James Gunn’s Superman

Isn't this meant to be the first movie of Gunns reboot? There's no way they try and disappear this movie given they're once again trying to get the DCU to actually happen. As for the lack of big names attached its hardly surprising since most actors with ongoing careers don't currentlywant to tie themselves to multiple superhero movies now the bubble has burst. Even Marvel is starting to have to plunge the depths and they don't have the WB/DC baggage.

[quote] A couple of months ago I predicted the movie was going to get shelved

And it looks like your prediction, along with the rest of your transparent, pathetic agenda, has turned out to be a joke.

Just like you.

Why not just start one of those “anti-woke” movie YouTube channels where you can spew your unbridled hatred for a movie you haven’t seen one frame of and demand the return of Zack Snyder to DC? That should give you 10-12 fellow incel simpletons who might give a shit.

You’ve already proven that you know nothing and couldn’t predict the time of day with a watch and three clocks. No one has any reason to pay you any attention.

You’re an admitted loser. Quit while you’re behind. You have nothing to offer worth anyone’s effort or interest.

I think it’s a license thing.

No one cares about Superman. “Superman Returns” in 2006 was a box office bomb and “Man of Steel” in 2013 did what a B-list Marvel character could do. You would think Superman is a billion dollar character like Batman and Spider Man are but he’s not.

Superman has also been on TV for 30 years. “Lois & Clark” in the 90’s, “Smallville” in the 2000s, and more recently “Superman & Lois”. What helped cause the Marvel / Star Wars / superhero fatigue was giving cinematic stories and characters TV shows. Batman has always been for the big screen if it’s not an animation. There was “Gotham” but it wasn’t the same vibe as a Batman movie so I don’t count it. With all that said, people can watch Superman on TV.

And maybe that’s why the budget is so small. They know Superman isn’t a billion dollar character. There’s no reason this movie should be a $200-300 million dollar movie, it would be ridiculous.

Superman, to me, is almost like Betty Boop. The merchandise and imagery is popular but not the actual product.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Christopher Reeves “Superman” in its entirety.

[quote]There's no way they try and disappear this movie given they're once again trying to get the DCU to actually happen

Unless they don’t want a DCU to happen.

Gunn was hired to run DC because according to the trades, he was the only person who said yes. No one else wanted the job because it was felt Warner Bros. was in the process of being prepared to be sold. Certainly Gunn would realize this, but at the time he was hired, October 2022, the earliest date of a potential sale (it just passed this April 8) was still quite far off. Gunn would still be able to do one film, and maybe if it was a hit he would be allowed to do more. But the film would need to go intro production fairly quickly, summer 23 the latest.

However, the writer’s strike and actor’s strike shut down production from May through November. Anything put into production now after that would become the burden of WB’s new owners to release. Additionally, by November of last year, Marvel was beginning to see a significant decline in box office and extended universe fatigue was cited as the cause.

So I think Warner Bros. was prepared to cancel the film but because of contractual obligations they allowed it to go forward, but with an extremely pared down budget. Gunn’s social media behavior became very strange late last year with him announcing everything he was doing (“Today I’m meeting with costume designers!”), it gave the impression that of creating evidence for a breach of contract lawsuit

[quote]There’s no reason this movie should be a $200-300 million dollar movie, it would be ridiculous.

It absolutely needs to be a $200-300 million dollar movie, because foreigners still go to movies on the basis of celebrities and expensive visual effects. I agree the story doesn’t need to be expensively told. There was an excellent alternative take on Superman published as the novel “It’s Superman” set in the 1930s that many people felt would make a great movie and wouldn’t need big expensive production values, it could probably be made like an A24 film, but it would never be made because that would never get foreign butts into seats. They want big explosions, giant monsters and fifteen famous people on the movie poster.

Martha Kent cast with a local Georgia actress

Diane Lane played her in the Snyder films, Eva Marie Saint in Superman Returns. The part in 1978 was offered to Joan Crawford who could not accept because of poor health. (Phyllis Thaxter played her.)

But but the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel as Lois Lane!

R6 Good. There’s no need for stunt casting. Hire actors appropriate for the assignment. She looks authentic.

[quote] So I think

And there’s your first problem.

No one cares about Superman and James Gunn is a moron.

[quote]Good. There’s no need for stunt casting. Hire actors appropriate for the assignment. She looks authentic

Just to be clear, we are talking about the man who hired Vin Diesel to voice a character who can only speak one sentence?

The less said about this the better.

r11 For a movie from 2014 when the MCU was at the height of its popularity and could throw as much money and clout around as it wanted. That situation is in no way comparable to the financial or cultural situation of WB in 2024.

Warner Bros. grossed 1.4 billion with Barbie. They just signed deals for Margot Robbie, Timothée Chalamet, Baz Luhrmann, Tom Cruise, Rian Johnson, M. Night Shymalan and John M. Chu.

Warner Bros. has money to spend. They simply do not want to give it to James Gunn.

The first Superman (1978) was the best comic book movie ever made. Is there another super hero movie (other than Dark Knight) with a 94% or higher on Rotten Tomatoes?

Wonder Woman is at 93 now but debuted at 100.

Rotten Tomatoes is kind of stupid in that it adds reviews written years after the film was released.

[quote] I don’t think I’ve ever seen Christopher Reeves “Superman” in its entirety.

Well, in that case it must not have mattered to anyone ever.

[quote] The part in 1978 was offered to Joan Crawford who could not accept because of poor health.

Given that she was dead by 1978, that would have been a problem.

The film was released in 1978 but obviously would have been cast a year or two earlier. She died in 1977.

Superman was on the big screen in serials and cartoons of the 1940s.

Gay people care about crap like this?

I’m sorry r21.

Lisa vanderpump was such a fucking bitch to Jax last night!

R22 👏