‘Superman’ screens to mixed reactions
‘Superman’ screens to mixed reactions
A few weeks ago, a report indicated that “Superman,” or at least the cut shown on the Warner lot, was “kind of a mess.” It went on to say that Warner was starting to get “nervous” about the film.
There's the old claim that test screenings don't make a movie. Still, It’s interesting how James Gunn and Warner Bros have allowed “Superman” to test so openly given the inevitable leaks that could occur, not to mention the risk of having negative reactions pummeling advanced hype.
Yes, a few days ago, “Superman” had its first non-internal test screening — I only spoke to a few attendees. Suffice it to say, they both felt underwhelmed by Gunn’s film, and I'm being kind here. No need to taint the film further.
Now, reporting on two people who didn’t like “Superman” doesn't mean much in terms of quality. I've heard of people being turned off by the inherent humor, and silliness, that comes with a James Gunn movie — which Superman seems to have in spades.
So far, based on what’s leaked, we've had the usual “scoopers” weighing on the reactions. MyTimeToShineHello says the reactions were “decidedly mixed.” According to “insider” Daniel Richtman, people he spoke to “loved it.”
Yesterday, scooper ViewerAnon shared, "The response I heard directly from Warner Bros was decidedly less glowing than Daniel [Richtman]'s post. Not to say it went terribly, but it’s a divisive film with a particularly silly tone. Some people click with it, some seem to bounce right off."
From the moment I saw superdog in the trailer, I was worried there would be no real substance behind the movie, just fan service and silliness. I guess I don't have to be too worried, I'm sure they'll reboot it with something more serious in 5 years or so.
It sounds like it'll work for me, being a big Gunn fan, but this feels increasingly risky as the Gunniverse relies on this being a hit.
I've loved most things Gunn has put out. I'm still excited for Superman.
I don't know how much I trust test screenings. There are plenty of great movies that didn't do well with test audiences. I'm gonna wait to see it for myself before I judge.
Reviewers can get it wrong, too. Here's a review of Empire Strikes Back from June 15, 1980
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/film/061580empire.html
Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."
I've learned to wait and judge things for myself over the years. Especially with media. I remember absolutely adoring captain america the first avenger while critics weren't big fans of it.
Well they're correct
I remember the recent Flash movie had great reviews on test screenings, and we all know how that turned out.
I still haven't even bothered to watch it lol
I’m not sure how I feel about Gunn’s signature silliness for Superman. I guess if I really think about it, the Supermans I have known and loved have been Reeve, Cain, and Cavill. The first was relatively straightforward with moments of humor (just the first one, not the sequels). The second was, if memory serves, leaning into the camp but also more about the soap-opera-style relationship building. The third was pretty serious of course. But I feel like in all of them, Superman was played pretty straight, and maybe the side characters were allowed to lean into the camp or the melodramatics. If Gunn’s is too silly a la GOTG, I can see it falling flat.
You think Reeve was "straightforward with moments of humor"?
Were we watching the same movie? When was the last time you sat down to watch it? I mean, it's such a classic, you can barely analyze it as a movie anymore, but... I mean, Lex Luthor and his gang is fundamentally comic relief. Luthor steals nukes by having his hot assistant pretend to have a car crash while Otis changes the launch codes or whatever.
Gunn has suggested it is a big influence, and I can see how that tone is a challenge outside of the context of having seen the 78 film as a kid, but the notion that you're going to outsilly the first Reeve movie in 2025 seems absurd. Unsure as I am about Guy Gardner's bowl cut, the bar is at "MISS TESSMACHEEEER!" here.
The bowl cut is, however, comic accurate
Sorry no, you are right, the first one is very campy. It’s been a while so I may be misremembering a bit. But what I meant was that Superman himself plays it pretty straight. (I think?) Lex was ridiculous. Do any of Gunn’s characters play the straight man? I’m mostly familiar with GOTR, though I did see Suicide Squad once; I just don’t remember much of it. I feel like every GOTR character is pretty ridiculous except for maybe Gamora but even she has moments.
I wouldn't put much stock into test screenings. There have been films that have had horrible test screenings that went on to be beloved. I'll wait until opening weekend.
James Gunn will crush
Damn, are the companies starting to astroturf lemmy already? If so, y'all should at least vary your wording more or something
I'm surprised by how many comments are taking an optimistic look at these less than good screenings. Especially given the current state of comic book movies.
Lots of people have superhero fatigue, and I believe some of it is down to poor writing on the MCU side. When the MCU first took off the quips and little jokes would get a chuckle, but as time went on they became expected, and generated groans.
My concern with Gunn is his comic book films always have the same feel to them, trying to be serious while also leaning on the side of humour, and throwing lots of characters into the mix. I didn't enjoy any of his comic book films except for the first GotG, however the Peacemaker TV show was great. I wonder if his style isn't suited for the current cinematic climate?