SR.

Unfortunately, I disagree completely.

He had his shot and his "vision" did not click with enough of the public, regardless of its merits. (The shortcomings overshadowed them IMHO).

For the type of significent change several of the posters (including me) are suggesting in this thread, we need new actors, a new style, new emphasis, and a new director/writers/producer...

Talented or not, it's unlikely that only Singer has the Silver/Bronze age "vision."

[saildog]

Bottom line is this (for me): If Iron Man could be made into a hit through the benefit of having a capable director and brilliant (albeit very fortunate) casting, then there is no way in hell we shouldn't expect the same or better for Superman.

Hector, I'm going to admit it: No other Superhero deserves to have a well-thought out strategy in order to bring a masterpiece to the Big Screen above Supes and it is sad as heck that it ain't happened. If Hollywood can't pull that off....well they should just quit. Give any of us the budgets they have and we could call in the folks to make it happen. Marvel has proven that it can be done. No disrespect to Spidey or Iron Man, but Supes deserves to stand head and shoulders above any Superhero on the Big Screen. (Yes, even above Bats. Though it pains me a little to admit it, Supes should be the penultimate movie hero.)

[huedell]

Christopher Reeve's Superman was just a link in a long chain of portrayals Superman.

The chain should not stop because of him.
Superman Returns was a failure for a number of reasons ....
One reason was because it had a bad boring story.
Another reason was because they tried to make a Christopher Reeeve Superman movie without ANYONE related to the real ones --- In all effects, Superman Returns played like a bad internet fan film.

I can't disagree with a LOT of what you wrote there in that ^ post Mike.
(Most poignantly, altho' I liked the story okay, the story was INDEED bland to
the majority of people)

Except....

I personally believe that it was the DIFFERENCES from the Reeve films
that doomed Singer...not the simillarities...so, there's that

He had his shot and his "vision" did not click with enough of the public, regardless of its merits. (The shortcomings overshadowed them IMHO).

For the type of significent change several of the posters (including me) are suggesting in this thread, we need new actors, a new style, new emphasis, and a new director/writers/producer...

Talented or not, it's unlikely that only Singer has the Silver/Bronze age "vision."

Okay, okay.

I AGREE that Singer should in all effect, hand over the reins to someone else
after fumbling SR....BUT....that doesn't mean I still wouldn't stand behind him
in ANOTHER shot at it if you (or WB) asked me!

Another message to you and others that may think like you is that I think you underestimate Singer and the basic dynamics of exactly why his
movie ultimately (ahem) "failed".

(Can you believe a movie that makes over 200 million like that
is being raked over the coals like this? I can't!)

[huedell]

Bottom line is this (for me): If Iron Man could be made into a hit through the benefit of having a capable director and brilliant (albeit very fortunate) casting, then there is no way in hell we shouldn't expect the same or better for Superman.

What hurts me is that I didn't enjoy IRON MAN and I DID enjoy SUPES RETURNS.

Not that that really matters in the bigger schene of what we're talking about here, cause I'm in the minority----but I just thought I'd mention another
reason how screwed I feel with superhero movies!

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

If Batman made over $500 Million (easily), then Superman should make at least $300 or $400 Million without even trying. . . .unless something kept people away . . . . .and it did.

[huedell]

If Batman made over $500 Million (easily), then Superman should make at least $300 or $400 Million without even trying. . . .unless something kept people away . . . . .and it did.

That's unacceptable "proof that RETURNS failed" to me Aussie.

From WIKI regarding SUPERMAN RETURNS:
"(SUPERMAN RETURNS made) $391.08 million worldwide

Although Superman Returns received positive reviews, Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures admitted in August 2006 that they were somewhat disappointed by the film's box office return.[55] That same month, Warner Bros. President Alan F. Horn stated, "I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide. We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also from WIKI regarding BATMAN BEGINS that came out around the same
time SUPERMAN RETURNS did under a simillar "reboot" scenario.

The film held its top spot for another weekend, accumulating $27,589,389 in a 43 percent drop from its first weekend.[62] Batman Begins went on to gross $372,353,017 worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So SUPERMAN RETURNS loses by a small margin in the U.S.A. to
BATMAN BEGINS, but on the same token SUPES RETURNS BEATS BATS BEGINS
worldwide gross by a small margin.

So, how much did people really "stay away" from SUPES RETURNS in the
context of a simillarly marketed movie????

p.s.

I guess the "$500 million" you're talking about is connected to TDK?
Or as I like to call it: "That movie that made an additional huge chunk of
money riding on the death of Heath Ledger's coattails?"

[saildog]

What hurts me is that I didn't enjoy IRON MAN and I DID enjoy SUPES RETURNS.

Not that that really matters in the bigger schene of what we're talking about here, cause I'm in the minority----but I just thought I'd mention another
reason how screwed I feel with superhero movies!

Well, if it is any consolation, a large part of why I enjoyed that movie is directly tied to the fact that it was the first Superhero movie I could take my Niece to see. She was 7 at the time and aside from the scene where Tony had the one night stand, it was completely appropriate for her age. I looked over when the scene in question happened to see if I might need to explain anything and she was digging in the popcorn. The scene was so fast that she missed it. She loved the movie and that made it a damned good movie to me. I'll never know if I would have liked it on my own, but high-fiving with my Niece when Iron Man did something kick-arse made the movie forever a 5-Star film in my opinion. Probably like why my Mom likes Star Wars or Superman.

In other words, I'm biased for Iron Man and I'll admit it.

[huedell]

Well, if it is any consolation, a large part of why I enjoyed that movie is directly tied to the fact that it was the first Superhero movie I could take my Niece to see. She was 7 at the time and aside from the scene where Tony had the one night stand, it was completely appropriate for her age. I looked over when the scene in question happened to see if I might need to explain anything and she was digging in the popcorn. The scene was so fast that she missed it. She loved the movie and that made it a damned good movie to me. I'll never know if I would have liked it on my own, but high-fiving with my Niece when Iron Man did something kick-arse made the movie forever a 5-Star film in my opinion. Probably like why my Mom likes Star Wars or Superman.

In other words, I'm biased for Iron Man and I'll admit it.

That post ^ was a nice gesture to me on your part saildog
(and your description of you and your niece's 'IRON MAN connection"
was exponentially nicer)
but no need to sugarcoat it----a billion other people felt
like you, and they couldn't ALL be biased

[Hector]

Bottom line is this (for me): If Iron Man could be made into a hit through the benefit of having a capable director and brilliant (albeit very fortunate) casting, then there is no way in hell we shouldn't expect the same or better for Superman.

Hector, I'm going to admit it: No other Superhero deserves to have a well-thought out strategy in order to bring a masterpiece to the Big Screen above Supes and it is sad as heck that it ain't happened. If Hollywood can't pull that off....well they should just quit. Give any of us the budgets they have and we could call in the folks to make it happen. Marvel has proven that it can be done. No disrespect to Spidey or Iron Man, but Supes deserves to stand head and shoulders above any Superhero on the Big Screen. (Yes, even above Bats. Though it pains me a little to admit it, Supes should be the penultimate movie hero.)

I love you so much right now...

[Hector]

Superman Returns was not a box office flop...it made nice change...but it was not a bona-fide blockbuster either.

[saildog]

That's unacceptable "proof that RETURNS failed" to me Aussie.

From WIKI regarding SUPERMAN RETURNS:
"(SUPERMAN RETURNS made) $391.08 million worldwide

Although Superman Returns received positive reviews, Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures admitted in August 2006 that they were somewhat disappointed by the film's box office return.[55] That same month, Warner Bros. President Alan F. Horn stated, "I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide. We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also from WIKI regarding BATMAN BEGINS that came out around the same
time SUPERMAN RETURNS did under a simillar "reboot" scenario.

The film held its top spot for another weekend, accumulating $27,589,389 in a 43 percent drop from its first weekend.[62] Batman Begins went on to gross $372,353,017 worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So SUPERMAN RETURNS loses by a small margin in the U.S.A. to
BATMAN BEGINS, but on the same token SUPES RETURNS BEATS BATS BEGINS
worldwide gross by a small margin.

So, how much did people really "stay away" from SUPES RETURNS in the
context of a simillarly marketed movie????

p.s.

I guess the "$500 million" you're talking about is connected to TDK?
Or as I like to call it: "That movie that made an additional huge chunk of
money riding on the death of Heath Ledger's coattails?"

Dude, Batman Begins (a reboot) may have made less than Superman Returns (promoted as a sequel), but the proof is The Dark Knight made over One Billion Dollars and we sit silent for a Supes sequel. Why is that? (maybe they should have rebooted....and I get that you have argued for that, Hue.)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, crapfest it was, made nearly 800 Million Dollars Worldwide.

Now, all are established characters with a proven track record. Difference: Bale as Batman is a hot commodity. Who is going to play Supes from here on out? How effective is Harrison Ford as an action hero beyond now?

[huedell]

Dude, Batman Begins (a reboot) may have made less than Superman Returns (promoted as a sequel), but the proof is The Dark Knight made over One Billion Dollars and we sit silent for a Supes sequel. Why is that? (maybe they should have rebooted....and I get that you have argued for that, Hue.)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, crapfest it was, made nearly 800 Million Dollars Worldwide.

Now, all are established characters with a proven track record. Difference: Bale as Batman is a hot commodity. Who is going to play Supes from here on out? How effective is Harrison Ford as an action hero beyond now?

Hmmmmmm.

Nice counterpoint saildog.

Dang! I wish I was ten years younger and beautiful.

Then, maybe I'D get a chance to play Clark/Supes

Or at least I might've gotten a shot at playing Lane.

EVEN A GUY'd have a better shot at playing her than that last chick

[huedell]

By the way, this has been bugging me so much today/yesterday
that I have been writing my OWN Superman movie since this morning.

It's only six pages and a rough outline of the rest of the movie
but I still love it

[saildog]

Or at least I might've gotten a shot at playing Lane.

EVEN A GUY'd have a better shot at playing her than that last chick

I don't think it has ever been about the chick, as obvious as that choice may seem.

Lois Lane.........a joke in all Superman Entries.

Vicky Vale, Chase Merideth, Rachel Daws............well, I'd still want to go 12 rounds in the sack with Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman, given the opportunity......Rachel Daws...........meh. None of the Batman chicks were anywhere as significant a role as Lois is to Superman. As it should be, given the nature of the comics. Lois is a huge part of the Supes mythology. Bats has nothing comparable, save Selena Kyle and they punted on that one by making her less than Bruce's peer. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was that????

Mary Jane......Kirsten Dundst???????? Nah. (Although, I will admit to thinking Bryce Howard was smoking hot as Gwen Stacey, but that may be about my own perverted preferences).

Iron Man....Pepper Potts was not major character.

[huedell]

I have my own vision of LOIS LANE and she's the type of chick that
I'd cast Fairuza Balk to play...that casting should explain it all...
pure and simple.