DC Universe

Post by **Josh** » August 18th, 2006, 5:31 am

I know we have some Superman and X-Men fans here. Hence, I thought this article was worth mentioning: "X-Men vs. Superman: Fox has hit, Warners has Singer".

It begins by comparing the box office runs and behind-the-scenes accounts of X-Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns. However, it then drifts more toward Returns, considering the future of the franchise and Singer's prospects at Warner Bros.

Overall, the article might not tell you anything you don't already know. However, I think it presents a nice summarization of the topics at hand.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 18th, 2006, 2:47 pm

the sense in Hollywood is that Fox scored with "Last Stand" despite the director, not because of him.

Hey, that's just like with Batman Forever!

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 21st, 2006, 9:32 am

I wonder if SR didn't do as well as people thought because of some people's disillusionment with politics, Bush and the War. I think if it had come out in '02 or '03, it would have done tons better. (Even though they never actually said "the American way.")

After all, Reeve's Superman came out in '78--one year after Star Wars--when the gung-ho eighties and Reagan's America were right around the corner. The Star Wars sequels also came out in the early '80s, a time of optimism. If Star Wars had been released ten years earlier, it wouldn't have done half as well. Ditto Superman '78.

(my opinion

)

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » August 21st, 2006, 10:50 am

The only problem with that theory is that in '78 Reagan and the "gung ho" era may have been right around the corner but nobody knew that. '78 was smack in the middle of the Carter administration when Republicans and Democrats were all still crooks and we turned to a Georgia peanut farmer to be President whose only legacy would be a failed mid-east peace plan and the inability to rescue our hostages in Iran for more than a year. Seriously though, taxes were at their all time high, the "energy crisis" left people waiting hours in line for gas, and the nuclear family was being torn apart afte two very turbulent decades. The Iran hostages hadn't even been abducted by this point to form a focal point of unity.

If anything political was the rallying point for Superman it was the Cold War in which despite domestic toubles we had the Soviet Union breathing down our backs and pointing a nuclear missile at our thoats. A touch of one button could potentially end it all. That's why the world needed a "savior" as SR so elegantly put it - same as when the comics found their popularity against the fear of the axis powers in the early 40s.

Today we are in a War on Terror but you can't put a face on that war as it's too broad - not Bin Laden, Al Qaida, N. Korea, Il, Iran, Iraq, or even Sadam Hussein has emerged as that face like Hitler did in WWII or Stalin, Kruschev, and Gorbachaf did in the Cold War. Thus if the evil doesn't have a face, we feel no need to create a face for the hero as well in the form of Superman.

And lastly, here at home we don't fear like we did in the other wars which is kinda ironic. Despite 9/11 we're not truly afraid of this war at home and the possibility that it could (again) reach our soil. Instead we are more concerned with our image to the rest of the world and protecting our rights and freedoms. Thus again their is no need for an all-powerful, omnicient being who is going to protect us but in the process subvert the law stifling our rights and trampling on our freedom - even if it's only for a few seconds.

And that was way longer thand I intended it to be. =P

Post by **Dacey** » August 21st, 2006, 1:31 pm

Look, the reason that "Superman Returns" didn't break out like people were expecting it would is obvious: It didn't have enough action.

I mean, what we got was great, but I wanted more of it. And that seems to be the general opinion from what I've been reading.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 21st, 2006, 2:59 pm

You make some very good points, Brandon. Mostly I just meant that the audience in '78 probably was also disillusioned with the 1970s (who wasn't?) and a new superhero movie with romance and special effects was just the start of the many escapist films that would come out in the '80s.

It's true that there were political issues like the price of gas and middle east terrorism happening but unlike in the 60s and early 70s people just did not want to think about it anymore. The Vietnam war was a fading memory that people wanted to forget. It was time for a good old kick a** American hero!

(I think this attitude was also reflected, on a smaller scale maybe, in the success of Spider-Man in '02 and even in '04. I also think that the stunning box office gross of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (especially Two Towers, which came out right on the heels of the Iraq war) was very much connected to the political climate in the U.S.

The only problem with that theory is that in '78 Reagan and the "gung ho" era may have been right around the corner but nobody knew that. '78 was smack in the middle of the Carter administration when Republicans and Democrats were all still crooks and we turned to a Georgia peanut farmer to be President whose only legacy would be a failed mid-east peace plan and the inability to rescue our hostages in Iran for more than a year.

Exactly....which was why people embraced President Reagan as the New Hope and elected him twice. (especially since he cut taxes) He was as different from Carter as George W. is to Bill Clinton. His hard-line beliefs fitted well with the national mood...plus the fact that he was an actor blurred the line between cinema and real life--not to mention the fact that he coined the political term "Star Wars"!

Thus again their is no need for an all-powerful, omnicient being who is going to protect us but in the process subvert the law stifling our rights and trampling on our freedom - even if it's only for a few seconds.

I agree...it is a very uncertain time in global politics. I think Superman Returns just came out at the wrong time.

Post by **Ben** » August 21st, 2006, 9:56 pm

It should have come out in 1996, directed by someone else.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 22nd, 2006, 12:01 pm

I take it you didn't like it...?

I liked it (especially Routh) but now in hindsight I can see that it had numerous problems...

(the worst one being Lois Lane's character)

I mean, what we got was great, but I wanted more of it.

I agree....I think it should have been longer, with more on what happened to Superman in those five years, and what happened to Lois.
And defintely more action!

Post by **Josh** » August 22nd, 2006, 5:21 pm

I have a feeling what Superman found in those five years might come back to haunt him in the sequel.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 23rd, 2006, 2:51 pm

I have a feeling what Superman found in those five years might come back to haunt him in the sequel.

Yeah...I had this feeling that somehow he found more than he was telling.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 30th, 2006, 9:20 pm

AICN review of HollywoodLand (the George Reeves biopic)

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24320

I really want to see it, but I don't know if it'll be playing anywhere near me.

Post by **Dacey** » August 31st, 2006, 10:27 am

Mickey wrote:I have a feeling what Superman found in those five years might come back to haunt him in the sequel.

Even better: I keep hearing that General Zod may be returning!

Post by **Ben** » August 31st, 2006, 1:46 pm

Well, not General Zod per se. But an actor who looks/sounds/walks/talks just like him.

But...why not just come up with something (whisper it)...o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l?

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 4th, 2006, 7:49 pm

You guys should check out the Kevin Smith DVD... I think the Superman and Tim Burton parts are up on You Tube if you do a search...very funny stuff!

I finally watched this on YouTube...I COULD NOT stop laughing!

But...why not just come up with something (whisper it)...o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l?

Personally, I'd love to see Bizarro in a Superman film...I don't think he's ever been on the big screen.

Plus even though some people might scoff at the idea of Ben Affleck as George Reeves, I still really want to see HollywoodLand.

Post by **Dacey** » September 7th, 2006, 4:45 pm

"Hollywoodland" opens tomorrow. Oddly enough, the thing that critics seem to be praising most is Ben Affleck as George Reeves.