Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 2

message: What is the point of having like eight different release dates? I think since it is an American film, that date should be listed. By the way I'm not from the US, but I don't see the value of having numerous international releases. The infobox is already very long, and cuts straight through the plot. The IMDb has a listing of all releases, a link to that should be enough. Not to mention, (estimating) it will be released in over 60 countries, so then, why do the ones currently listed have more important than the other 50 that are not currently listed. Its just not practical, it should be the *main* release date, which, what I would think, is North Amercia...Blahs34 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper AlistairMcMillan 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not contribute much Alistair. My point is the article must be reasonable, and having every release date is absurd to say the least, and having your selection is just pov, so it is either the main release, or all 70 of them, as a handpicked selection of releases by one user is pov, thus, lets just keep it to the main release date. Blahs34 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: Did anybody recognize who drew the flashes of Superman inside the DC logo at the very beginning of the film? Was one of the Jim Lee, or was there maybe a panel from Birthright? CmdrClow 09:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning DC Comics Logo

message: The fighters escorting the shuttle was the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, since it was a USAF mission.  The appearance and design of the planes made it look like the F-35A model.  The current official designation of the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter.  The A model is for the Air Force, the B model for the USN, and the C model for the USMC.  As the film mentions in the dialogue, the airliner that the shuttle is on is a Boeing 777.--TrevelyanL85A2 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft in Plane Scene

message: 67.160.147.28 apparently wants to say the following about costume changes:
; ** It should be noted that these changes are in comparison to the 1980's films. Superman's costume, as with all superhero's costumes, has had many changes through out the years.
I feel it's much more appropriate to say this on the discussion page rather than in the article body. By all means, 67.160.147.28, edit the article, but don't just post something like that at the bottom of a section. Thanks! --HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costume changes 

message: Is it just me, or is the plot summary once again being relentlessly expanded with needless detail? At one point, it was down to a concise few paragraphs (see X-Men: The Last Stand for arguably the ideal length). I don't wish to spoil the film for myself, as I haven't yet seen it, and therefore don't want to edit this at the moment. Perhaps somebody could begin some pruning? Chris 42 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Returned it to the simplified form that was agreed upon originally. Bignole 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot: summary or scene breakdown? 

message: This has been bothering me...
When Lex and Kitty return to the deceased old lady's house, Kitty says, "Weren't there two of those?" and it shows one of the two dogs, with fur around it, chewing on something that looks like a bone. Is there any explaination for this? I have three thoughts on how this played out...
*The other dog ran away, and the fur was shed from the dog in the house?
*The remaining dog is some sort of evil demon-dog thing, but nobody knows? :P
*It's unlikely that the two dogs fought and the missing one was eaten, because the remaining dog didn't have a scratch on it, and they were almost identical physically. Same breed, same size, same everything.
--Gaming King 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your'e worrying about realism in a film about a dude who wears a red cape and is taken seriously. On top of that, he can fly, and is an alien. Sad. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Two Dogs 

message: Section under dispute:
:The effects of Kryptonite, in this film, appear to work differently then in any other established continuity. Superman seems unaware of its presence, where it would normally immediately debilitate him, when first coming in contact with it.
:A perceived inconsistency in the movie takes place with Superman and his reaction to kryptonite. Superman appears completely immobilized on his first contact with Lex's island, but later his body appears to be able to withstand more concentrated forms of Kryptonite while lifting it into space.
*Both areas need to be removed
** Agree 12.162.189.80 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take offense that I am "lobbying for its removal".  I actually think the whole thing is interesting, and wouldn't argue with you if you want to tell me the sequence was horribly done.  I just feel it does not belong on Wikipedia.  And I am certainly not arguing for its removal because I want people to think the movie is perfect.  I don't care if anyone thinks that it's perfect or not.  I think that the Superman Returns article should read like an encyclopedia article and not a blog or a fansite or even a movie review. -- Renesis13 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well here is a link to two places that also agree there are plot holes and inconsistencies. http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/06/superman_returns.html
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/06/30/superman-returns-plot-holes-puzzles-and-inconsistencies/
But, I'll put your name where you asked. Bignole
The first part says enough.  It shouldn't be further explained/debated in the trivia section, but instead maybe in its own section/article, if at all. Dominicus Cerberus 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: Do we really need all the posters? In total there are three film posters, and then the cover of the X-Box game. I think the allocation of fair-use could be put to better use, rather than four posters/covers...
*We need more posters. You can't have too many big red S's. Wahkeenah 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: It has only made 164,000,000 million domestically, is this considered a flop?
*It's not doing the kind of business they had hoped, but it's been out less than 3 weeks, so it's too early to judge. Wahkeenah 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are dozens of producers in Hollywood who would like to have a $290 million-and-counting "flop". I think its obvious that the film has not been the uber-success the studio would have liked, but it has earned and continues to earn a lot of money (the film hasn't even opened in some big foreign markets as of the date I write this) and it is the engine that is driving a merchandising bonanza for Warner Brothers, and will continue to do so through its DVD release toward the end of the year. Ultimately, I think the film will be seen as something of a financial disappointment compared to Warners' investment and expectation, along the lines of its companion film, Batman Begins, which also "made-a-lot-of-money-just-not-as-much-as-we'd-hoped" for the studio. But otherwise it will be seen a moderately successful from the standpoint of the actual film, and very successful when factoring in the merchandising, DVD, video game, et cetera, revenue. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out, in time, that the film brought in a billion dollars worth of revenue to Warners from all sources. 12.162.189.80 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's made 180 million as of July 25th, it will break 200 million. It's only been out for about 4 weeks, and it will be out for at least another 4 weeks. It will make over 200 million, but probably not too much over 200. It's made enough to warrant a sequel. But, it should be noted as a box office disappointment. Bignole 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Superman Returns a Box-Office Flop?

message: Having just seen the movie, I spotted a possible inaccuracy in the plot, where it states:
"With Superman distracted by a bank robbery, Luthor steals Kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History"
At least in the Italian version I have seen, Superman is distracted by Kitty, Lutor's henchwoman, driving an out-of-control car in the middle of Metropolis, not by a bank robbery.
After being rescued, Kitty even lures Superman into bringing her to the hospital and tries to seduce him in order to give more time to Lutor to steal the Kryptonite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmos1972 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in the plot? 

message: Think this new article which Bryan Singer tell his theory as to why the film wasn't a success will help out some. Sarujo (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer's current thoughts on the film 

message: There is a baseball in the portrait of the two dogs that has a vague conection to the scene where Clark throws a basesball for his own dog. Clark throws the ball too far most likely due to being away from the yellow sun of the Solar System for five years and crashing at night. The sun has not risen and is still below the horizon, yet Clark underestimates his recovery time due to the yellow sun's energy, even on the night-time side.
Another connection is during Luther's reference to Prometheus, when he mentions the value of sharp objects in prison. Later, when the kryptonite is being shaped in to an implosion tamper for the crystal, there is a left over sharp shard of kryptonite which Luther pockets, much in the fashion of shop workers inside a prison. Ncsr11 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random notations 

message: If someone is capable of pinpointing the exact location of the Daily Planet Building, it might be helpful. My own calculations veiwing towards the downtown in a south-southwest direction is somewhere near West Broadway and Duane. Or, it could be the Empire Building just north of the Tweed Building. Ncsr11 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Daily Planet 

message: Re "glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and was probably cast in the role only because he physically resembles Christopher Reeve. Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume." This statement is attributed to Roger Ebert, but the reference cited does not have this statement, nor anything remotely close. In fact, the statement, "Proof of this is the fact that Routh hardly speaks when donning the costume," doesn't even make sense. Googling the statement yields only a few sites with duplicates of this article.
Please delete that statement, or find proof that Ebert wrote this.184.147.123.32 (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ebert was being paraphrased in the first quote so I have replaced it with direct quotes. I have removed the second quote "Proof of this..." since no version of this appears at all in the review, and seems to have been an interjection by another editor. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus citation 

message: In regards to my edit today removing the quote "a neglected gem in the comic book movie genre", that was a quote that i believe was originally in the Indiawire article's picture caption, but was removed in a later edit of said article. Evidence of this can be seen here: www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/comicscontinuum/news/?a=52871
The additional changes were made for grammatical reasons and mostly use the language spoken in the video essay or the accompanying review.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.171.116 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Quote Clarification 

message: Please note that Tristan Lake Leabu is credited in the film as "Jason White", not "Jason Kent". The actor should be credited with the name he has in the film. His biological father in the film has no bearing on his credited name, and Wikipedia should respect that. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tristan Lake Leabu 

message: There have been a recent spate of unsourced changes to the budget as in this edit. The budget section clearly explains the source of these figures and provides references, and explains that the larger figure $263 million) incorporates development costs from earlier aborted projects; as such these are are not actual part of the production cost of this film. If any editors have further information in relation to these figures then please discuss it here rather than just changing the figures to unsourced amounts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget changes 

message: There was a Turkish knock off of Superman called Superman Returns. There should be mention of that. 161.185.160.23 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Superman Returns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C1204671%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F06%2F23%2Fentertainment%2Fe130933D27.DTL
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630192705/http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=5194 to http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=5194
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810201652/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/115147414715502.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/115147414715502.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220235427/http://www.ducati.com/racing/home_news_popup_racing.jhtml?newsId=30584 to http://www.ducati.com/racing/home_news_popup_racing.jhtml?newsId=30584
*Added  tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928113552/http://entimg.msn.com/i/2007YearInReview/2007TopDVDs.pdf to http://entimg.msn.com/i/2007YearInReview/2007TopDVDs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130616003140/http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=68 to http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=68
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623082022/http://music.ign.com/articles/715/715170p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/715/715170p1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/07/02/a-flying-leap.html
*Added  tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1226171983819
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121936107614461929
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101135603/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/07/06/brandon-routh-says-his-superman-contract-has-expired/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/07/06/brandon-routh-says-his-superman-contract-has-expired/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006033119/http://movies.about.com/od/heights/a/heightsjm060905_2.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/heights/a/heightsjm060905_2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice you have tagged the marketing figures in the article. Hopefully I can clear this up for you. The $100 million figure given for global marketing is given in the accompanying source (Jeff Jensen (2006-06-23). "Greatest American Hero?"). The Jensen source is a five-page article and the figure in question is given on page 5.
As for the $45.5 million figure, this is almost certainly the "domestic" marketing figure i.e. the figure for the US marketing. According to the MPAA the average cost of marketing a film in the US in 2006 was $34.5 million (see 2007 Market Statistics.pdf, page 7). Unfortunately, the Guardian source does not clarify this, but there is no way this figure is for global marketing. For example, according to  George Lucas's Blockbusting (Alex Ben Block) the domestic marketing costs for Shrek, Gladiator, Spiderman 2, War of the Worlds and The Perfect Storm (all big summer releases between 2000 and 2005) were $68.1 million, $52.5 million, $57.5 million, $58.2 million and $50.7 million respectively (page 840). Even though The Guardian does not clarify the nature of the marketing figure it is almost certainly not a global figure going by the costs of the time. Global marketing is roughly twice that of domestic marketing so the figures are consistent IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing cost 

message: ChristianJosephAllbee, regarding this and this, what accuracy are you referring to? There has been back and forth at this article before regarding "homage" and "sequel." That is why someone added references for that.  
Betty Logan didn't you have disagreement over this before? Or do you have any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously any claims have to be backed up by sources. Has it been factually established that Superman Returns is an entry in the original series? I appreciate it took some story elements but there were many inconsistencies too. Obviously I don't mind the lead saying that if it is established through sourcing. Also, the article discusses the film in terms of box-office success but not profitability, which are different concepts so the change in terminology makes the claim unsubstantiated. Warner wracked up substantial development costs on earlier Superman projects since the 90s which were costed against this film (see the budget section) which harmed the film's profit margin. Cleopatra is the most famous example of this, where the film was the biggest film of the year (and 5th biggest film of all-time) but still lost money due to the massive budget over-run. So the issue for me with Christianr's revisions isn't so much the claims themselves but they need to be backed up by sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Betty Logan. I haven't looked into any of this. I just remember the disagreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead