'Superman Returns' Teaser Trailer is here!

The music was good, but when you here Rouths voiceover is when i still get goosebumps.

Sorry....if you don't get the idea of what the idea of the story is and purpose of him doing so.....you'll be disappointed. As far as I understand in your POV.

I guess i just dont want him to do a movie that just pays homage to the originals.

The "fan made" trailer is back up!!!!

After hearing that the film will be budgeted at $250 million, I don't think this'll be much of a hit. It isn't SPIDER-MAN, that's for sure. At the moment I think it's going to do FANTASTIC FOUR numbers.

You shouldn't think to far ahead.

i agree that tom welling is great as clark kent in smallville, and would love to see him in a superman movie. But it wouldn't work unless its part of the smallville universe. i personally was never that into superman, im a spiderman guy, but smallville got me interested in the superman mythology the last couple months and i am now looking forward to this movie.

__________________
Ho! Ho! Ho! To the bottle I go,
To heal my heart and drown my woe!

Quik heads up, the OFFICIAL Superman Returns teaser trailer will be shown at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

__________________
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -Patton 1970

Hi all,

When is harry potter due at the theatres??

This friday, November 18th.

First, let me say this: I believe that Superman isn't that big of a deal. My favorite comics are X-men, and my favorite in DC Universe is Batman. I have never found the hoky super powers and Good Boy attitude of Super Man appealing.

That being said, there is no way that Superman is NOT America's hero. Everyone, regardless of their favorites, knows who is there to protect them in the eyes of the public.

Look no further than Shaq, the most powerful and dominant and popular basketball player in the NBA. He pays homage to Superman. Now, you can like other basketball players besides shaq, and even consider them better, but Shaq is still the dominant force and popular super star. And even his haters must admit this much.

The same applies to Superman. You can think others are better, I do, but I know who America's Super hero is, and That's Superman.

The Point? Superman's sales will NOT be Fantastic Four. Superman is legendary, he is ingrained into every living generation of American Society.

Superman will be the contender for USA tops all time.

About Singer: I was a fan of the x-men animated and original x-men comics and uncanny x-men. When he made his movies he neglected these fan bases and chose several routes which I found to be appalling. They were decent movies, but they weren't loyal to the fans of the above series.

So, unless he changes, if you are a fan of the comic books, do not get your hopes up. Singer will do what he has to do, and it probably won't include a good deal of mythos in the comic books.

Why will I see this movie? Because everyone in America will.

What will you look for in this movie? Kevin Spacey of course! This is another one of his bad guy roles, I think he will be excellent.

__________________

Superman is the original superhero. I'd say that's a pretty big deal.

Not unless the movie is good.

He did what he could with what he had. Remember, comic books aren't really meant to be experienced in live action, so adapting them takes more than a little consideration. When you've got an ensemble cast of characters like X-Men does, you inevitably have to sacrifice depth in some to develop others (which is where I think the X-films have struggled most). Curious: What changes would you have preferred, specifically?

It feels like Singer is trying to make an "All-American" throwback film with a modern flair. The music is very heroic, and the designs are decidedly pseudo-40's era. But the Superman aspect seems very futuristic (a la "man of tomorrow") - a stark contradiction. That's actually pretty close to the genesis of Seigel and Shuster's Superman in the late 1930s, but the storyline for this film sucks. They should have just started over.

You see, it's these two statements that don't go together. He is the original super hero and a big deal which is why the movie will sell. 1/3 of the people who saw titanic didn't want too, but they did it because everyone did it. Superman is America's super hero, and like you said it's a pretty big deal. If the movie is absolutely 100% awful, a 0 to 30% on the tomatometer, sure, it won't sell. But even if this movie gets luke warm reception it will rape the box office. Every generation knows who superman is, they know the big S. This movie will sell and contend for Best US gross, that is a prediction, not a fact, But I would be willing to bet a good deal of money on it.

Well I tend to disagree with you. Sin City was about as close an adaptation as any seen. Comic books can easily be adapted to the big screen if they focus on a part of the story that is big, or weave their own tale that is familiar with the mythos of the universe. None of which Singer managed to accomplish.

I agree, the ensemble of X-men is difficult to pick and choose because it possesses so much depth. However, I at least expected the original cast and the current favorites to be released with their back stories not completely sacrificed.

I, like every big x-man fan, knew that wolverine was going to be in the movie. Any x-men comic book that has status now has wolverine or is completely original. This I can accept.

But they made ice-man out of his element. They made Cyclops have as much clout as my genitalia. And while I liked the accuracy pinned on Rogue and her story, the supporting characters didn't supplement fully.

It is clear that they wanted to create a cast that would supplement another telling of a possible x-man story. But the story itself wasn't too brilliant. Singer, in essence, used what the x-men had, and weaved fiction in the x-men universe with the same ultimate goal created by Stan Lee, or, tolerance for all.

But, I'm a beast fan, and seeing him as hank mccoy in the boob tube of a sequel didn't do it for me. So, I became sort of resentful of Singer's approach.

He stayed true to Lee's ultimate vision depth. That can only be respected. But he used the X-men for his own tale that contradicted mythos and what I thought would be better stories. The same goes for the movie Batman, which I love, but only because I didn't love the comics. However, I loved the x-men comics, and seeing my favorite characters and back stories be eliminated for Singer's telling was quite aggravating.


The End Result:
Telling a story directly pulled from the comics ~ Failed
Creating a story that kept true to the x-men universe mythos ~ Failed
Keeping true to Stan Lee's ultimate goal in human tolerance ~ accomplished with cheese on top
Making good movies ~ accomplished

I just used my premonition from the results of Singer's X-men. I haven't seen the movie So I cannot possibly verbalate on the matter to fact. But I can use history as a guide, and history tells us that Singer will do what he wants to do.

That's one heck of an exaggeration. There were many reports of repeat viewings, but I don't for a moment believe that the film made a third of its money simply on account of it making the first two-thirds.

Depends on what you mean. It'll outgross films with lesser budgets even if it's inferior, but it'll still be a chore offseting such a huge budget. Plenty of films are among the top grossers of the year, but not among the most profitable.

Best US gross meaning what? It will approach Titanic's $600 million? Because I'll take you up on that bet, if that's what you're saying.

Do you think they'll have the original John Williams theme in there?

__________________
Everything I do, I do to make my second stepdad proud.

But you said he wasn't a big deal...

It depends on how well they market the film in the coming months. Till now, they've been very frugal with promoting the film - so much so that the trailer release this Friday might be the first indication to most movie-goers that a Superman film is even on its way. Regardless, Spiderman is just as notable as Superman is (and has been since before the Raimi films); and as outstanding as those films are, they haven't come close to Titanic numbers. I'm not saying you are wrong, but we'll see...

Okay, to be fair, Sin City is not a good example. It's fairly new, written and drawn by one man, and the various stories are already separated as much. X-Men has 40+ of mythos under its belt, all sprawled out in syndicated monthly comics, graphic novels, and from the minds of many different authors and artists. I'd say X-Men is the bigger, harder fish to gut and clean.

I hoped for as much, but when we're talking about a film of reasonable length, the possibility for that kind of depth and accuracy becomes slim to none. That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. Certain characters were simplified in favor of other (in my opinion) lesser characters.

What do you mean?

They should have cast a better actor, but the size of his role was fine. For the first film, there were more important characters to develop (Magneto, Wolverine, Senator Kelly, etc). In X2, though, he was practically nonexistent, and that ain't right.

Rogue was a train wreck of many characters - Rogue, Kitty Pride, Jubilee...

It was sufficient, I thought. I was really disappointed with the X2 plot, to be honest.

That didn't bother me as much. Beast became a major character only after Singer's X-Men was released. I didn't like that cameo, though. I felt like I was being force-fed something Singer thought I wanted.

Yeah, and maybe we'll like it, and maybe we won't. But it's his right to make the movie he wants to make, and quite frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Everyone has an interpretation unique to them, and I'd rather see his interpretation than him copying someone else's interpretation.

oh geeze, if I said that, I apologize. He is a big deal, he isn't my favorite, but not acknowledging that he IS the super hero is wrong. This is America's Sweethart. This is DC's spiderman. There is no getting around that fact.

Spiderman outgrossed thousands of movies. It is one of the biggest grossing films of all time. It is because it is Marvel's Superman. This isn't some Fantastic Four make a movie game and then have a TV cast type of deal. This is America's generational defender. Everyone knows who he is, and everyone expects something about him. This is what wwe (not me, but people) want. I can promise you this film will not fail at the box office.

I was using Sin City to denote that translating directly onto screen works fine. I understand the massiveness of X-men's library. But, it would have been entirely possible to capture a series of the comic books like that would've been. That was not my only point, my other poitn was spinning a tale that fit into the comic books with minor changes, something that could be told as additional material to the x-men series. Much like the x-men animated series accomplished hundreds of times. Yet, I would've approved of an alternate telling, as long as it was fair to the fans. But, none of this was accomplished, good movies that used what the x-men had but denied them of their many complexities for superficial things that fit into the script. It takes the love triangle, cerbero, the school for mutants, but it doesn't do justice to them as far as x-men fans (like me, talk to the wolverine fans for a different opinion) are concerned.
Before I begin education of ignorance, I'm going to assume that you are not talking about Beast in the comics or the world of X-men that I know.

You see, Beast did alot of things. He was one of the original x-men, He was in the biggest cross over ever, he was part of Uncanny X-men, he founded X-force, he was part of the avengers, he was 3 different colors, he was in the animated series, he was in every single noteworthy X-verse with the exception of Days Of Future Past.

Beast did not merely "become" big after Singer's X-men. He is one of the biggest stars in the x-men universe, besides being Lee's favorite mutant he was in the x-men lifestyle since the beginning, the very beginning.

So, don't think that Singer force fed us beast. Beast deserved a role on that show just as all the big characters did.

If anything, Beast's popularity has lessened. But certainly NEVER AGAIN hold an opinion that Beast just suddenly got popular after X-men. He was always popular as an X-man, and his mythos goes far beyond Singer's movies.

Being a fan of Beast, I'm pretty offended at a comment like the one you posted. That being said, I make mistakes too, so I'm not going to hound you about it anymore, just don't disregard Beast as a fling, because he has a big a role as any x-man in the universe. That is fact. And please take away the train of thought that (laughing) says that Beast Only got famous after Singer's X-men. That is easily the most furthest from the factual truth statement I've heard in a long time.

Since I do not care about the Superman Comics I do not care about the comic book mythos. But as long as I don't catch you commenting on how Burton perverted Batman, i will respect this opinion.

I am a huge comic fan, DC comics especially, as a lot of people are. Hopefully Singer can put a new twist on the Superman mythos but without changing incredibly. I thought he did a good job of that in X-men and only hope that he won't try yo reinvent Superman.

On another note, there is already a certain point of the movie that I am pretty pissed about and that is the fact that when Clark shows back up Lois Lane has a kid!! And shes engaged to Perry White's son?? Yeah I realize that Clark has to find a way to win her back but why have her have a kid??? Lois and Clark have been married since before I was born in the comics and they dont even have a kid now and in the movie she has a kid with someone else?? There better be a good explanation for that when I see this movie.

I found this on Bluetights.net. Sorry for saying that it definitely would be at Harry Potter and the GoF.


Joblo comes in again with more details about the Superman Returns teaser we're all anxiously waiting for.

The teaser for SUPERMAN RETURNS will not be attached to GOBLET OF FIRE. It is officially classified by Warner Bros. as an "accompaniment" like LADY IN THE WATER. This is likely to prevent early reports of the trailers that would've leaked if it were attached to the POTTER print, which is currently screening. That said, while it is highly likely you will see the SUPERMAN RETURNS trailer with GOF, it is still at the discretion of your local theater manager! WB was also able to confirm the trailer will be available on the internet on Thursday evening at 9PM EST/6PM PST. Stay tuned!

Okay, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that Beast only got popular after the first film. Frankly, I don't care how popular any character is. I said he became a "major" character. This is where my opinion comes in:

As good writing goes, Chris Claremont's X-Men sucks. The characters are flat and archetypal, the dialogue is laughable at times (and never really engaging), and the stories are bland and over-the-top. Every X-Man has played a "major" role in his comics at some point or another (so what does major mean?), but Beast never really broke free of his character restraints. Sure, he's always been there, but being in something doesn't mean being an important or engaging character.

Grant Morrison shrunk the team, and gave each character a singular, unique personality. For the first time, I felt like these were real people, and not superheroes with stuttering dialogue. Beast, being the topic of discussion, started to show his feelings about his condition - his insecurities, his weaknesses. Morrison began to challenge him finally, not just with trying to find a cure or something, but with real issues that he couldn't do anything about. When a writer does that, the characters suddenly have a real, human (or mutant) purpose. While before Beast was the go-to scientist to destroy the somethingorother virus (which is the dramatic equivalent of turning on a light when it's dark), now Beast does things for his X-mates because he WANTS to, because he CHOOSES to, because he possesses a personality that makes that possible.

Whatever, kid.

(For the record, I never said Tim Burton wasn't entitled to make his own Batman film, so don't you dare assume that I'm thinking it. In fact, I loved his interpretation - and even if I didn't, I would still respect that he had a right to make the film his own way.)