View Full Version : Did having an unknown in the role of Superman hurt the box office numbers?
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:22 PM
Before this turns into a flame war, I would like to say that I LIKED the idea of casting and unknown and supported the decision to cast Routh. In my opinion, an unknown was the way to go and I would have done the same thing in Singer's position. So Im on Singer's side in this instance, although not many others lol.
Back to the question, do you as a fan think casting an unknown in the role of Superman and not a familiar face hurt the box office numbers?
I don't think so, Tobey Mcguire was basically an unknown and Spider-Man did alright.
Timstuff
07-03-2006, 04:30 PM
I don't think that wether the actor was unknown or not mattered. I think people just wanted someone beefier.
Milkman95
07-03-2006, 04:32 PM
I don't think so, Tobey Mcguire was basically an unknown and Spider-Man did alright.
Same with Christian Bale.
I don't think so, Tobey Mcguire was basically an unknown and Spider-Man did alright.
But Kirsten Dunst was really popular among the young crowds around the time of release and older folks remembered Dafoe from movies like Platoon and the Jack Ryan flicks.
Superman Returns basically had no star power at all. Kevin Spacey, while a phenomonal actor, is really only popular in the indy market, and Bosworth isn't that huge either. It could honestly be argued that the best known actor in the mainstream would be "Kumar/the foreign kid from Van Wilder"
Same with Christian Bale.
Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine. No need for a big name star
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:38 PM
But Kirsten Dunst was really popular among the young crowds around the time of release and older folks remembered Dafoe from movies like Platoon and the Jack Ryan flicks.
Superman Returns basically had no star power at all. Kevin Spacey, while a phenomonal actor, is really only popular in the indy market, and Bosworth isn't that huge either. It could honestly be argued that the best known actor in the mainstream would be "Kumar/the foreign kid from Van Wilder"
Those are damn good points!
Milkman95
07-03-2006, 04:40 PM
Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine. No need for a big name star
All those names you just listed are not box office draws.
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:41 PM
All those names you just listed are not box office draws.
But they all have mainstream recognition!
But they all have mainstream recognition!
I dunno about Holmes. She's in the mainstream now, but not for her acting.
All those names you just listed are not box office draws.
Maybe not Liam Neeson or Michael Caine (At least not to mainstream audiences) but Freeman and Holmes certainly are.
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:47 PM
I dunno about Holmes. She's in the mainstream now, but not for her acting.
Not the best actress, I agree, but she was a known by the mainstream, even before she got with Tom Cruise.
Milkman95
07-03-2006, 04:50 PM
But they all have mainstream recognition!
True, but as we saw with KOM, Liam Neeson can't carry a film all by himself, even with Orlando Bloom.
True, but as we saw with KOM, Liam Neeson can't carry a film all by himself, even with Orlando Bloom.
I'd say all that proves is Orlando Bloom can't carry a film by himself. Neeson was a fairly small role in KOH.
At anyrate, back on topic, I'll reitterate, an unknown as Superman didn't hurt the box office, but more the lack of any known actor in any role hurt it. When the foreign kid from Van Wilder is your biggest, most well known star, that is problematic.
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:54 PM
True, but as we saw with KOM, Liam Neeson can't carry a film all by himself, even with Orlando Bloom.
Oh no, your correct, Liam Neeson can't carry a film by himself. But if you take the combined name recognition of Neeson, Bale, Oldman, Caine, Murphy, Watanbe, and Holmes, who yes brought in the teeny boppers who saw the previews and screamed JOEY POTTER....
And then you take those names and put them under the title Batman, it will sell. And I think some causul movie going fans were still turned off by Batman and Robin and have since watched the film on DVD or HBO and will be there for the sequel. BB2 is going to be huge, make no mistake.
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 04:55 PM
At anyrate, back on topic, I'll reitterate, an unknown as Superman didn't hurt the box office, but more the lack of any known actor in any role hurt it. When the foreign kid from Van Wilder is your biggest, most well known star, that is problematic.
Matt, I have to agree, I never thought of it like that. The film did lack TRUE star power, as Spacey, while an incredible actor, is not a household name.
Lightning54SC
07-03-2006, 05:18 PM
i like the unknown.... next film id like to see less reeve wannabe and more Routh as himself MAKING SUPERMAN HIS OWN CHARACTER
gojisan1987
07-03-2006, 05:30 PM
First of all, Kevin Spacey is a bigger star than you all are giving him credit for and has appeal that extends outside the independent world. He may not be a huge draw, but he is still a household name. However, regardless of this, it doesn't really matter as this is a superhero movie and that is the draw. Even though I thought Routh did a great job, I must admit he didn't really look like a "Man Of Steel". I think this, combined with the heavy focus on the emotions of Superman, was what hurt it opening weekend.
But at the end of the day one has to realize this is the revival of a character that has had significant presence in the media since his inception. It wasn't like Spider-Man, which had never had an adequate live-action showing. This movie just wasn't really destined to break records.
Lightning54SC
07-03-2006, 05:50 PM
Id rather this movie be more personal to people rathe rthen box office breaker.... kinda like BB its more senimental to people
First of all, Kevin Spacey is a bigger star than you all are giving him credit for and has appeal that extends outside the independent world. He may not be a huge draw, but he is still a household name.
Spacey is NOT a household name. A household name is someone everyone knows (Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, etc)...if you ask your average joe who Kevin Spacey is, they likely will not know.
Thunder Emperor
07-03-2006, 06:00 PM
All those names you just listed are not box office draws.
but having all those guys in one movie, indicates to movie goes that the flick most be good.
Spirit4ever
07-03-2006, 06:00 PM
I agree with gojisan, in that Kevin Spacey has a pretty good cult following after his devious roles in Seven and The Usual Suspects. He was also great in The Negotiator and American Beauty.
I dont think a non name big cast hurt the film. Back when the first X-Men debut, most of the actors weren't a house hold name. Even Halle Berry, not everyone knew who she was at the time. She would get her recognition after the release of X-Men, when she won her Oscar for Monster's Ball. Hughe Kackman may be huge now, but no one except Australians knew who he was before he pulled out the claws.
What I think hurt the film is that people are stuck on Christopher Reeves and think it is disrespectful to go see the new Superman, or he simply lost his luster on the big screen, since we can see him on Smallville once a week. I think this is the biggest reason, people just lost interest. Superman has been done. I also wonder if people suspected it to be crowded and stayed away thinking it would be sold out, but I doubt that theory too.
But I liked the movie, and that is what counts, if you liked the movie or not. I have seen better films, X2 was just awesome by all standards in my opinion, but I have seen worse. I for one, didn't care for Batman Begins, again, this is my opinion.
Thunder Emperor
07-03-2006, 06:01 PM
Maybe not Liam Neeson or Michael Caine (At least not to mainstream audiences) but Freeman and Holmes certainly are.
true also people remember schindlers list and that was neeson. the main point is the movie had respected talent all round.
Spirit4ever
07-03-2006, 06:03 PM
Spacey is NOT a household name. A household name is someone everyone knows (Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, etc)...if you ask your average joe who Kevin Spacey is, they likely will not know.
Speak for yourself. I can ask the average household in my neck of the woods, and they not only know who Kevin Spacey is, they love him! Trust me, he is alot bigger than you think, and gets paid a pretty penny for his pictures.
gojisan1987
07-03-2006, 06:09 PM
Spacey is NOT a household name. A household name is someone everyone knows (Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, etc)...if you ask your average joe who Kevin Spacey is, they likely will not know.
I disagree. I have no desire to test this by going to grocery stores, etc. to ask random people if they know who Kevin Spacey is, but I am pretty sure they would. He is along the lines of Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe and other A-List character actors. Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise, likewise, are A-List leading men.
However, all that is irrelevant as the main selling point for this movie was not the star power but the character power.
But Kirsten Dunst was really popular among the young crowds around the time of release and older folks remembered Dafoe from movies like Platoon and the Jack Ryan flicks.
Superman Returns basically had no star power at all. Kevin Spacey, while a phenomonal actor, is really only popular in the indy market, and Bosworth isn't that huge either. It could honestly be argued that the best known actor in the mainstream would be "Kumar/the foreign kid from Van Wilder"
I essentially agree with your sentiment about potentially lacking star power, but I would hardly relegate Kevin Spacey to simply being popular via the indy market . . . especially considering the majority of his larger roles are featured in films that are hardly limited to the minimal notoriety of indy films. The Usual Suspects, Outbreak, A Time to Kill, Seven, L.A. Confidential, American Beauty, the Negotiator, A Bug's Life, Austin Powers in Goldmember, The Life of David Gale, etc.
If by indy flicks you mean good, widely recognized movies, especially during their time (and after), then yes, that is where I would categorize Spacey. If anyone is hailed with indy flick status, it's Posey. She was hailed as the queen of indy flicks for years.
Dafoe is no more widely recognized by older audiences now than Kevin Spacey is, and Dafoe was hardly the box office draw for Spider-Man's older audience anymore than Spacey is for Returns' older audience--the idea of Spider-Man would have sold itself with or without Dafoe . . . that's not to say that his presence wasn't appreciated by any means.
And I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say the most recognizable actor via the mainstream is Kumar . . . the only audience that would recognize him would be the MTV audience . . . and even then, Bosworth probably received more notoriety among them via the ridiculous amount of commercials for Win a Date With Tad Hamilton (it seemed like they would never stop).
Stringer
07-03-2006, 06:43 PM
I totally agree with Matt. While Spacey is a good actor he isnt a household name. I cant even think of a movie released in the summer where he was the main star. Now household names are names like Depp, Cruise, Pitt or even the A+ list actors like Denzel, Hanks, or Freeman you can say those names to anyone that watches movies and theyll at least know the name.
NotFadeAway
07-03-2006, 06:48 PM
Keep in mind guys that, with Spider-man, fans had basically been waiting since it's creation to see it on the big screen.
And the marketing blitz behind the movie was amazing. They made all the right moves to build the film up in the eyes of the casual movie going fans.
danoyse
07-03-2006, 06:54 PM
Christopher Reeve was also an unknown when he did the first Superman movie. Hugh Jackman was a musical theater actor when he did X-Men. Tobey Maguire and Christian Bale were more well known for arthouse films.
If the actor plays the part well, no one cares whether he's a "star" or not.
And I don't think it factored in here...if they had cast a big name as Superman, it would have been all about that person and not the character. I was talking with a friend about it last week, and we both agreed they made a smart move casting an unknown.
I also think Brandon did a terrific job. I've seen the movie twice, the audience was gasping both times at his resemblence to Christopher Reeve--and not in a bad way. :up:
The Master
07-03-2006, 06:57 PM
Id rather this movie be more personal to people rathe rthen box office breaker.... kinda like BB its more senimental to people
I 100% agree with that statement.
Billy Batson
07-03-2006, 09:23 PM
Having an unknown did not hurt the box office.
Why is everyone comparing Brandon to Christopher Reeve?
Routh should have been cast because he look like Superman,not because he look like Reeve.
Christopher Reeve was cast because he resemble SUPERMAN not because he look like George Reeves.
ChrisBaleBatman
07-03-2006, 09:24 PM
Well, they kinda ALL look alike anyways.
Billy Batson
07-03-2006, 09:30 PM
Well, they kinda ALL look alike anyways.
I don't think so, but okay.
Nightwing1977
07-04-2006, 01:11 AM
but having all those guys in one movie, indicates to movie goes that the flick most be good.
Does "Batman & Robin" mean anything to you? :p That has so many big names & we all know how it turn out. Having many big names in a mainstream movie don't always mean it must be good.
And I got to say Routh as Superman didn't hurt the film. I don't know what did (even thought it's too early to say SR is a failure), but Routh isn't responsible for this. Look at Reeve. He was unknown like Routh & it didn't hurt the film. People shouldn't keep jumping into conclusions.
Mentok
07-04-2006, 01:13 AM
Not at all.
Thunder Emperor
07-04-2006, 01:18 AM
Does "Batman & Robin" mean anything to you? :p That has so many big names & we all know how it turn out. Having many big names in a mainstream movie don't always mean it must be good.
And I got to say Routh as Superman didn't hurt the film. I don't know what did (even thought it's too early to say SR is a failure), but Routh isn't responsible for this. Look at Reeve. He was unknown like Routh & it didn't hurt the film. People shouldn't keep jumping into conclusions.
ok let me rephrash that having mainstream top quality actors that are both successful on a critic and mainstream level helped BB
borinquenknight
07-04-2006, 01:42 AM
Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine. No need for a big name star
What about Rutger Hauer? He was awesome in Blind Fury. And allright they might not be Box Office draws but DAAAAAAMN...if that isn't a formula for success! Talk a bout a supporting cast!
Spare-Flair
07-04-2006, 01:45 AM
No, an unknown is the only kind of actor that can successfully portray Superman. Superman already has enough baggage to handle without the additional baggage of another actor with previous works.
Superman's box office numbers are hurt because Singer's vision lacks innovation and energy...as well as any traditional image of strength. An interview with a WB exec admitted that Singer's original ideas and marketing fo the film was to showcase it as a character drama/chick flick. Singer himself wanted to make "a chick flick" in his own words and the sensitive style Superman ads were turning people off according to WB exit polls and surveys.
BareKnucklez
07-04-2006, 02:40 AM
I don't think that wether the actor was unknown or not mattered. I think people just wanted someone beefier.
The people wanted this generations Superman... Tom Welling... :p
Nightwing1977
07-05-2006, 01:14 AM
The people wanted this generations Superman... Tom Welling... :p
Nah. Just crazy Smalllville fans. Beside, Tommy boy isn't this generations Superman, since he hasn't put on the costume yet!! He's just Clark Kent only. Sorry, but Routh is this generations Superman wheter you like it or not. Beside, at least one movie Routh is in has earned more at the box office than Welling ever been in combine. So far, Routh: 1 Welling: 0. ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.