PDA

View Full Version : WB: Superman Returns to get sequel if it passes 200 million mark [MERGED]


boywonder13
07-12-2006, 02:38 AM
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php

TMZ.com claims that talent agency insiders with ties to "Superman Returns" have been told that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark in the U.S.
The film has already taken in US$144.3 million since its July 28th opening, and should have no problem reaching the reported $200 million fail safe.

No official announcement has been made by Horn or Warner Bros. regarding this claim, so at this stage it's only a speculative rumor.






So there is going to be a sequel cause it's almost impossible for Superman Returns not to make 200 million.....

Xybalba69
07-12-2006, 03:00 AM
i want to see another Superman movie, thats for sure, but i really wonder what he thinks of the movie...

DorkyFresh
07-12-2006, 11:03 AM
200 million domestic is sort of a stretch, but i'm praying SR will make it. i still have 20 something dollars i need to contribute, hehe.

TrailerCues
07-12-2006, 11:19 AM
Since this is only a rumor I am taking this with a grain of salt. Hopefully Singer / the WB will say what the WB has planned at Comic Con

rnewbz
07-12-2006, 12:40 PM
Don't know if this has been posted, but...:( :down

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=20836

Zigno
07-12-2006, 12:44 PM
thats impossible.
they have all the suits, the casting, the scenaries, the 3Dmodels, all the most expensive stuff.

in 2009 we will see a superman movie with 200millions or not in this box office.

mathhater
07-12-2006, 12:51 PM
Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worst. I've waited like 14 years for a Superman movie and I finally got one. So I'm going to try and be as satisfied by that as I can. Worst case scenario, no more Superman movies. At least I got to see one in my lifetime.

But it's really sad that not enough people are going to see a movie starring (IMO) the greatest character ever created...and overlooking him for a bunch of pirates.

(I watched POTC 2 btw...and I liked it okay, but I definitely don't think it should have been a record breaking movie...it was okay...and that's it...I liked SR and X3 a whole lot more...I can't believe it beat Spidey's record...ugh...certainly not deserving of such a feat IMO.)

ProjectPat2280
07-12-2006, 12:55 PM
But it's really sad that not enough people are going to see a movie starring the greatest character ever created...and overlooking him for a bunch of pirates.

(I watched POTC 2 btw...and I liked it okay, but I definitely don't think it should have been a record breaking movie...it was okay...and that's it...I liked SR and X3 a whole lot more...I can't believe it beat Spidey's record...ugh...certainly not deserving of such a feat IMO.)

While i disagree with u on Superman being the greatest ever created, i agree 100% with you on EVERYTHING else. I thought this movie was visually the BEST movie iv ever seen in my life. If there isnt to be another one, ill be upset, but i will have Superman Returns the video game, so i cant wait for that!

antariksh
07-12-2006, 12:55 PM
Don't know if this has been posted, but...:( :down

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=20836


TOO BAD!!!

oh well there is always SHAZAM a superman wannabe lol :up:

casketmouth
07-12-2006, 12:59 PM
Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worst. I've waited like 14 years for a Superman movie and I finally got one. So I'm going to try and be as satisfied by that as I can. Worst case scenario, no more Superman movies. At least I got to see one in my lifetime.

But it's really sad that not enough people are going to see a movie starring the greatest character ever created...and overlooking him for a bunch of pirates.

(I watched POTC 2 btw...and I liked it okay, but I definitely don't think it should have been a record breaking movie...it was okay...and that's it...I liked SR and X3 a whole lot more...I can't believe it beat Spidey's record...ugh...certainly not deserving of such a feat IMO.)

Yeah cause a bunch of Pirates were actually entertaining, and had a waaaay more interesting plot. Oh and about the greatest character ever created?????

Looks like Batman got more fans now than superman lol!!!! THANKS SINGER!!!!!

kal-el2006
07-12-2006, 12:59 PM
hell ill be happy with my SR dvd so i can watch it over and over and over =D.besides..doesnt look like "official news" from a blog? ha.

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 01:01 PM
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241909

I posted this news more than 12 hours ago. This thread is also in the wrong forum....

Red Mask
07-12-2006, 01:03 PM
So it's based on the domestic performance? Then the buck stops there.

mathhater
07-12-2006, 01:05 PM
Yeah cause a bunch of Pirates were actually entertaining, and had a waaaay more interesting plot. Oh and about the greatest character ever created?????

Looks like Batman got more fans now than superman lol!!!! THANKS SINGER!!!!!

It's just my opinion, but I enjoyed Superman more...like I said, Pirates was okay...but it really didn't grab me like SR did.

And the greatest character ever?...also, my opinion (guess I should edit that previous post...) but I never, ever said he was the most popular...I know he's not...but he's still my favorite.

mathhater
07-12-2006, 01:10 PM
While i disagree with u on Superman being the greatest ever created, i agree 100% with you on EVERYTHING else. I thought this movie was visually the BEST movie iv ever seen in my life. If there isnt to be another one, ill be upset, but i will have Superman Returns the video game, so i cant wait for that!

:up:

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 01:17 PM
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241909

kal-el2006
07-12-2006, 01:29 PM
is this news REAL? i mean it looks like its from a blog

NHawk19
07-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Yesterday called. It wants it's news back.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240396&page=4

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 01:40 PM
Yesterday called. It wants it's news back.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240396&page=4

The news needs its own thread. Cuz alot of people might miss it in that thread like I did.....

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 01:49 PM
Well, it needs to make another 100 million. I think it'll get there. Longer than expected, but it'll get there I think.

afan
07-12-2006, 01:51 PM
While i disagree with u on Superman being the greatest ever created, i agree 100% with you on EVERYTHING else. I thought this movie was visually the BEST movie iv ever seen in my life. If there isnt to be another one, ill be upset, but i will have Superman Returns the video game, so i cant wait for that!


With all due respect, you must not have seen many films.


The more I think about it the more I believe that a Superman film cries out for an all CG production.
Casting costs would be nonexistant, the "actors" would be spot on physically for the role, and a fantastic super-deeds film could be created on what would comparatively speaking be a very modest budget. As it is today all the FX of a Superman film would rely to some extent or all on CG, so why not just take the bigger step.

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 01:53 PM
Well, it needs to make another 100 million. I think it'll get there. Longer than expected, but it'll get there I think.


100 million :confused: :confused:

It needs less than 60 million dollars left.

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 01:53 PM
I think it'll make it.

It's already made 106 mil, right?

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 01:56 PM
I think it'll make it.

It's already made 106 mil, right?

No it hasnt its made much more than that. No wonder people think its a faliure since they proably have the wrong facts. That would suck i it had that much but it has..

144 Million
as of July 12


http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 02:03 PM
Really?

How much has it made? Last number I heard was 106 million.

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 02:07 PM
144 million


www.supermanhomepage.com

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 02:08 PM
it has made 144 million dollars as of July 12

NHawk19
07-12-2006, 02:10 PM
No it hasnt its made much more than that. No wonder people think its a faliure since they proably have the wrong facts. That would suck i it had that much but it has..

144 Million
as of June 12


http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php

me thinks you mean July :o

Seeing as how it wasnt released until June 28 :)

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 02:11 PM
****, then what are we crying about? We're gonna get a sequel.

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 02:15 PM
hahahahaa oops

:)

my bad.

Hunter Rider
07-12-2006, 02:42 PM
Even if it gets to $200M it doesn't sound certain and the much reduced budget is gonna make things harder and perhaps take Singer from the production

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 02:47 PM
Even if it gets to $200M it doesn't sound certain and the much reduced budget is gonna make things harder and perhaps take Singer from the production

It will get to 200 million!!

They proably will use Singer again, but just put him on a tighter leash this time. WB will proably be reading up on what people want in a Superman movie and force SInger to do it.

Milkman95
07-12-2006, 02:54 PM
TOO BAD!!!

oh well there is always SHAZAM a superman wannabe lol :up:

Yeah, it is too bad. SR is a better film than the junk that's been coming out of FOX and Marvel the last few years (FF, Blade III, X3, Elektra, Punisher, etc, etc.).

Shazam should be cool as well. Hope it's as good as SR.

WTFwuzThT
07-12-2006, 03:09 PM
Personally, I'm going to prepare for the worst. I've waited like 14 years for a Superman movie and I finally got one. So I'm going to try and be as satisfied by that as I can. Worst case scenario, no more Superman movies. At least I got to see one in my lifetime.

But it's really sad that not enough people are going to see a movie starring (IMO) the greatest character ever created...and overlooking him for a bunch of pirates.

(I watched POTC 2 btw...and I liked it okay, but I definitely don't think it should have been a record breaking movie...it was okay...and that's it...I liked SR and X3 a whole lot more...I can't believe it beat Spidey's record...ugh...certainly not deserving of such a feat IMO.)

So you'd rather see this drivel perpetuated? Do you think after this kick in the nuts they'd do this again? Next time it's a reboot from scratch like this should've been.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4097/combine14or.gif (http://imageshack.us)

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 03:14 PM
Dude....it's made 144 million....do you seriously think there's a chance it WON'T get to 200 mill?

I mean, WB could keep it out there for another 2 months.....even if the sales drop to hell, it'll make it to the 200 mark.

We're getting a sequel, fellas.

mathhater
07-12-2006, 03:14 PM
So you'd rather see this drivel perpetuated? Do you think after this kick in the nuts they'd do this again? Next time it's a reboot from scratch like this should've been.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4097/combine14or.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Well I would like to see this Superman continue on...granted, like everyone else, next time I expect a supervillian (besides Zod) and more action, but yeah...I do want to see this Superman some more. (I liked the movie, for the most part...sorry.)

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 03:17 PM
I think we're getting Brainiac.

Bad Superman
07-12-2006, 03:19 PM
So you'd rather see this drivel perpetuated? Do you think after this kick in the nuts they'd do this again? Next time it's a reboot from scratch like this should've been.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4097/combine14or.gif (http://imageshack.us)

That's both cruel and funny. . . .












I LIKE IT!!!! :D


:mad: :mad: :mad:

Milkman95
07-12-2006, 03:25 PM
We'll see Brandon and this Superman again, but Singer, Dougherty, and Harris will be all question marks.

Hunter Rider
07-12-2006, 03:27 PM
We'll see Brandon and this Superman again, but Singer, Dougherty, and Harris will be all question marks.
I agree and it could be mutual,Singer may not want to make a sequel with less money as if he is expected to deliver huge superman vs supervillain battles then he is gonna need as much money again at least IMO

retconned
07-12-2006, 03:28 PM
This is just as much a result of the movie not having rewatchable quality as it is POTC2.

WTFwuzThT
07-12-2006, 03:29 PM
Dude....it's made 144 million....do you seriously think there's a chance it WON'T get to 200 mill?

I mean, WB could keep it out there for another 2 months.....even if the sales drop to hell, it'll make it to the 200 mark.

We're getting a sequel, fellas.

It's not up to WB if it stays in theaters or not. On monday it made a whopping 2.6 million dollars. Let me say that for you again, 2.6 million dollars. For those keeping track that's $653 per screen and it's been out less than 2 weeks. As of Monday it's current take is 144 million. This movie doesn't have 56 million left in it. It's not gonna hit 200 million, sorry. It tanked badly and when other movies come out that make more money they'll begin removing showings of this dreck in favor of those. Superman is dead. Even if by some miracle it were to hit 200 it still wouldn't even begin to pay for itself in any shape for or way. Don't fool yourself WB is taking a very dim view of their golden boy right now and sweating bullets and kicking their own asses for this debacle.

antariksh
07-12-2006, 03:30 PM
Yeah, it is too bad. SR is a better film than the junk that's been coming out of FOX and Marvel the last few years (FF, Blade III, X3, Elektra, Punisher, etc, etc.).

Shazam should be cool as well. Hope it's as good as SR.

don't compare SHAZAM to Superman. He is in a league of his own :o

And i don't want shazam to be like superman. I want it to be like the cartoon show that use to come long time ago in 1997

DA Harvey Dent
07-12-2006, 03:35 PM
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3448/supermanowned3rc.png

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 03:36 PM
So....you think that at 144.....it won't make it to 200?

How long does a film usually stay in theaters?

Btw.....when CINDERELLA MAN didn't make any money, how'd they re-relase it?

Octoberist
07-12-2006, 03:37 PM
I have to agree that a Superman sequel will be a go, but I don't know about Singer's involvement. To be honest.

Look at the Hulk's sequel: They're replacing everyone supposely. It's a shame because Universal shouldn't have to.

If Singer spent 210-250 on this movie which doesn't have a lot of action scenes, how in the living hell can he bring out Brainiac with a lower budget?

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 03:37 PM
Techically speaking....didn't POTC2 PWN all films in the history of filmmaking?

WTFwuzThT
07-12-2006, 03:38 PM
Bad Superman: Thank you. I to felt the pangs of cruelty as I put it together but it seemed so funny and ripe for humor it had to be done. :D

I to wouldn't mind seeing Routh back as Superman if they get rid of the kid and most of the 30 year old look of the movie. Hell just scrap it and start over with Routh. Although marketing wise WB might want to distance themselves from this somewhat. For example, the Hulk sequel...

ChrisBaleBatman
07-12-2006, 03:38 PM
Well, alot of the sets have been built...and the means and ways to create believable flying has been found.

Most of the money would be spent on the fighting, my guess. Everything else should be pretty easy to fund on a lower budget.

Tony Stark
07-12-2006, 03:39 PM
This is just as much a result of the movie not having rewatchable quality as it is POTC2.

Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Octoberist
07-12-2006, 03:39 PM
No doubt in my mind that WB will have more of a say this time around. I just hope that WB won't do the samething with Batman or any of the other DC properties.

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 03:40 PM
Techically speaking....didn't POTC2 PWN all films in the history of filmmaking?

in box office....:)

but not in quality (compared to better films)...:( :down

Bad Superman
07-12-2006, 03:41 PM
Bad Superman: Thank you. I to felt the pangs of cruelty as I put it together but it seemed so funny and ripe for humor it had to be done. :D

I to wouldn't mind seeing Routh back as Superman if they get rid of the kid and most of the 30 year old look of the movie. Hell just scrap it and start over with Routh. Although marketing wise WB might want to distance themselves from this somewhat.

We're definitely on the same page. Welcome aboard!!! Keep your M-60, UZI and hand grenades with you at all times. Things can get messy here. :D

Octoberist
07-12-2006, 03:41 PM
Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Yeah, WB should of released Superman earlier..giving it some buffer time. I remember there was nothing release the week before.

retconned
07-12-2006, 03:43 PM
Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Because 90% of the people in the Warner Brother's office, along with Singer and co. are, for lack of a better term, god damn idiots.

Batman Begins was an excellent film, but it was a fluke that such a good film got made under the WB banner. Lets hope the sequl is excellent as well :up:

buggs0268
07-12-2006, 03:45 PM
Even if it gets to $200M it doesn't sound certain and the much reduced budget is gonna make things harder and perhaps take Singer from the production
And that would be a god thing.

Milkman95
07-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Because 90% of the people in the Warner Brother's office, along with Singer and co. are, for lack of a better term, god damn idiots.

Batman Begins was an excellent film, but it was a fluke that such a good film got made under the WB banner. Lets hope the sequl is excellent as well :up:

I could name several films that have been great under the WB banner. I think you're mixing WB up with FOX.

buggs0268
07-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.
Because they thought it was going to be such a hit. they didn't expect it to bomb.

Truthteller
07-12-2006, 03:51 PM
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241909

I posted this news more than 12 hours ago. This thread is also in the wrong forum....Agreed. Merging...

WTFwuzThT
07-12-2006, 03:57 PM
So....you think that at 144.....it won't make it to 200?

How long does a film usually stay in theaters?

Btw.....when CINDERELLA MAN didn't make any money, how'd they re-relase it?

Cinderella man was released to less than 800 screens in October to try and get it an Oscar nomination. Considering the audience reaction and reviews this film had do you find it hard to believe they couldn't find 800 screens to show it on at the lamest time of the year??? Even Catwoman could find 800 screens in October, nothing else is playing. It's like the Sci-Fi Original of movie months.

Excel
07-12-2006, 04:34 PM
this cannot be true. it would be complete stubburness on the part of w.b.

Excel
07-12-2006, 04:36 PM
supes will get 200 million probably, wether it has to scratch and claw its way there or not.

Spider-Man™
07-12-2006, 04:45 PM
We have to see a sequel, dammit. :(

Spider-Man™
07-12-2006, 04:46 PM
On second thought, how could this be true when all the actors signed on to come back for more?

boywonder13
07-12-2006, 04:47 PM
We have to see a sequel, dammit. :(

We will have a sequel my friend......

relax.....

:) :up:

OzzMosiz
07-12-2006, 04:54 PM
Terminator 3 is likely getting a sequel. That cost 200million to make and only took 150million in the US!

I see no reason why Superman can't get a sequel. They need to keep the tone the same but up the action.

Kill the kid and let Supes have a reason for getting p****d!!

buggs0268
07-12-2006, 06:29 PM
hey guys, this is how studios work. Granted it isnt WB, but it is another heavyweight with the record breaking movie out now:

LOS ANGELES - Walt Disney Co. will substantially reduce its work force and slash its annual output of films from 18 to eight — cutbacks greater than Hollywood had anticipated, it was reported Wednesday.

Additionally, Daily Variety said all the movies will be Disney-branded, suggesting diminished roles for its Touchstone label. The Hollywood trade paper said a Disney announcement was expected within 10 days.

Burbank-based Disney, basking in the glow of a record $135.6 million debut weekend box office for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," wouldn't discuss the report.

"We are constantly evaluating our business to make it better and more efficient," Disney spokeswoman Heidi Trotta said in a prepared statement to The Associated Press.

Disney's move reflects a trend in Hollywood to cut costs amid increasing overhead, production budgets and marketing bills.

Disney has said for some time it was going to cut its total number of films and concentrate on Disney-branded offerings, which make more money that those released on the studio's Touchstone label.

The studio has already greatly reduced the number of films released on its Miramax banner.

During Disney's past four quarterly media conference calls, CEO Robert Iger has said cutbacks were coming but didn't discuss details.

"It becomes a much better investment for us when we make a Disney-branded film," Iger said last September. "We're not going to go out of the non-Disney-branded live-action business, but there has been a dramatic shift."

Wall Street sees the move as necessary if the entertainment giant wants to see double-digit growth, said analyst David Miller, managing director of the brokerage firm Sanders Morris Harris Group.

"Most of the street was onto the fact that Disney-branded film returns were greater," he said.

Disney's fortunes have been lifted recently by "Pirates" and it's Pixar-animated movie "Cars," which has earned more than $205 million this summer.

But the studio has also endured disappointments, including "Stick It," "Annapolis" and "The Wild."

Disney's annual motion picture capital allocation is believed to be $450 million, Miller said. Spreading that amount over eight films instead of 18 could be better in a variety of ways, including cutting marketing and production costs, he said.

So if this is going on at Disney, expecially with their company that has the biggest oney maker now, imagine what is going on at theWB over this.

LongDong
07-12-2006, 06:46 PM
WOOHOO thois means that ther emight not be another horrible Singer movie. I for one am confident that this dud will not hit 200 mill in the good old U S of A and thus the studio (assuming they stick by their guns) do not greenlight a part 2 of this disaster.
Happy day!!!

vampireslayer97
07-12-2006, 08:05 PM
Between DVD sales, toy sales and oversea grosses there will be another one.

Style 92
07-19-2006, 07:06 PM
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php

TMZ.com claims that talent agency insiders with ties to "Superman Returns" have been told that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark in the U.S.
The film has already taken in US$144.3 million since its July 28th opening, and should have no problem reaching the reported $200 million fail safe.

No official announcement has been made by Horn or Warner Bros. regarding this claim, so at this stage it's only a speculative rumor.






So there is going to be a sequel cause it's almost impossible for Superman Returns not to make 200 million..... Unfortunately, it doesn't look that impossible...

Maybe Superman could cameo in the next Batman?

BULLITT
07-19-2006, 11:49 PM
Here's a suggestion; If WB prefers not to do another one, they should auction
an option for another studio (assuming another studio would want to) to do a film.

Aparently this was done before, with Supes, and after 10 years the rights reverted back to WB.

I saw SR in both a regular theatre and in IMAX-3D.

The action sequences in 3-D were friggen insane !:supes:

Some studio (someday) is going stomp 'Titanic' with a action/feature in 3D.

SR was O.K, but not great. It's hard today to make Supes palatable for most people - re; he's not an Anti-hero, I for one would rather not see another film than have the studio execs mess with the character, or the creativity of the film makers.

Singer will survive either way, but he should not allow WB to emasculate his ideas. Also, I think he should re-edit the DVD (a la the Donnor soon-to-be released 1978 film). Don't just add the deleted scenes, but rather, place them in their intended sections.

Another tip for Singer; go to a private island and read Superman comics. Your principle writers were in over their heads. This story was flat, and they (and you) saved money on the script by regurgitating dialogue from the original film. That's not homage, that's a pathetic attempt at covering-up a lack of creativity.:down

geomon
07-20-2006, 02:38 AM
Between DVD sales, toy sales and oversea grosses there will be another one.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you remember a certain Warner Bros. film based on a DC comic that cost 100 million to make but fell a tad short domestically. Of course adding in overseas, dvd's and such put over the top a sequel was never green lit. Let's see if you can guess what it is.

DACrowe
07-21-2006, 12:31 AM
I don't know if we'll get a sequel but I'd expect it to cost a lot less if we get one though.