Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Poya

I’d rather watch Man of Steel than Returns. Snyder at least tried something different and didn’t quite succeed whereas Singer did nothing different and failed so hard, The Devil Wears Prada made more money.

The Devil Wears Prada did not make more money. Not by a long shot. The Devil Wears Prada made $326,551,094 worldwide while Superman Returns made $391,081,192 worldwide. In fact, Superman Returns made money than Batman Begins worldwide. Yet, Batman got two more sequels and Superman got the shaft. YET AGAIN!!! There was no reason they could not have made a sequel to Superman Returns. It would've been better than Man of Steel. Especially, with Bryan Singer behind the camera. I like Zach Synder, but Bryan directs circles around Zach every day. Zach doesn't even have one great comic book movie under his belt like Bryan does. And Bryan's got four (with three of them being quite excellent).

[Ben_UK]

I was taken to the cinema in 1987 to watch Superman 4, I am told I was crying all throughout it, but I was only about 6-7 years old.

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I was taken to the cinema in 1987 to watch Superman 4, I am told I was crying all throughout it, but I was only about 6-7 years old.

You were a smart child.

[DapperDanMan]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

The Devil Wears Prada did not make more money. Not by a long shot. The Devil Wears Prada made $326,551,094 worldwide while Superman Returns made $391,081,192 worldwide. In fact, Superman Returns made money than Batman Begins worldwide. Yet, Batman got two more sequels and Superman got the shaft. YET AGAIN!!! There was no reason they could not have made a sequel to Superman Returns. It would've been better than Man of Steel. Especially, with Bryan Singer behind the camera. I like Zach Synder, but Bryan directs circles around Zach every day. Zach doesn't even have one great comic book movie under his belt like Bryan does. And Bryan's got four (with three of them being quite excellent).

The Devil Wears Prada made much more PROFIT for the studio. First, it cost a fraction of what Returns cost. Second, it made more money in NORTH AMERICA, where the studio gets up to 60% of the box office, while internationally, the studio can get as little as 25%.

So yeah, TDWP was a much better deal for the studio than SR.

A similar argument can be made for Begins.

[Dave Mack]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

It's hard to imagine the Orpheum once being a great theater. I live about a mile away from it, and perhaps my least favorite theater as it it riddled with issues. I'll still sometimes go there for the convenience, but also know some people who avoid it entirely

In the 70's it was great. In roughly the same space that now houses a multiplex, like 8 screens, there were two BIG theaters in the 70's. The Orpheum and the Cinè around the corner on 3rd ave. After being split into two in the late 60's. Even after the split, both theaters were quite large and showed 70mm prints.

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/547

Now it's a below average multiplex with tiny screens. I never go there.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by DapperDanMan

TA similar argument can be made for Begins.

Also Begins was a critical hit and probably did gangbusters on home video, which was what greenlit a sequel.

[LexInHD]

FTR, Superman Returns wasn't profitable enough - much of the money was blown on the producers cuts of the pie and a myriad of mystery expenses that don't seem to have materialized on the screen such as the removed Krypton opening sequence that had cost millions to film and finish and WB blew an additional movie's worth of money on world-wide marketing for it - to merit a sequel and the critical drubbing it got from both critics and those who made the damned thing - including Superman himself - ensured it was destined for no sequel. Batman Begins made a significant profit, was critically acclaimed, and had a solid bit of merchandise sales in the form of toys, video games, collectible items, etc., which SR didn't achieve with it's respective offerings.

[Doctorossi]

IMO, a contributing factor:

Batman Begins is an excellent movie.

Superman Returns is a... movie.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

FTR, Superman Returns wasn't profitable enough - much of the money was blown on the producers cuts of the pie and a myriad of mystery expenses that don't seem to have materialized on the screen such as the removed Krypton opening sequence that had cost millions to film and finish and WB blew an additional movie's worth of money on world-wide marketing for it - to merit a sequel and the critical drubbing it got from both critics and those who made the damned thing - including Superman himself - ensured it was destined for no sequel. Batman Begins made a significant profit, was critically acclaimed, and had a solid bit of merchandise sales in the form of toys, video games, collectible items, etc., which SR didn't achieve with it's respective offerings.

Its production budget also includes all the failed attempts since IV left cinemas.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by DapperDanMan

The Devil Wears Prada made much more PROFIT for the studio. First, it cost a fraction of what Returns cost. Second, it made more money in NORTH AMERICA, where the studio gets up to 60% of the box office, while internationally, the studio can get as little as 25%.

So yeah, TDWP was a much better deal for the studio than SR.

A similar argument can be made for Begins.

The Devil Wears Prada may have made more profit for the studio, but it did not make more money in North America than Superman Returns. The Devil Wears Prada made $124,740,460 vs. Superman Returns $200,081,192. Superman Returns in the end made more domestically though The Devil Wears Prada DID make more of a profit for the intended studio. However, this is not a good comparison at all seeing as The Devil Wears Prada only cost $35 million to make. Whereas Superman Returns cost $270 million to make. And that includes the previous false starts and all. Besides that, The Devil Wears Prada's budget was so low that it made more profit for the studio than a lot of the movies in the top ten of that year box office wise. It even beat Casino Royale domestically in terms of a profit/ROI. So the original statement regarding The Devil Wears Prada is a tad misleading.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by doover

So the original 70mm audio will only be on the 4k disc, and the 5.1 audio on the blu-ray is Donner's remastered audio? If true, that will suck due to me not having 4k yet.

Looks like it does have a DTS-MA 2.0 on there, which will probably be the same one that's on the Anthology BD. Which would be fine, if it was matrixed properly.

When the 2006 DVDs came out, the initial batch included a 2.0 fold-down of the remix on the theatrical cut. WB did issue replacements with a 2.0 rendering of the original audio, but even then I remember some talk online that it wasn't decoding the way a proper Dolby Surround track should.

I still think the 2.0 on the current theatrical BD is just a lossless version of that track. Most likely, it was taken from an early video master that was not matrixed, which may be why it sounds flatter and less directional than the early 90s laserdisc.

Also, I recently saw a 35mm screening of the theatrical cut, and there was very noticeable directionality and surround activity on the soundtrack. Not nearly as much as on the remix, of course, but it was there.

So even though I'm just speculating, I'm sticking with that hypothesis.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

The Devil Wears Prada did not make more money. Not by a long shot. The Devil Wears Prada made $326,551,094 worldwide while Superman Returns made $391,081,192 worldwide. In fact, Superman Returns made money than Batman Begins worldwide. Yet, Batman got two more sequels and Superman got the shaft. YET AGAIN!!! There was no reason they could not have made a sequel to Superman Returns.

The problem with Superman Returns is it lost the studio at least $80,000,000 and that's before marketing costs.

That's the reason it didn't have a sequel, because of it's huge production budget (I think Nicolas Cage got $20 million out of that) gave it very little opportunity to make anything back.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Looks like it does have a DTS-MA 2.0 on there, which will probably be the same one that's on the Anthology BD. Which would be fine, if it was matrixed properly.

When the 2006 DVDs came out, the initial batch included a 2.0 fold-down of the remix on the theatrical cut. WB did issue replacements with a 2.0 rendering of the original audio, but even then I remember some talk online that it wasn't decoding the way a proper Dolby Surround track should.

I still think the 2.0 on the current theatrical BD is just a lossless version of that track. Most likely, it was taken from an early video master that was not matrixed, which may be why it sounds flatter and less directional than the early 90s laserdisc.

Also, I recently saw a 35mm screening of the theatrical cut, and there was very noticeable directionality and surround activity on the soundtrack. Not nearly as much as on the remix, of course, but it was there.

So even though I'm just speculating, I'm sticking with that hypothesis.

That 2.0 isn't great, yeah.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by chip75

The problem with Superman Returns is it lost the studio at least $80,000,000 and that's before marketing costs.

That's the reason it didn't have a sequel, because of it's huge production budget (I think Nicolas Cage got $20 million out of that) gave it very little opportunity to make anything back.

Superman Returns didn't cost anywhere near that much.

Superman Lives, Superman Flyby, etc. cost a LOT of money (the aformentioned Cage payout, not to mention Burton got money, they went through preproduction basically - built sets, storyboards, ILM tests - all that cost millions). All those aborted attempts, scripts, etc. were folded into the final cost or Returns.


The film is a love letter to the Donner/Reeve films and I still enjoy it no matter what you guys say.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

the critical drubbing it got from both critics and those who made the damned thing.

NOT true.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns


And it's *still* the best reviewed Superman film since Superman II.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Superman Flyby

They were gonna call a movie "Superman Flyby"?!

I'm glad that one went Superman Byebye.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

They were gonna call a movie "Superman Flyby"?!

I'm glad that one went Superman Byebye.

It was a working title for JJs flick

[rubystone356]

mark your calendar for November 25, 27, and December 3.

https://www.fathomevents.com/events/...th-anniversary

Back on the big screen for 3 nights.

Jacob

[chip75]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Superman Returns didn't cost anywhere near that much.

Superman Lives, Superman Flyby, etc. cost a LOT of money (the aforementioned Cage payout, not to mention Burton got money, they went through preproduction basically - built sets, storyboards, ILM tests - all that cost millions). All those aborted attempts, scripts, etc. were folded into the final cost or Returns.

The $270,000,000 isn't on the screen to say the least (i was factoring in pre-production, production and post in that comment!). The plane sequence is fantastic a highlight, but it could have used more set-pieces.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The film is a love letter to the Donner/Reeve films and I still enjoy it no matter what you guys say.

I loved my first viewing of it and still like it very much.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by chip75

The plane sequence is fantastic a highlight, but it could have used more set-pieces.

All I really wanted was some character motivations that made a lick of sense.