http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 20,00.html

Well, this is going to sting here folks.. I found this article on The Man of Steel being reduced to being labeled a Peter Puffer basically that could spell doom for this movie..


The Sunday Times June 11, 2006


Superman, you're a big girl's blouse
John Harlow in Los Angeles



AS a Boeing 777 breaks up in midair, a familiar caped figure flies to the rescue through spewing flame and scything debris. Superman is back in a brief £1m blur of special effects in the most expensive film Hollywood has ever produced.
But there are jitters among studio executives who fear the performance of Superman Returns, which cost more than $200m (£109m) to make, may prove less than heroic at the box office and spell doom for the traditionally extravagant summer blockbuster.



Concerns have been mounting that the latest Superman, played by Brandon Routh, an unknown from Iowa, may not be “macho” enough for a key group of ticket-buyers: teenage boys. Earlier this month The Advocate, an influential gay magazine, proclaimed Routh’s Superman a homosexual icon, alongside Judy Garland and Cher, because he “lives a secret double life, wears tights and has lovely long eyelashes”.

Last week Bryan Singer, the film’s gay director and responsible for previous hits such as The Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies, compounded the anxiety by describing Superman Returns as a “chick flick about a superhero seen from a woman’s perspective, with qualities you’d want in a husband”. The woman is the ace reporter Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth.

“Young men do not want a soft Superman: they want the Man of Steel, even if he is 68 years old,” said one Hollywood executive last week.

Superman takes off with an all-star premiere in Los Angeles on June 21. An industry preview due this week has been cancelled as Warner Bros tinkers with its marketing.

Such nervousness reflects the expense of the film. Last week a former Warner executive confirmed that more than £50m had been spent before the cameras started rolling in 2004. This went largely on abandoned scripts, although the current version is a direct sequel to the four Christopher Reeve films which ended in 1987. Warners also had to pay Nicolas Cage £11m after replacing him in the lead role.

One of the first directors, Tim Burton, who wanted to shoot at Pinewood near London, walked away with a £2.7m cheque although his successor, Joseph “McG” Nichol, director of Charlie’s Angels, left without compensation when instructed to relocate the shoot to Australia for tax reasons.

When Reeve first wore the cape in 1978 to face his nemesis Zod on Horsell Common in Surrey he had one blue suit and seven spares. Routh had 60.

Louise Mingenback, a costume designer on the new film, said: “There was more discussion about Superman’s ‘package’ than anything else on the suit. Was it too big? Too round? Too pointy? There was someone just working on codpiece shapes for about a month.”

Nearly half the budget went on special effects and new technology such as a digital camera which broke down as Singer prepared to shoot Superman’s reunion with his mother. “This delay is costing $600,000 an hour,” Singer raged.

Another small fortune went on salvaging snippets of Marlon Brando, who played Superman’s father in the 1978 film.

Singer denied that filming went over schedule, although he did admit he was “exhausted” when he took two weeks off to celebrate his 40th birthday halfway through. He also admitted that he had overstretched himself by simultaneously producing a TV series in South Africa from his Sydney flat and other sideline ventures. “I would not do it that way again,” he said.

Nor will the studios: Warners hopes to reduce the bill with Australian tax credits and by re-using some of the sets. “But the costs could reach $400m. That’s twice as much as Titanic,” said one insider.

There is life in the blockbuster yet. Prime release dates have already been staked out for the summer of 2007 by the producers of the next Harry Potter, Shrek, Spider-Man and Indiana Jones movies. If Superman fails to fly, the aftershock will be felt in 2008 instead.

Ouch..

depends. if it just "we didnt like it" they couldnt sue cause they all signed the same agreement. if it said "it sucked cause superman has a kid!" then they would.

when i hear or see superman being called "gay" in public then ill be concerned. but until then this all overblown nonsense. not only did routh make people magazines 50 most beautiful peoples list, and one reviewer has also described him as "an incrdibly beautiful person", but id say about 3/4 of the time i show a pic of him to a lady friend of mine they remark about his looks, and its a GOOD one. not macho enough?? because bryan isinger is gay, in 2005, a joke article came out saying w/.b. planned to reveal that brandon routh was gay in may 2006, and that thatis why singer picked him. because they had "crushes" on eachother.


anybody who realistically thinks the majority of the world looks at superman as literally gay is....dumber then bkb. outside from this article and a n article from a magaizne for GAY people, i havent heard a word of this.


seriously you say i grasp for little things....but here you have an aticle that about 1/10000000000 of the us will see and i dont think any of those people who do se this, will take it seriously. Batman has alway sbeen thre hero taking the gay jokes anyways, and i dont think its every effected his box office.

Whatever helps you sleep better at Night Excel.. I'm pretty much predicting this movie to be Dubbed: Queer Eye For The Super Guy when released and believe it or not, that does have the potential to be damaging at the box office.... Hell, this will end up being this Summer's BROKEBACK SUPERHERO..

lol...wow dude. brokeback superhero...you just cant getne cleverer

Now see?? At least you haven't lost your sense of humor over this.. Just don't turn into a Red Beard from RT on me..

:lol: You sorry Bastard.. Hell, check out Harry Knowles New Avatar here at this link, all in honor of his interview with Bryan Singer.. Man, if that doesn't reek of Gayness, I don't know what does..


http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23557

i recently caught the superman commercial on comedy network. its probably the only appealing ad i've seen so far.

Ya know, through all these pages and pages, I'm still rather puzzled by the idea that there is an actual Superman "fanbase." There is? Superman is well-known, for sure, but I didn't realize that there were people who actually liked him. He doesn't strike me as somebody you "like." Respect and admire I suppose, but he seems rather machine-ish to me. I myself find him pretty hard to identify with, unlike Batman or Spiderman, who have real character.

I think the most insightful comments were pages ago when somebody compared this to Ronald McDonald -- high awareness, but not somebody you go out of your way to see. I guess what I'm saying is that, sorry, I don't believe the Superman name alone is going to sell this, and so far the marketing has been ONLY been about the Superman name. The movie itself will have to be really good, and even then I'm not sure it will justify its astronomical cost.

You know what Erendis, that is about the best thing said in this entire thread. That about sums up how I feel, but could never find the right words to say it. Thanks for being my voice.

Mickey Mouse would be another good example. Sure, his face is plastered on every Disney product that exists - but who the hell actually LIKES Mickey? He's a mascot...a logo, that's it. He has no soul.

As I said in the under-200M thread: every person I talk to about this film (not counting on-line fanboys) expresses complete disinterest. The most common response I get is that they don't like Superman as character. He's perceived as being too-old-fashioned/wholesome/dorky in comparison to other comic book heroes. It's striking how unanimous that sentiment seems to be.

It's similar to what I was hearing over and over about MI:III before it was released. If I had a dollar for every person that told me they hated Tom Cruise...

yea ... there is actually a superman fanbase. a pretty good one too ....

a most excellent one.....

http://www.superherohype.com/news/super ... hp?id=4379

yet another superman returns related tv special...

http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/4082
make that 13/13

Wow.

Tracking is supposed to come out today right?

Is it just me or this movie will be a HUGE DISSAPOINTMENT at boxoffice.

Its just you and a few other loonies.

If this movie costs as much as these articles imply, $300-400M, then this is a guaranteed disappointment, even if it makes what excel wants it to make. I'm surprised Singer can act so confident. He and WB must be shaking in their boots.

once again, people forget that almost any cost we read for this film, it takes into account the 10s of million that were spent on this project even before the latest brian singer project took off.

How much does WB get for endorsement on products. They get a chunk of it dont they, maybe thats why theres alot of tie ins to cover the cost

Welcome to the club, Ashwani. We're the same people who laughed when the fanboys claimed King Kong was going to dethrone Titanic or that Serenity was going to be the next Star Wars. We're mocked by the loyal geek masses...but we're typically right.

YES they should take into account all the money that was spent on getting superman made.

Hell if u were making a project and u spent money ex. $50 on it but it was a waste and u again spent money on it ex. $100 and u finally made it then u are not going to say that it costed me only $100 to make. You have to say it costed $150 to make. Afterall money DOES NOT grow on trees and u cannot get that $50 back which u have already spent.

VERY true. not only are they making boatloads from merchandise n 30 million in the bag from cable rights...but, they also get a share in profits from any product that superman returns is labeled with.