Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 3016799" data-attributes="member: 8158">A common flawed perspective that I'm seeing here is the notion that if a movie isn't a blockbuster, then it's a failure. Personally, I regard a movie as a failure if it stinks. I enjoyed Singer's vision of a movie that's a continuation of Donner's films.In a commercial sense, a movie succeeds when it turns a profit, which Superman certainly will do when all is said and done. With action movies, a lot of profit comes from the secondary market, notably DVD sales and pay-per-view. The Punisher's box office take was scarcely more than Superman Returns' opening weekend total, yet a sequel is in the works.As to a villain, Singer would do just as well to come up with his own. It's all good and well to talk about Brainiac, but really these days it's just a name without a coherent villain attached to it. Kinda hard to come up with an amalgam of the words "brain" and "mainiac" without getting a character that winds up as an eggheaded Lex Luthor knock-off. I liked it when the character was re-invented in the 1980's as a sort of cyber-monster flying around space in a giant version of its own head, with reticulated tendrils that gave it a vaguely lovecraftian quality. The nadir would be the green-skinned Snidely-Whiplash character, complete with ridiculous blonde handlebar moustache and van dyke.Hell, give us Doomsday already...</blockquote>