The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[Weadazoid]

Wow that should leave a distate in everyones mouth so expect less not more in terms of SFX

great..perfect...this pretty much garuatees Zod or perhaps a totaly humaniod brainaick that barely shows off any technorganic in nature views

Forget about a robotic or visualy stunning Brainiack at this point, and forget about the same kind of leap forward we saw from Spiderman to Spiderman 2, or X men to X men 2 cause it just won't be there in terms of the budget.

[Kevin Roegele]

Wow that should leave a distate in everyones mouth so expect less not more in terms of SFX

great..perfect...this pretty much garuatees Zod or perhaps a totaly humaniod brainaick that barely shows off any technorganic in nature views

Forget about a robotic or visualy stunning Brainiack at this point, and forget about the same kind of leap forward we saw from Spiderman to Spiderman 2, or X men to X men 2 cause it just won't be there in terms of the budget.

I think you're looking at this wrong. Money doesn't make good special effects. Creativity and talent make good special effects. X2 cost around $120m yet can stand right next to Superman Returns as far as effects go. In terms of action, X2 has more and it's better.

Superman Returns cost so much because of the scope. Singer wanted a superhero epic on a biblical scale.

[markaudette]

Weren't there some gimbels and flying rigs made specifically just for SR? These are part of the reason the budget for SR was so big and is also why the sequel will also be be slightly less expensive to produce.

There's the flying rig and the giant gimbal built for the jet sequence. They can pull those out for another use. That should save them a lot of cash.

[The Question]

Wow that should leave a distate in everyones mouth so expect less not more in terms of SFX

great..perfect...this pretty much garuatees Zod or perhaps a totaly humaniod brainaick that barely shows off any technorganic in nature views

Forget about a robotic or visualy stunning Brainiack at this point, and forget about the same kind of leap forward we saw from Spiderman to Spiderman 2, or X men to X men 2 cause it just won't be there in terms of the budget.

Perrsonally, I don't really want a robotic Brainiac. A green skinned Brainiac with cybernetic implants sticking out of his body (most notebly the three red circles on his forehead), and possibly a semi-visible techno/wire pattern to suggest that he doesn't have veins, but instead wires. Aside from that, his powers could be mainly centered around telekinesis, telepathy, and energy manipulation. The first two require mainly practical effects, and the second requires minimal CGI.

[matthooper]

Creativity and talent make good special effects.

But that is the problem. A total lack of creativity and talent for the new vision of Superman. A bigger budget got us Superman Returns, more money would not have made it any less mediocre.

As far as the sequel goes, they could spend $400 million, but as long as Singer and the writing team from Superman Returns are on board, more money won't make a bit of difference.

[Maze]

But that is the problem. A total lack of creativity and talent for the new vision of Superman.

Opinion .

i think the contrary.And i totally agree with Kevin.

[Weadazoid]

I think you're looking at this wrong. Money doesn't make good special effects. Creativity and talent make good special effects. X2 cost around $120m yet can stand right next to Superman Returns as far as effects go. In terms of action, X2 has more and it's better.

Superman Returns cost so much because of the scope. Singer wanted a superhero epic on a biblical scale.

I agree but X 2 was made some time ago.

and in an age where the sequal is supposed to be far more eye poping.

Look at the difference from Spiderman 1 to 2, look at the difference from Pirates 1 to 2.

I think most fans expect that and it takes money

is Batman TDK going to cost less then 150 Million to make? some how I doubt it, they will probubly give Nolan a bigger budget this time around because of the success of the first film.

so the question is..with a smaller or nearly the same budget..was SUperman a Success?

[Maze]

Well , i think that the first pirate was better.More inventive in all areas.

(and that saying a lot as i think the first one was so so .. )

[KaptainKrypton]

Weren't there some gimbels and flying rigs made specifically just for SR? These are part of the reason the budget for SR was so big and is also why the sequel will also be be slightly less expensive to produce.

There's the flying rig and the giant gimbal built for the jet sequence. They can pull those out for another use. That should save them a lot of cash.
Not to mention the fresh sets for Smallville, The Daily Planet, The Fortress, The Krytponian Ship, New Krypton, and The Gertrude (w/gimball). Let's not forget about the R&D costs for flying and the suit. Not only did these things have to be built from scratch, but they were also designed from scratch. In Spider-Man 2, they only tweaked the design of the suit a little bit and the FX technologies were a little more finely honed as Dykstra and his team at Sony had already dealt with the same kinds of tasks as in the first film. The Daily Planet, The Krypton Ship (unless the footage from SR is used), and The Gertrude will not even be in use the second time around. They probably won't have to spend nearly as much because they've already used/designed a great bulk of the sets, as well as the suit and flying FX.

[Maze]

I agree but X 2 was made some time ago.


Yup but X2 was made one year before Spiderman 2.

So yes Spiderman 2 had way more cgi and stuff ..very spectacular ,nice and all ..but personnally i found that not only there was too much of it ,it was often too long (the aunt May Octopus scene for example was too long , and i was bored ) but i didn't find it very involving ..

I prefer shorter ,and more visceral action scenes.

[Weadazoid]

I tbasicaly was to show how Dock Ock was a very worthy opponent to Spiderman, and I doubt anyone really thinks there was too much of it most fans really loved it.

Th Greatest things about Comics is the fight sequences and we need more movies to go for it all out in the ame sense Spiderman 2 went for it.


Short and viceral can work..but did you really think Wolverine vs Yuriko (Lady D) was short and viceral, the fight lasted a good while..different kind of fight required some CGI but not alot..but it still was far from short and viceral..well viceral but not short.

Thing is we need to see Superman have an all out battle with a Villain who can go tit for tat, that requires heavy steady CGI, seeing the villain dodge/absorb the punishment of the lazer eyes, and trade back with some incendiary of it's own

One thing is for sure we certainly are not going to see an Apokayptic alein invasion Darksiede style not with this budget forget about it.

[C. Lee]

The lower budget just means they don't have to spend money inventing new things (reuse leftover stuff from the first movie)....shoot as many new scenes (use deleted scenes from first movie in this one)...and make them learn to tighten things up and not be so wasteful.

[skruloos]

I tbasicaly was to show how Dock Ock was a very worthy opponent to Spiderman, and I doubt anyone really thinks there was too much of it most fans really loved it.
Too much of it? I would be in the party that agrees there was too much. Maybe if the CG was better I wouldn't care but there was too much bad CGI for my tastes.

[Showtime]

It was a CGI fest muddled with predictable dialogue.

[GreenKToo]

It will be fine.They are prolly gonna reuse most of the sets from S.R.,not to mention the return to krypton scene will most likely be used.I still think Darkseid is very possibe to do,but if not, its kool...Brainiac is awesome as well...

[Rob-el]

The lower budget just means they don't have to spend money inventing new things (reuse leftover stuff from the first movie)....shoot as many new scenes (use deleted scenes from first movie in this one)...and make them learn to tighten things up and not be so wasteful.

So true..they have the $10 million Krypton scenes that I'm sure will be used with a little tweaking. I can see it as the opening of the movie, we spend five minutes exploring the ruins of Krypton then Supes gives the "go home" command and his ship leaves but in the back ground we see something glow and get brighter and then starts to fly after Supe's ship - this will be the threat (Braniac?) for the next movie and they already have this almost already to go!

[fabman]

The fact is, Bryan Singer spent 10 million dollars for a scene which wasn't used in the movie... wasted money... that's what Bryan Singer doesn't have to do with this movie - waste money.

P.S.: Wouldn't it be interesting seeing the death of Superman in the Singer's second movie? The Kevin Smith script wasn't that bad and would've been better if it wasn't for Jon Peter ("giant spider...").

[dar-El]

Im betting that Mongul will be the villain in the sequel and not Zod. That way singer will avoid repeating the original films. Cos at the moment he's nowt but a ripoff artist.

[GreenKToo]

^ I could deal with mongul too...I think most of us agree that as long as Zod is not the main villian, we can deal with who ever..(as long as its no toyman hehe)

[JamalYIgle]

The fact is, Bryan Singer spent 10 million dollars for a scene which wasn't used in the movie... wasted money... that's what Bryan Singer doesn't have to do with this movie - waste money.

P.S.: Wouldn't it be interesting seeing the death of Superman in the Singer's second movie? The Kevin Smith script wasn't that bad and would've been better if it wasn't for Jon Peter ("giant spider...").

Yes because the studio made him cut down the films running time. Every movie has filmed scenes cut out. It happens, You can no more blame Singer than you can blame any other director.

[C. Lee]

Yes because the studio made him cut down the films running time. Every movie has filmed scenes cut out. It happens, You can no more blame Singer than you can blame any other director.
Unfortuantly it is the way of the boards. I have seen way too many posters who stick to their preconceived ideas about someone or something....and simply run with it...logic be damned.

[Super Kal]

but singer himself said the he himself cut it out... that doesn't tell me that the studio cut it out, but Singer did.

[Freddy_Krueger]

but singer himself said the he himself cut it out... that doesn't tell me that the studio cut it out, but Singer did.

Because he had to, for pacing's sake. It's not like its the first time numerous scenes have been filmed and then cut out. It's just the way editing works: what can we keep and still tell the story and what can we get rid of without hurting the film. $10 million or no, if it hurt the pacing then it shouldn't have been included in the film.

[skruloos]

but singer himself said the he himself cut it out... that doesn't tell me that the studio cut it out, but Singer did.
Have you ever tried making a movie? Sometimes a script is written and after it is assembled, you see the whole thing and not just the scenes out of context and you realize the film doesn't work as well as you'd hoped. Editing begins in the scripting, continues during production, and goes all the way through til post production. It happens all the time.

[dark_b]

Have you ever tried making a movie? Sometimes a script is written and after it is assembled, you see the whole thing and not just the scenes out of context and you realize the film doesn't work as well as you'd hoped. Editing begins in the scripting, continues during production, and goes all the way through til post production. It happens all the time.but this doesnt sound good. you can not work 2 years and then ut something so big out.

[skruloos]

but this doesnt sound good. you can not work 2 years and then ut something so big out.
Actually, yes you can. And it's not like it's an easy decision. Believe me, having to cut anything out of your film is like cutting an appendage off one of your babies. But you have to do what you believe is right for the film. It's disappointing but it is a reality.

Ridley Scott chose to cut the gorier parts of Alien because he felt it was better to focus on reactions and the atmosphere instead. That was a lot of footage and hard work done by the Special Effects crew that ended up on the cutting room floor. It happens.

[dark_b]

Actually, yes you can. And it's not like it's an easy decision. Believe me, having to cut anything out of your film is like cutting an appendage off one of your babies. But you have to do what you believe is right for the film. It's disappointing but it is a reality.

Ridley Scott chose to cut the gorier parts of Alien because he felt it was better to focus on reactions and the atmosphere instead. That was a lot of footage and hard work done by the Special Effects crew that ended up on the cutting room floor. It happens.if WB is the reason than singer is taking this really good.

[skruloos]

if WB is the reason than singer is taking this really good.
No one ever said it was the WB or not. And even if it was, what do you expect Singer to say? You expect him to burn bridges with a studio he has optioned films with? It's seldom in the business that any director gets Carte Blanche so even if it WAS the studio it wouldn't be a complete surprise.

[J.Howlett]

skruloos,

From what it sounds like, it was Singer's decision but again, as you pointed out, he more than likely didn't come to that decision without really, really thinking long and hard on it.

Directors want to keep everything in their films, at the beginning. But once you're in that editing room, trying to FIND the film, sometimes you cut stuff you really don't want too.

Believe me, I seriously doubt Singer wanted to cut a ten million dollar sequence. But, you can rest assure that the Return of Krypton will find its way onto the big screen...either in a extended cut of Returns or in the sequel.

Either way, we'll see it.

[Retroman]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.

[Dark Knight]

Budget is not the problem when it comes to effects. Like someone said earlier it's all about creativity and talent. The budget for the sequel needs to be at 150 million.....no more and no less.

[KaptainKrypton]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.
Bingo. I think part of the issue with some of these tentpole films these days is that when money is no object, the focus isn't as tight as when a director is much more fiscally responsible. I loved the CGI in SR, but the one thing I did miss is the live action wire work and the real takeoffs and landings like in the old films. I really wanted to get a gander at what the XYZ flying rig could really do, but alas, we never did. Even if they used some simpler shots and more green screen instead of the full CGI models, then I'd be fine with that. There are going to be some solid FX regardless, but it's not a case like with the original Matrix where they're basically rewriting the boundaries of VFX.

[skruloos]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.
I agree on your logic behind this post except for a few things:

1. In some cases, a CG double will actually be cheaper than using the live action equivalent as insurance policies don't have to be taken out for complicated action scenes. It is the bane of my particular existence as I abhor CG doubles.

2. Pre-vizing can cut costs in the long run for special effects shots. The effects company can work off the basic model information and the motion controlled cinematography information can be applied during production.

3. The number of effects houses also can be cheaper. The way it usually goes is that scenes are put for bid. This allows you to choose which effects houses to go with at a reasonable cost. Instead of bombarding a few studios with a lot of work and a long contract you go with more companies with less work and thereby shorter contracts.

But on the whole, I do agree. More restriction causes people to be more creative. Case in point, the original Star Wars trilogy compared to the prequels.

[04nbod]

george lucas said that ilm are now not focused on making effects better but cheaper. by the time the sequel comes it'll be all right

[Retroman]

Bingo. I think part of the issue with some of these tentpole films these days is that when money is no object, the focus isn't as tight as when a director is much more fiscally responsible. I loved the CGI in SR, but the one thing I did miss is the live action wire work and the real takeoffs and landings like in the old films. I really wanted to get a gander at what the XYZ flying rig could really do, but alas, we never did. Even if they used some simpler shots and more green screen instead of the full CGI models, then I'd be fine with that. There are going to be some solid FX regardless, but it's not a case like with the original Matrix where they're basically rewriting the boundaries of VFX.
I agree and its not like they're getting a 'shoestring' budget. The reported 140-175 million budget is still a lot of cash to do magic with.
I agree on your logic behind this post except for a few things:

1. In some cases, a CG double will actually be cheaper than using the live action equivalent as insurance policies don't have to be taken out for complicated action scenes. It is the bane of my particular existence as I abhor CG doubles.

2. Pre-vizing can cut costs in the long run for special effects shots. The effects company can work off the basic model information and the motion controlled cinematography information can be applied during production.

3. The number of effects houses also can be cheaper. The way it usually goes is that scenes are put for bid. This allows you to choose which effects houses to go with at a reasonable cost. Instead of bombarding a few studios with a lot of work and a long contract you go with more companies with less work and thereby shorter contracts.
Good points:up: but i'd still like for them to try and use more of Brandon instead of his CG double. Not for the really complex stuff but shots that easily could have been done with the actor in SR.

[Retroman]

george lucas said that ilm are now not focused on making effects better but cheaper. by the time the sequel comes it'll be all right
Imageworks beat out ILM last for the coveted SR fx contract. Wonder how things will go for SR2, post-POTC2?:word:

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So true..they have the $10 million Krypton scenes that I'm sure will be used with a little tweaking. I can see it as the opening of the movie, we spend five minutes exploring the ruins of Krypton then Supes gives the "go home" command and his ship leaves but in the back ground we see something glow and get brighter and then starts to fly after Supe's ship - this will be the threat (Braniac?) for the next movie and they already have this almost already to go!

I think that is exactly how the opening will go, then we will cut to modern day with Superman waking up indicating it was a nightmare, or perhaps Superman floating above earth again and the villains ship flies right past him to earth. That would be cool.

[FanboyX_Returns]

Opinion .

i think the contrary.And i totally agree with Kevin.

Maybe so but from the box office numbers it brought in that would seem to be the general opinion by fans. :word:

[Maze]

Maybe so but from the box office numbers it brought in that would seem to be the general opinion by fans. :word:


Well , the majority doe a lot of of questionable things every days, not really a criteria ..

now , yup the movie did underperform and did not do pirate number , but not a lot of movie does it .and Superman did put a lot of people in theaters (and had especially good legs )

But that said, is that so important to you to be part of the majority?

ps: take a look at the polls , the majority of fans boys liked the movie .

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well , the majority doe a lot of of questionable things every days, not really a criteria ..

now , yup the movie did underperform and did not do pirate number , but not a lot of movie does it .and Superman did put a lot of people in theaters (and had especially good legs )

But that said, is that so important to you to be part of the majority?

ps: take a look at the polls , the majority of fans boys liked the movie .

Yep, Superman Returns is doing very well on polls not just on this web-site but others as well, it seems the majority liked it :yay:

[Road Warrior]

Seriously! I haven't seen so much hate towards a movie since that Ben Affleck/J.Lo movie! I wonder if this movie will make any money since there's so much hate towards SR.

I guess it will only make money if it has a kickass trailer!

[hippie_hunter]

Actually those who like Superman Returns are in the majority. Those who hate it are a very sizeable and very, very, vocal minority.

[Catman]

Actually those who like Superman Returns are in the majority.

:huh:

Those who hate it are a very sizeable and very, very, vocal minority.

VERY vocal indeed. :woot:

[kevinpenni]

This movie wont make more than the first, but the budget will surely be less than the first films, so it should make a profit.

[Motown Marvel]

if you go to anywhere on the internet that has a mass collection of user ratings of the film (imdb, rotten tomatoes, boxofficemojo, even polls on SHH!), the vast majority of people gave SR a positive rating.

[Catman]

if you go to anywhere on the internet that has a mass collection of user ratings of the film (imdb, rotten tomatoes, boxofficemojo, even polls on SHH!), the vast majority of people gave SR a positive rating.

:huh:

[Kebab gud]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide.. almost twice what the budget of the movie .. not making any money you say?

[Catman]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

i like how people that hate (insert name here) think that it must have bombed. don't matter if its a movie, comic, tv show, or a CD. they fell that because they and the few people that they have talked to hate it, it must have failed.

case in point: the star wars prequles. most fans hated them but they made a lot of money, so that means that a lot of people must have liked them for them to get that much money.

[sepharih]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide.. almost twice what the budget of the movie .. not making any money you say?
Yes, we’re saying it hasn’t made a single red cent. Theaters take roughly half of the ticket sales first off, and the films budget doesn’t account for the marketing costs to try and get people interested in the movies, among other things.
In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit. At the absolute most, if DVD sales go through the roof, this film has a chance at breaking even. Any “profit” they get will be of no real significance.

And yes, the next film does have a chance to make money, IF: they correct the rather embarrassing marketing mistakes they made with the first one, making a more entertaining and action oriented film, and the WB needs to recognize when it’s out of its league. Honestly, whoever thought the Superman name would be able to stand up to the collective stardom of Depp, Bloom, and Knightly needs to be committed.

[Motown Marvel]

:huh:
the original poster was saying the sequel isnt likely to make money since there was so much hate towards superman returns. when in fact, the film was very well recieved by the general audience (see numbers below), and its just a very vocal minority of haters that seem to have congregated here to flame the movie.

imdb average user rating gave superman returns 7/10.
box office mojo average user rating gave it a 'B'.
rotten tomatoes critics: 76% fresh.
rotten tomatoes average user rating: 79%

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Yes, we’re saying it hasn’t made a single red cent. Theaters take roughly half of the ticket sales first off, and the films budget doesn’t account for the marketing costs to try and get people interested in the movies, among other things.
In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit. At the absolute most, if DVD sales go through the roof, this film has a chance at breaking even. Any “profit” they get will be of no real significance.

And yes, the next film does have a chance to make money, IF: they correct the rather embarrassing marketing mistakes they made with the first one, making a more entertaining and action oriented film, and the WB needs to recognize when it’s out of its league. Honestly, whoever thought the Superman name would be able to stand up to the collective stardom of Depp, Bloom, and Knightly needs to be committed.

the theaters make little money off the ticket sales. its made off the consessions. thats why they want shorter movies so that they can sell more pop and popcorn.

"In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit."

so what your saying is that if a movie costs $100 to make and it takes in $103 then it didn't make any money.

[Motown Marvel]

Theaters take roughly half of the ticket sales first off
actually, within the first 2 weeks of a films opening (when SR, like most movies, do the majority of their business) theaters barely get 25% of the ticket sales.

and the films budget doesn’t account for the marketing costs to try and get people interested in the movies, among other things.

thats not always true, and is dependant on a film to film basis.

In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit.

more like double.


And yes, the next film does have a chance to make money, IF: they correct the rather embarrassing marketing mistakes they made with the first one, making a more entertaining and action oriented film, and the WB needs to recognize when it’s out of its league. Honestly, whoever thought the Superman name would be able to stand up to the collective stardom of Depp, Bloom, and Knightly needs to be committed.

cant say i dont disagree with that one.

[GreenKToo]

I'm no expert and dont claim to be,but common sense says if the sequel has better marketing,a good story,more action,plus a supervillian, it will make more,maybe lots more."IF" it does have all of the before mentioned,even if the opening is not so great,W.O.M will take hold,and the money will come...On the other side of the coin, "IF" its more like S.R. with so so marketing,no supervillian,and the same level of action,it will prolly tank IMHO.

[The Kid]

If it's a restart it'll probably make a lot. If it's superboy adventures, no...

[Kebab gud]

it might be a superhit!... if they add action and a supervillian..
just look at the nest fantastic four movie .. i hate the first but im gitty as a little school girl over the next..

its all up to the director... and i think singer has seen the light, call it blind faith

PS: Superman Returns has made more money then Batman Begins worldwide.. do you all hate BB aswell? was that a flopp too?
infact only tim burtons batman made more money then Superman Returns.. (not ajusted for inflation)

[The Incredible Hulk]

Singer hasnt seen anything, his little quote about giving "Super-bastard" more screen time in the next film should tell you that.

[The Kid]

Yes, Kebab... Begins failed to do batman justice and is hated by batfans...

:)

[GreenKToo]

well,if they can re-make the Hulk,anything is possible..its supposed to be bigger and better than the first,so we'll see I suppose...I just think that the W.B. will insist on more action for the sequel.

[Catman]

the original poster was saying the sequel isnt likely to make money since there was so much hate towards superman returns. when in fact, the film was very well recieved by the general audience (see numbers below), and its just a very vocal minority of haters that seem to have congregated here to flame the movie.

imdb average user rating gave superman returns 7/10.
box office mojo average user rating gave it a 'B'.
rotten tomatoes critics: 76% fresh.
rotten tomatoes average user rating: 79%

Maybe the haters are just more vocal. IMDb may say 7/10 but if you look at the boards its nothing but hate. I don't know. It should be interesting to see what happens.

[bunk]

Anger always makes people more vocal than any other emotion. When you mute the people screaming, you can then hear what the majority of people are saying.

[Kebab gud]

Yes, Kebab... Begins failed to do batman justice and is hated by batfans...

:)
funny.. im a batfan and i love Begins.. finaly a batman movie about batman! not his enemys..

[Catman]

Anger always makes people more vocal than any other emotion. When you mute the people screaming, you can then hear what the majority of people are saying.

I see. I'm sure the Batman & Robin lovers say the same. ;)

[DvilDog]

I think batman and robin was actually the only batman flick i havent liked. As for SR and MOS I liked SR so as long as singer doesnt go the Ratner route with MOS then I will be happy. Of course im sure a lot of you enjoyed X3 so my apologies if i offended anyone

[Freddy_Krueger]

I see. I'm sure the Batman & Robin lovers say the same. ;)

Those don't exist. ;)

[GreenKToo]

B&R...man,I really tried to like it,but I just couldnt get past those Bat-ice skates.

[Hugebear]

It depends on the title of the movie.


SUPERMAN RETIRES

The son becomes the father in 2009. :woot:

[Catman]

SUPERMAN RETIRES

The son becomes the father in 2009. :woot:

LMFAO :woot:

[Kebab gud]

I see. I'm sure the Batman & Robin lovers say the same. ;)
bull**** .. as there is noone on earth that LIKES that movie ..

the thing i hate the most with it is the "swhoop" sound when the goons slip on the ice... my god its worse then Superman IV ..

[bunk]

There is one guy who like B&R. He just got re-elected.

[Mr. Socko]

Yeah, the movie will make plenty. But not as much as SR, resulting in Singer's demise and no third.

[hippie_hunter]

Maybe the haters are just more vocal. IMDb may say 7/10 but if you look at the boards its nothing but hate. I don't know. It should be interesting to see what happens.

The haters have a very sizeable minority to allow them to be very vocal.

And the haters are a lot more vocal than those who liked it.

[kevinpenni]

haters of anything are always more vocal

[Catman]

The lovers should be vocal too.

[hippie_hunter]

haters of anything are always more vocal

Not really. The Spider-Man haters, Batman Begins haters and a few others weren't quite vocal because they simply didn't have the numbers to be vocal.

The haters of movies such as CINO, Batman & Robin, SINO, etc. really don't count because those movies are basically universally hated by nearly everyone.

The Superman Returns haters population is quite big despite being in the minority. It allows them to be vocal.

[Maze]

Not really. The Spider-Man haters, Batman Begins haters and a few others weren't quite vocal because they simply didn't have the numbers to be vocal.

The haters of movies such as CINO, Batman & Robin, SINO, etc. really don't count because those movies are basically universally hated by nearly everyone.
The Superman Returns haters population is quite big despite being in the minority. It allows them to be vocal.
Superman returns inpar with those movies and being universally hated okkk ;)

Please. you don't like it okk , but don't make up facts , it give haters a bad name (yup take a look at Yahoo, rotten, imdb , joblo , amazon , among other please ;) )

[hippie_hunter]

Superman returns inpar with this movies and being universally hated okkk ;)

Please. you don't like it okk , but don't make up facts , it give haters a bad name (yup take a look at Yahoo, rotten, imdb , joblo , amazon , among other please ;) )

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

[Maze]

Nope .

and i can even tell ya that i not only i know people who didn't like Sr ,yep ;)but especially non fans who loved it .. people who doesn't even like Super hero movie usually.

no? Well,feel free to stick to your theories :o :cwink:

[lordofthenerds]

I see. I'm sure the Batman & Robin lovers say the same. ;)
But if you look at polls/ratings for Batman & Robin they're exceedingly low proving that not many people like the movie.

[dude love]

Maybe the haters are just more vocal. IMDb may say 7/10 but if you look at the boards its nothing but hate. I don't know. It should be interesting to see what happens.

Most people who liked the movie don't bother going there. Even when they make counter arguements, the haters just ignore them and keep posting the same arguements.

IMDB shouldn't count as accurate. Because there's a whole lot of people that create multiple accounts to vote 10 or 1 on any given movie.

[Catman]

IMDB shouldn't count as accurate. Because there's a whole lot of people that create multiple accounts to vote 10 or 1 on any given movie.

Guilty :o

[Maze]

Most people who liked the movie don't bother going there. Even when they make counter arguements, the haters just ignore them and keep posting the same arguements.

IMDB shouldn't count as accurate. Because there's a whole lot of people that create multiple accounts to vote 10 or 1 on any given movie.
Yup,

but still like lord of the nerds say a Batman and robin (and even a Hulk ,average movie imo ) has really low numbers.

[GreenKToo]

Well who cares anyway.The haters can hate all they want.I'm no singer fan either,but I am a superman fan.We're getting a sequel,and thats all I care about.I'll take S.R. anyday of the week over the crappy C.B. films thats been put out in the last 2 or 3 yrs....X-men 1 and 2,..V for vendetta,..Spider-man 1 and 2,and Batman Begins are really the only good ones to me....Heck its all opinion anyway,what you may love I may hate,and vice versa.

[Maze]

Oh they may hate all they wan't (that said a part of me is sorry of them .. i prefer that somebody have a good time at the movies) personnaly even if everybody hated it , i would not care .but now what don't like at all is when somebody try to pass his opinion for actual facts . and the fact is box office smash or not ( and it is not one) Superman returns has been well recieved.that we like it or not.

[Road Warrior]

I like Superman Returns and I'm definitly looking forward to the sequel. But, I'm simply asking because all I read and hear is hate towards SR. That's right...read and hear! Some of you are only talking about the internet, but I know several people who hated the movie.

[Maze]

I like Superman Returns and I'm definitly looking forward to the sequel. But, I'm simply asking because all I read and hear is hate towards SR. That's right...read and hear! Some of you are only talking about the internet, but I know several people who hated the movie.
Well i'm talking also about the outside people : i know people who doesn't like the movie and people who does. depending on where you live i guess.

[superbaby]

if singer is still steering and doing the main storyline, this movie will end the superman movie franchise. and we'll see again in another 20.

[Catman]

and we'll see again in another 20.

The horror :csad:

[Maze]

if singer is still steering and doing the main storyline, this movie will end the superman movie franchise. and we'll see again in another 20.
I'm pretty sure of that.. especially when it seem that (approximatively)70 prct of the people who saw Sr liked it..

So, i would rather say that it's best to have a wait and see attitude on how the next one will be recieved, but it's me .

you can of course continue to pass your opinion (and that of many others ;) ) for the general appreciation of what Singer is doing :o :cwink:

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

if singer is still steering and doing the main storyline, this movie will end the superman movie franchise. and we'll see again in another 20.
so he will have superman fight solar powered blond clone of himself, take people in to outer space and have bad FX?

[dark_b]

Seriously! I haven't seen so much hate towards a movie since that Ben Affleck/J.Lo movie! I wonder if this movie will make any money since there's so much hate towards SR.

I guess it will only make money if it has a kickass trailer!and why do you make things up? are you really serious? people hating SR like gigli?

are you from the planet of the apes or what?

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

and why do you make things up? are you really serious? people hating SR like gigli?

are you from the planet of the apes or what?
i think hes trying to be funny.

[dark_b]

i think hes trying to be funny.ok this would make sense. ok i understand that a lot of people dont like SR but gigli? :huh:

thats not normal.

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

ok this would make sense. ok i understand that a lot of people dont like SR but gigli? :huh:

thats not normal.
i would say it more there are fans that don't like the movie. and yes there are fault with the movie i would have like more superman in it but i thought it was a good movie that can rewatch.

[SatEL]

The haters have a very sizeable minority to allow them to be very vocal.

And the haters are a lot more vocal than those who liked it.

I hate the film and i believe i have a right to, ever since i was a kid i have bought anything related to superman, duvet,toys, games,comics, i even bought superman64 yes thats how much of a fan i was most people say they bought an xbox for halo i bought mine for superman man of steel. I have been nothing but faithful to the superman franchise and feel thats a tax paid and a right earned to ***** when some so called director comes in and destroys a character i have loved since i can remember SR is not a film about superman but a film about a man with similair powers.




Although i like Brandon i just think the kid thing is unredemable and with singer planning to give him more screentime i think the signs are already clear to see. Best call is to cancell the returns franchise wait 3-4yrs and start again this time get some comic advisors on the script and let renowed comic artists and writers read the script before giving it the go ahead.



The only one is feel sorry for is Brandon this was his big break i mean bosworth, spacey and marsden are already stars in their own right but Routh needed this:csad: just a dam shame thats all there is to say hopefully he bounces back from this.

[Billy Batson]

Seriously! I haven't seen so much hate towards a movie since that Ben Affleck/J.Lo movie! I wonder if this movie will make any money since there's so much hate towards SR.

I guess it will only make money if it has a kickass trailer!

I BOW DOWN BEFORE YOU, ROAD WARRIOR!!!

[Catman]

i think hes trying to be funny.

But of course!

[superbaby]

I hate the film and i believe i have a right to, ever since i was a kid i have bought anything related to superman, duvet,toys, games,comics, i even bought superman64 yes thats how much of a fan i was most people say they bought an xbox for halo i bought mine for superman man of steel. I have been nothing but faithful to the superman franchise and feel thats a tax paid and a right earned to ***** when some so called director comes in and destroys a character i have loved since i can remember SR is not a film about superman but a film about a man with similair powers.




Although i like Brandon i just think the kid thing is unredemable and with singer planning to give him more screentime i think the signs are already clear to see. Best call is to cancell the returns franchise wait 3-4yrs and start again this time get some comic advisors on the script and let renowed comic artists and writers read the script before giving it the go ahead.



The only one is feel sorry for is Brandon this was his big break i mean bosworth, spacey and marsden are already stars in their own right but Routh needed this:csad: just a dam shame thats all there is to say hopefully he bounces back from this.
ya, that would be too bad for Brandon.

[Road Warrior]

i think hes trying to be funny.

Yup :)

[Robin91939]

How can there be a question if this movie will make money or not?

It will be marketed very enthusiastically.

For proof, look at the DVD marketing campaign- it's been huge. Take that and think about how well and large the marketing for the sequel will be.

Second- the sequel has promised more action. This is the MAIN critique by "haters" and the average movie goer. If it is marketed to have beautiful, classic and powerful fights...people will come.

Third- we are talking about Superman. Yes- that didn't do Spider-man numbers in SUPERMAN RETURNS, but it did have it reach 400 million dollars worldwide...that's serious dough.

Fourth- This is a movie coming out in 2009. This is Superman. This is going to have even more insane and beautiful special effects than we've ever seen and it will feature huge fights that will be realistic and great.

Bottom line.
THE MAN OF STEEL... money? Yes.

-R

[Road Warrior]

^ Let's hope you're right. :)

[Excel]

the public liked it. i am a box office analyst....so no offense, but i know a lot more about what im talking about then most of the people here.

superman will have a big increase over returns for multiple reasons

1. NO PIRATES COMING UP THE ASS!
2. SEQUELS MAKE MORE!
3. PHYSICLA VILLAIN=kiddies

lok for 250 million-ish domestic and round 500 million worldwide.

the people who disliked the film will say it wont do good while the people who liked say it will do better.

i liked superman. but i am open midned neough to realize if it would do less. it will not outgross the dark knight, though. least domestically.

[Pickle-El]

the original poster was saying the sequel isnt likely to make money since there was so much hate towards superman returns. when in fact, the film was very well recieved by the general audience (see numbers below), and its just a very vocal minority of haters that seem to have congregated here to flame the movie.

imdb average user rating gave superman returns 7/10.
box office mojo average user rating gave it a 'B'.
rotten tomatoes critics: 76% fresh.
rotten tomatoes average user rating: 79%


Reminds me of X1..........can't wait till Bryan X2's the sequel.

[dude love]

Guilty :o

It's true. Superman II: TRDC was actually at 4.2 before you did that. :woot:

[buggs0268]

Actually those who like Superman Returns are in the majority. Those who hate it are a very sizeable and very, very, vocal minority.
Try the other way around. And here we go again with the damn RT and IMDB and Yahoo polls. I'll take the box office as and indicator and the movie according to all industry standards greatly underperformed. It has been reported in many articles from the NY times, LA times and Variety that acording to the industry it under performed and failed to even come close to industry expectations. It also had major drop offs every week and most of the time it was fighting with Devil Wears Prada, and usually failed. It didn't do waht it was expected in the week and a half it had all to itself, and once Pirates came out, it just dropped misarably. The only thing that saved it was IMAX. And most foreign articles also mentioned that it came out the first week big and then just dropped in all the regions it opened in.

[Paste Pot Pete]

when some so called director comes in and destroys a character i have loved since i can remember SR is not a film about superman but a film about a man with similair powers.


This I do not understand.

I can understand disagreeing with certain decisions - Luthor with a land scheme, no super-powered brawls, giving Supes a kid -

but to say the character of Superman was so off-base that he's not Superman is something I simply cannot see. Such a critique is applicable to Pitof's "Catwoman" - different identity, different origin, different everything - "Catwoman in Name Only."

Meanwhile, Singer's Superman, like his comic counterpart -

...is Kal-El, son of Jor-El.
...was sent to Earth to escape Krypton's destruction.
...was found and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent of Smallville.
...is named Clark Kent.
...works in Metropolis, at The Daily Planet, under the guise of a
mild-mannered reporter.
...loves fellow reporter Lois Lane.
...is close with "Superman's Pal", photographer Jimmy Olsen.
...arch-nemesis is Lex Luthor, a maniacal bald man.
...wears a suit of blue tights, red briefs, red boots, red cape, and
S- shield.
...possesses the power of flight, superstrength, super speed,
invulnerability, heat vision, super breath, super hearing and x-ray vision.
...has one weakness - Kryptonite.
...has a personal sanctuary, the Fortress of Solitude.
...draws his power from the yellow sun of Earth.
...protects the citizens of Metropolis (and the world) from the dangers of
earthquakes, fires, falling off buildings, airplane crashes, petty thieves,
psychotic gattling-gunning bankrobbers, and maniacal bald men.
...is sometimes confused with a bird or a plane.

Seemed pretty close to me. Just about as close as Nolan's Batman or Raimi's Spider-Man, two other fine adaptations.

[dude love]

Try the other way around. And here we go again with the damn RT and IMDB and Yahoo polls. I'll take the box office as and indicator and the movie according to all industry standards greatly underperformed. It has been reported in many articles from the NY times, LA times and Variety that acording to the industry it under performed and failed to even come close to industry expectations. It also had major drop offs every week and most of the time it was fighting with Devil Wears Prada, and usually failed. It didn't do waht it was expected in the week and a half it had all to itself, and once Pirates came out, it just dropped misarably. The only thing that saved it was IMAX. And most foreign articles also mentioned that it came out the first week big and then just dropped in all the regions it opened in.

So by your logic Titanic is the greatest film of all time?

$391 Million worldwide is hardly underperforming. Especially when you open up next the second biggest money maker of all time. Besides all those polls actually represent peoples opinions, unlike the Box office. Batman Forever did much more than Batman Returns but those polls suggest that Returns was the better movie. General consensus: Returns was a better movie.

[superdupersuper]

The movie WAS a huge failure in box office terms

it only made 200 million domestic and thats after many months and probably WB themselves bought the last few tickets in the last days it was available on cinema.

But internationally, the movie bombed even worse.

191 million from the rest of the world is a pathetic amount.

Given that the da vinci code made more than 500 million, and pirates of the caribean made more than 600.

And dont forget, superman is a globally known character.

out of the whole world, it only made 191 million.

Talk about anticlimax. It was like a failed orgasm.

Even King Kong made more money internationally.

For a movie about superman to only made 191 million internationally shows that audiences around the world throught the movie was rubbish.

Had the movie been better scripted and some proper action, it would have easily made more than 400 just from international.

as it stands, it got raped at the box office, and very badly too.

i dont see the sequel making more, in fact i think it will be more or less the same, probably less given the directors track record.

[GreenKToo]

but what does that say for B.B.'s 166 mill international take??

[Excel]

The movie WAS a huge failure in box office terms

it only made 200 million domestic and thats after many months and probably WB themselves bought the last few tickets in the last days it was available on cinema.

But internationally, the movie bombed even worse.

191 million from the rest of the world is a pathetic amount.

Given that the da vinci code made more than 500 million, and pirates of the caribean made more than 600.

And dont forget, superman is a globally known character.

out of the whole world, it only made 191 million.

Talk about anticlimax. It was like a failed orgasm.

Even King Kong made more money internationally.

For a movie about superman to only made 191 million internationally shows that audiences around the world throught the movie was rubbish.

Had the movie been better scripted and some proper action, it would have easily made more than 400 just from international.

as it stands, it got raped at the box office, and very badly too.

i dont see the sequel making more, in fact i think it will be more or less the same, probably less given the directors track record.

look. i understand your a very unintelligent person

but i wont bother explaining it out. this will sum up your argument against mine.

"probably less given the director track record"

well, singers track record with sequels the box offce was x2's 36% increase over the original. So going by Singers track record, that would have superman 2 at 272 million domestically.


so what da **** are you talking about?????????????????????????????????????

[dude love]

Not only that, Begins had a longer theatrical run than Returns. I can't imagine how badly it would've done if it had opened up next to POTC 2.

[Excel]

thats act. very true. batman woulda been crushed no matter how good it was

[dude love]

Yep, Begins was the best movie of 2005, but Star Wars and King Kong both did bigger numbers.

[DvilDog]

Im sorry but I havent seen any middle ground anywhere. Evidently SR is a movie you hate or you love. I loved it. I have complete faith in Singer and look for the sequel to please even the biggest nit pickers. Some of you will never be pleased. You cant look past the kid. But SR was about some guy with similar powers and not superman? Please. That is the most retarded thing i have ever heard. And im in the military?

[FanboyX_Returns]

Yep, Begins was the best movie of 2005, but Star Wars and King Kong both did bigger numbers.
I agree Batman Begins was the best BATMAN movie EVER, and the best movie of 2005! HANDS DOWN!

I still watch it once a week! I cant ever get tired of it, and that says alot because I get tired of movies fast.
But they so nailed BATMAN and his world in BATMAN BEGINS.

Nolan is a brilliant Director, and I know alot of people are hatin cause they got one of the lovers from Brokeback but after watching Begins, and Memento Nolan can cast WHO EVER he wants!
Im with him 100%! Nolan/Bale is the best thing that ever happened to the Batman movie franchise!

Oh, and Episode 3 was F'in AWSOME 2!
its also on my 2nd place for 2005 movies..
BATMAN BEGINS
Episode 3
2005 was a good year for fanboy movies! lol

the theaters make little money off the ticket sales. its made off the consessions. thats why they want shorter movies so that they can sell more pop and popcorn.

"In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit."

so what your saying is that if a movie costs $100 to make and it takes in $103 then it didn't make any money.

Yea most of the time outside the USA theaters pay the movie company only a very small portion of the box office cash it brings in.
Mostly because these theaters are real poor compared to the ones here in the United States..
For Superman Returns to turn a profit it had to be a hit a bit bigger or about where Spiderman ended up in its boxoffice totals.
Thats what the WB was shooting for but the bad buzz, and all that foolish, and stupid gay stuff started to give the film another black eye.
The movie just failed to connect with the major part of the fans who saw it, and even tho it had positive reviews everyone has their own views on movies, and for the most part the majority of the people who saw it didnt go see it again, and were left let down by the film overall.
Singer had a great chance to make a real Epic Superman Story ripped right from the comics, and with a budget of almost 300million.
Now the sequel is being greenlite but the franchise is on very shaky grounds.
The studio is cutting the budget, and taking away screen time, and moving away from drama, and adding more action.
Sounds like X-MEN 3 to me... (Which by the way was a much better picture then Superman Returns!) Singer's big budget film making career is on the line with the next movie cause if he lets the fans down again I dont think any studio will ever trust a big project like Superman again.
He will be taken back to do smaller movies like Usual Suspects, and Apt Pupil.
Which by the way is where I think his real talent as a film maker lays.. He just isnt right for Superman.. His directing style is all wrong.
He's more of an indi or low budget film maker.... Thats why those were his best work.

Anyway I hope "The Man of Steel" Corrects the ship, and with as bad as the cast was in the first it's sadly to late to recast so they all better step it up to another level.

If not alot of them will have these big dissapointments following them for years like how BATMAN & ROBINS followed Joel Schumacher, and George Clooney.

Clooney made a nice come back but it took him ALOT of hard work....

He's a real talented person, and the SR cast had maybe 1 person who would be able to move on like Clooney, and thats Spacey.

But he's not a big box office draw anyway so it doesnt matter.

Oh, and while im talkin about badguys I hope they do end up getting Jude Law as either ZOD or Braniac!
He is an awsome, and very underrated actor!

Well ill be gone on biz for a few weeks so peace to you all, and if I don't get to post til January Happy holidays, and happy new Years to all.

:yay:

[GreenKToo]

I agree with that..all they'll have to do to increase the B.O. is add a supervillian,plus a couple more big action scenes.Singer's X-2 is a good example of what he can do with a sequel.look. i understand your a very unintelligent person

but i wont bother explaining it out. this will sum up your argument against mine.

"probably less given the director track record"

well, singers track record with sequels the box offce was x2's 36% increase over the original. So going by Singers track record, that would have superman 2 at 272 million domestically.


so what da **** are you talking about?????????????????????????????????????

[dude love]

Yeah, the trailer needs to show Superman and the bad guy going at it hard.

[GreenKToo]

yup.get it out earlier, show the public that it will have more action.Yeah, the trailer needs to show Superman and the bad guy going at it hard.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all! :)

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.

Positives:

1. It can't possibly be as bad as the first.
2. Its bound to have more action.
3. We have been promised an alien threat (lets just hope its something original to the big screen, and not Zod).

Negatives:

1. Its got the same creative people behind it.
2. Its got the same cast (for the record I really like Routh's Clark, just not his Superman - in fact is it just me or did Clark Kent seem WAY cooler than Superman in that movie?).
3. Its got the same (excess) baggage.
4. Almost certainly the same dull look (Was there some sort of 50% Sky Captain soft focus 'look' in effect or what?), feel and costume.
5. Almost certainly the same 'stupid' Lex, instead of the smart 'LexCorp' Lex.
6. The first movie may put people off a sequel.
7. Its got a far lower budget (probably 2/3rds or thereabouts).
8. More screen time for the kid promised.

Can anyone think of anything else?

If it grosses as much money as the first from a lower production (and marketing) budget, then I would say its a done well.

Anything more than that will take one HELL of a turn around, in terms of marketing, teasers and trailers.

I mean they just totally ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience with the first one. Those are the demographics they need to win back to make a sequel successful.

[LadyVader]

Those are also the demographics that require you to "dumb" down the movie. Not that Superman Returns was particularly smart mind you. :rolleyes:

[Maze]

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.
LOL that's why it just did one, of the best first week in rentals of the year :cwink:

There is something called Wom ..and the ultimate proof of that is the Dvd market (and the numbers in sell from what we hear are rather good too.:yay:..) but feel free to invent new things because you didn't like the movie :)

[dark_b]

Hey all! :)

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.

Positives:

1. It can't possibly be as bad as the first.
2. Its bound to have more action.
3. We have been promised an alien threat (lets just hope its something original to the big screen, and not Zod).

Negatives:

1. Its got the same creative people behind it.
2. Its got the same cast (for the record I really like Routh's Clark, just not his Superman - in fact is it just me or did Clark Kent seem WAY cooler than Superman in that movie?).
3. Its got the same (excess) baggage.
4. Almost certainly the same dull look (Was there some sort of 50% Sky Captain soft focus 'look' in effect or what?), feel and costume.
5. Almost certainly the same 'stupid' Lex, instead of the smart 'LexCorp' Lex.
6. The first movie may put people off a sequel.
7. Its got a far lower budget (probably 2/3rds or thereabouts).
8. More screen time for the kid promised.

Can anyone think of anything else?

If it grosses as much money as the first from a lower production (and marketing) budget, then I would say its a done well.

Anything more than that will take one HELL of a turn around, in terms of marketing, teasers and trailers.

I mean they just totally ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience with the first one. Those are the demographics they need to win back to make a sequel successful.if the movie is good people will watch it. and if not in the theater thanon dvd. look at batman begins.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi LadyVader! :)

Those are also the demographics that require you to "dumb" down the movie. Not that Superman Returns was particularly smart mind you. :rolleyes:

I'm just curious why people make this sort of statement? Are the likes of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man dumbed down? No, they are not. Yet they still appeal to the demographics I mentioned.

The notion that Bryan Singer has to dumb anything down to make the sequel exciting is nonsensical. Its an excuse often touted by Singer apologists to justify why Superman Returns was boring.

[LadyVader]

The prequels were kind of dumb. Lots of people (me included) outside of the dedicated fanbase found the LOTR movies to be boring. Great movies, but boring, and to be honest I don't think I could sit through them again.
Spiderman has played it safe so far, for the kids' benefit (I truely hated Aunt May's speech in Spiderman 2), but Spiderman 3 is likely to change that.
X-men 3 is another perfect example of a dumbed down movie, for the sake of the non-fans.

It's why they are called popular movies. In order for them appeal to the masses, they have to be as simple to grasp as possible. It's not good, or bad, it's just the way things are. it's when you add emotion to the mix that you can have success, and deserve it. That's why I would have no problem with Singer making a truely popular, action-packed Superman movie, as long as emotion isn't pushed to the side.

[Maze]

Hi LadyVader! :)



I'm just curious why people make this sort of statement? Are the likes of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man dumbed down? No, they are not. Yet they still appeal to the demographics I mentioned.

The notion that Bryan Singer has to dumb anything down to make the sequel exciting is nonsensical. Its an excuse often touted by Singer apologists to justify why Superman Returns was boring.
Hi Upper_Krust ! :)

No no no , it was boring to you and some others people make no mistake.. it's becoming more clear everyday that a good majority liked this movie.

[dude love]

Those are also the demographics that require you to "dumb" down the movie. Not that Superman Returns was particularly smart mind you. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because having Superman return to Earth exactly the way he left it five years ago is so smart. :whatever:

[LadyVader]

I did specify that SR was not particularly smart or did you not bother to read my entire ginarmous post. All two phrases of it. :rolleyes:

[Cats]

Positives:

1. It can't possibly be as bad as the first.
Oh I can imagine that it could get worse, I just dare not envision it.

[dude love]

I did specify that SR was not particularly smart or did you not bother to read my entire ginarmous post. All two phrases of it. :rolleyes:

Look, did you not call Superman Returns dumb? Yes, you did. I was defending it, I think it's you who wasn't paying attention. :whatever:

EDIT: Oh, f**k. I meant to say dumb instead of smart in the other post.... goddamn I'm embarrassed.

[DarkSuperman]

Yes, we’re saying it hasn’t made a single red cent. Theaters take roughly half of the ticket sales first off, and the films budget doesn’t account for the marketing costs to try and get people interested in the movies, among other things.
In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit. At the absolute most, if DVD sales go through the roof, this film has a chance at breaking even. Any “profit” they get will be of no real significance.

And yes, the next film does have a chance to make money, IF: they correct the rather embarrassing marketing mistakes they made with the first one, making a more entertaining and action oriented film, and the WB needs to recognize when it’s out of its league. Honestly, whoever thought the Superman name would be able to stand up to the collective stardom of Depp, Bloom, and Knightly needs to be committed.

Yup, thats all very true. Marketing and Ads cost upwards of 50 to 60 million these days. You didnt think you were seeing Routh on your cereal box and pop tarts for free did ya? Thats called Advertising. All those SR ads on food products, Commercials, plus the 50% Cut they gotta pay the theaters and I think they may actually more in the hole than above it.

I mean you heard the Exec Dude they WANTED it to make 500 million. That means in order for them to make their money back and turn a profit it had to make about 200 million more than it did. Now that they have a lame setup I doubt they'll make MORE money than the first...I mean it hardly set the stage like Spider-man LOL I have dozens of friends who wont go see SR cause they think it's boring and his suit looks ridiculous. And I cant really disagree with them.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Maze! :)

LOL that's why it just did one, of the best first week in rentals of the year :cwink:

Behind all the other movies that beat it at the box office no doubt, like X-Men 3.

In the grand scheme of 2006 obviously it was going to be one of the top ten selling dvds of the year. It was one of the top ten grossing movies of the year. But the simple fact of the matter is that it underperformed massively at the box office.

There is something called Wom ..and the ultimate proof of that is the Dvd market (and the numbers in sell from what we hear are rather good too.:yay:..) but feel free to invent new things because you didn't like the movie :)

I don't need to invent the fact that a lot of people were unhappy with Singer's vision (or lack thereof). The proof is in the pudding. The box office stank.

As for dvd sales its not breaking any records. Its basically doing as you would expect - okay for a movie of that stature.

The bottom line is, returning to my initial point if I may, that a lot of people are going to be put off going to see the Man of Steel because Superman Returns bored them to tears.

[DarkSuperman]

Hi Upper_Krust ! :)

No no no , it was boring to you and some others people make no mistake.. it's becoming more clear everyday that a good majority liked this movie.

There's a good majority of people in the world who like molesting children, doesn't mean that the rest of the world agrees with them. Same deal with SR. Its NOT about the million who went and thought it was alright...its about the Hundreds of Millions who didnt and think it is Blah. Because If that other percentage who DIDNT go see it spent their money on it then it would have been as successful as Spiderman and we wouldn't be here debating whether or not Singer should do another one or whether it will make any money, we'd be speculating about who the next villain will be.

Bottom Line: Just Cause a couple people went to see it and liked it. Doesn't mean its the Holy Grail of Superhero films, thats Spider-man, hah!

[DarkSuperman]

Hi Maze! :)

Behind all the other movies that beat it at the box office no doubt, like X-Men 3.

The bottom line is, returning to my initial point if I may, that a lot of people are going to be put off going to see the Man of Steel because Superman Returns bored them to tears.

I totally Agree with my man, UK.

Superman is doing okay in the DVD's department, but it wasnt no 5 million in one freaking day like my main man Jack Sparrow!!! Hahahahaha!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have laughed like that. What I meant to say was...Jack Sparrow, spanked Superman's ass not only at the box office, but on the arena of DVD's and rentals too! Never thought I'd see the day when a flamboyant gay pirate would defeat Superman, but then again he really didnt beat Superman did he? It was SINGERMAN!

Hah!

[Upper_Krust]

Hey LadyVader! :)

The prequels were kind of dumb.

I disagree - I thought Jar Jar was dumb but the story has more layers to it than you might think.

Lots of people (me included) outside of the dedicated fanbase found the LOTR movies to be boring. Great movies, but boring, and to be honest I don't think I could sit through them again.

I agree with you to an extent - 3+ hours is a hell of a long movie. Its not something I would watch with any regularity (though I made an exception for Return of the King a few weeks ago).

Spiderman has played it safe so far, for the kids' benefit (I truely hated Aunt May's speech in Spiderman 2), but Spiderman 3 is likely to change that.

"Played it safe" - what on Earth are you talking about? Please explain.

X-men 3 is another perfect example of a dumbed down movie, for the sake of the non-fans.

As a piece of entertainment X3 was as good as any of the first two movies.

It's why they are called popular movies. In order for them appeal to the masses, they have to be as simple to grasp as possible. It's not good, or bad, it's just the way things are. it's when you add emotion to the mix that you can have success, and deserve it. That's why I would have no problem with Singer making a truely popular, action-packed Superman movie, as long as emotion isn't pushed to the side.

The point is that you can have popularity and still have depth to a movie. Singer didn't bring either for me.

[GreenKToo]

Truth is,I could sit here and write all day long that S.R.'s sequel is gonna make tons more at the B.O.than the first,but would that be right?of course not, because I dont know anything about the story, or if its even got a supervillian or not to state a fact like that.....Now the people thats saying its prolly gonna be bad,and make the same money or even less than S.R., are just as wrong because they dont know anything about it yet either.
Singer said more action,with a supervillian,so I think i'll wait and see before passing judgement yet, since I dont have a crystal ball and all.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Upper_Krust ! :)

Hello again Maze! :)

No no no , it was boring to you and some others people make no mistake.

I understand that some people like the movie (such as yourself), thats fair enough. But can you honestly tell me you thought it was exciting? :wow:

It was one of the dullest movies I can remember (and I don't just mean the look/feel).

The biggest Superman fan that I know of is Mark Millar (who writes Civil War). Even he hated the movie. Moderators on the Superman boards have told me they hated it. Its the most disappointed I have ever been with a movie.

it's becoming more clear everyday that a good majority liked this movie.

Probably because the naysayers are getting bored talking about such a boring movie.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lady Vader! :)

I did specify that SR was not particularly smart or did you not bother to read my entire ginarmous post. All two phrases of it. :rolleyes:

...yes but I was responding to the first part of your post. :woot:

[Maze]

Hello again Maze! :)



I understand that some people like the movie (such as yourself), thats fair enough. But can you honestly tell me you thought it was exciting? :wow:

It was one of the dullest movies I can remember (and I don't just mean the look/feel).

The biggest Superman fan that I know of is Mark Millar (who writes Civil War). Even he hated the movie. Moderators on the Superman boards have told me they hated it. Its the most disappointed I have ever been with a movie.



Probably because the naysayers are getting bored talking about such a boring movie.

Not at all. i'm speaking about the latest numbers among others.

You know upper , i really wouldn't care if i was the only one who liked this movie.

but i hate people lying about stuff. take a look at the lastest numbers. take a look at most sites. Talk with people in the outside .

people liked this movie.

i'm sorry that you didn't . but this is becoming absurd.

Ps : and yes it was exciting . yep i had a blast during this movie .

Ps2: Mark millar say one day he liked it and the other that he didn't .. so what anyways ? even if the pope hated it what would it change? you need somebody to back your own opinion?

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Cats! :)

Oh I can imagine that it could get worse, I just dare not envision it.

If Singer was left to his own devices then I agree that it could well be worse (Lois Lane spin-off movie - if ever you needed proof of insanity there it is). :oldrazz:

However, Warner Bros, while stupid are not totally stupid. They are going to be overseeing things this time.

[Maze]

Ah yes you wan't names? Peter David , JamalYIgle the Penciller of Firestorm liked it so what? my great uncle his dog, and his best friend too !So what?

I know too a lot of people who hated it .. so what?

good for them.

Whatever..

[GreenKToo]

If we get poor numbers from the Dvd sales,then i'll agree folks just didnt care for it,but if the sales are good, are the ones that didnt like it, gonna say that the public overall must have liked it??honest question..

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Maze! :)

Not at all. i'm speaking about the latest numbers among others.

Which show that the dvd is selling less than X3.

You know upper , i really wouldn't care if i was the only one who would like this movie.

No harm done either way mate. :)

but i hate people lying about stuff. take a look at the lastest n umbers. take a look at most sites.

people liked this movies.

It has split Superman fans down the middle as far as I can see.

The question is whether everyone who hates the movie posts on imdb or rotten tomatoes or whichever forum. I know I wouldn't bother.

i'm sorry that you didn't .

No need to be sorry - unless you were one of the creative team who made the movie in which case you should be apologising. :woot:

but this is becoming absurd.

I fail to see what is absurd about our debate. In particular the point you initially replied to.

Some people are going to be put off Man of Steel because Superman Returns simply did not entertain them.

I can flat out state that as fact - because its going to be next to impossible for me to coax some of my friends to go see it, and I am unsure if even I want to see it myself anyway.

Ps : and yes it was exciting . yep i had a blast during this movie .

Other than the plane rescue - which bits were exciting?

Ps2: Mark millar say one day he liked it and the other that he didn't .. so what anyways ?

Actually he said he was so pumped to see Superman on the big screen again that he would have enjoyed anything when he first watched it. But once he sat down and reflected on it he realised how atrociously bad it was.

even if the pope hated it what would it change? you need somebody to back your own opinion?

The point of the matter is this. The fact that Superman Returns can turn off the likes of Mark Millar, Superman Moderators and me (Superman fan since I was 5 years old) not to mention many others who saw it and basically everyone I know personally...it just goes to highlight the utter incompetence of Singer's vision and the creative team behind it.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GreenKToo! :)

If we get poor numbers from the Dvd sales,then i'll agree folks just didnt care for it,but if the sales are good, are the ones that didnt like it, gonna say that the public overall must have liked it??honest question..

Who gets to say what is poor and what is not?

I still see idiots posting every day who believe grossing $392 million worldwide is a good thing for a movie that costs in excess of $210 million to make.

If it outsells X3 I will be impressed.

[GreenKToo]

kool,I was curious.I agree that there does appear to be a split down the middle with S.R..I just hope singer can bring those folks aboard for the sequel.....we shall see.

[Maze]

Hi Maze! :)



Which show that the dvd is selling less than X3.

lol! actually (at least for the moment)the rentals are way more important than X3..now , we we don't know the sell numbers .but the word is that is is selling quite good.

Excuse me Uper , really i have no time for that kind of absurd debate .. check your facts.

[LadyVader]

Hi Upper Krust!
Hi Maze!
Hi LadyVader!

uh... wait a second...

:)

[Maze]

Hi Upper Krust!
Hi Maze!
Hi LadyVader!

uh... wait a second...

:)
:woot: Hi Lady ! :yay: :cwink:

[Upper_Krust]

kool,I was curious.I agree that there does appear to be a split down the middle with S.R..I just hope singer can bring those folks aboard for the sequel.....we shall see.

But you have to wonder is Singer still living in denial? Will his fragile ego accept constructive criticism?

[Maze]

But you have to wonder is Singer still living in denial? Will his fragile ego accept constructive criticism?
Lol if it make you feel better to think that..it's wonderful the way it reassure some people to think that their opinion are factual ...cwink:

Ps: if you wan't to know what i think about the movie , you can search in my profile ..i 've done it enough..

have a nice debates Uper :hyper:

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Maze! :)

lol! actually (at least for the moment) the rentals are way more important than X3..now , we we don't know the sell numbers .but the word is that is is selling quite good.

Didn't Warner say they were quite happy with Superman returns box office! :woot:

If we remove the industry 'spin', that probably translates as 'terrible'.

Excuse me Uper , really i have no time for that kind of absurd debate .. check your facts.

I have checked my facts, thats why I know you can't come back on the matter.

[Maze]

Hey Maze! :)



Didn't Warner say they were quite happy with Superman returns box office! :woot:

If we remove the industry 'spin', that probably translates as 'terrible'.



I have checked my facts, thats why I know you can't come back on the matter.
lol yess actuallly you're right i saw the light!::yay:

LOL!It make you feel better? Good!



so long uper..

[GreenKToo]

I dont know if he's that much against constructive criticism.He has already said he knows the sequel needs more action.So it looks like to me he is open.

[Maze]

I dont know if he's that much against constructive criticism.He has already said he knows the sequel needs more action.So it looks like to me he is open.
Green please he is not.In fact he is a moron .. and he is talentless.; just a hack you know.. .. Usual suspect? that was Mc Quarrie! X2 ? pleaseeeee , it wasn't even faithful (the movie was goood for a lot of people? they are in denial )and he had some luck , let's face it!

As for Superman returns .. pleaseee!the movie sucksthe critics sucks (they surely lie )a majority of people like this movie (but heyy that just multiple guy who do the same critics)..people in the streets? surely warner people!as for the people who didn' like it heyy the can't do multiple id ! they can't be clone at all) , the box office suck the dvd numbers sucks(they are not but what the hell it's a lie) , Warner want to save face in signing again Singer etc etc

you know why? because people like Uper didn't like the movies!:hyper:

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Maze! :)

Lol if it make you feel better to think that..it's wonderful the way it reassure some people to think that their opinion are factual ...cwink:

Lets see:

1. At comic-con Singer had the questions hand-picked.
2. Warner Bros. president said he expected at least $500 million worldwide gross.
3. Singer went out of his way to state the sequel will have more action.
4. Singer has done one interview since SR and it was a brown-noser.
5. Warners presse release went as far to sate the sequel will have loads more action (they actually stressed the point twice in a single sentence).
6. The Warner Bros. president said they ignored the action/adventure audience.

So its easy to read betwen the lines here.

Ps: if you wan't to know what i think about the movie , you can search in my profile ..i 've done it enough..

They should have called it (Young) Lois Lane Returns.

have a nice debates Uper :hyper:

You too mate! :)

[Upper_Krust]

I dont know if he's that much against constructive criticism. He has already said he knows the sequel needs more action. So it looks like to me he is open.

Or perhaps that Warner have told him to go in a certain direction.

Either way its still a positive sign (you'll note it made my positive list).

However, he should have known from the start it needed more action - any non-cronie could have told him that.

[Maze]

Edit

no i don't wan't to even bother

you areee riightt :D ;)

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Maze! :)

Green please he is not.In fact he is a moron .. and he is talentless.; just a hack you know.. ..

No need for personal insults Maze. Not while Mr Singer has no recourse to respond.

Usual suspect? that was Mc Quarrie! X2 ? pleaseeeee , it wasn't even faithful (the movie was goood for a lot of people? they are in denial )and he had some luck , let's face it!

Hes a proven talent. But that doesn't mean he is automatically brilliant every time - does it!? No.

As for Superman returns .. pleaseee!the movie sucksthe critics sucks (they surely lie )a majority of people like this movie (but heyy that just multiple guy who do the same critics)..

I wouldn't say that, but I think there is more impetus for fans to defend it in such polls.

people in the streets? surely warner people!as for the people who didn' like it heyy the can't do multiple id ! they can't be clone at all) , the box office suck the dvd numbers sucks(they are not but what the hell it's a lie) , Warner want to save face in signing again Singer etc etc

The box office does suck.
The dvd numbers are as you would expect.
Warner do want to save face by keeping Singer.

you know why? because people like Uper didn't like the movies!:hyper:

Thats right, and with me and the other millions who hated it being so vocal we might just get to see a half decent sequel with more action, an original story and threat...hey - we can dream can't we.

[Maze]

Hey Maze! :).But you have to wonder is Singer still living in denial? Will his fragile ego accept constructive criticism?
Noo no need for insults no.

except YOU weren't joking.
But continue.....:cwink:

[Maze]

The dvd numbers are as you would expect.
not for the moment :)

[Maze]

I wouldn't say that, but I think there is more impetus for fans to defend it in such polls.
.
you think yep. but that doesn't prove anything.

But hey Up , seriously you got me ! :hyper: well done buddy i didn't wan't to answer at all because let's face it , you don't wan't a debate you just wan't your opinion to be the truth (but i've got a secret for you ,that's sad i know but that isn't the case !), but yep i've answered you on some of your remarks :yay:

Well done seriously,:yay:

you can continue to believe that your opinion is shared by millions :cwink: :hyper:

[GreenKToo]

well,its not hated near as much as some think,but its not loved as much as some think either..i'd say bout 60/40 it seems.(60 for it)lets just hope W.B. doesnt force singer to go the B&R route,with mindless action and no substance.all MHO.

[Maze]

well,its not hated near as much as some think,but its not loved as much as some think either..i'd say bout 60/40 it seems.(60 for it).
Yup ,something like that ..


lets just hope W.B. doesnt force singer to go the B&R route,with mindless action and no substance.all MHO
Well Fox tried two times.. :cwink:

[dude love]

Hey Upper_Krust :up:

Hey GreenKToo! :)



Who gets to say what is poor and what is not?

I still see idiots posting every day who believe grossing $392 million worldwide is a good thing for a movie that costs in excess of $210 million to make.

If it outsells X3 I will be impressed.

How does how much it cost have any influence on whether people like it or not? 391 is a good number when you consider a: It's the 8th highest grossing comic book movie, doing better than Batman Begins, obliterating V For Vendetta, the Blade movies, Daredevil etc. b: It opened up next to this generations equivalent of Star Wars and right after the adaptation of the most controversial book ever. One of which made over 1 Billion at the Box office and the other which came really friggin' close.

[GL1]

Yup, thats all very true. Marketing and Ads cost upwards of 50 to 60 million these days. You didnt think you were seeing Routh on your cereal box and pop tarts for free did ya? Thats called Advertising. All those SR ads on food products, Commercials, plus the 50% Cut they gotta pay the theaters and I think they may actually more in the hole than above it.

I mean you heard the Exec Dude they WANTED it to make 500 million. That means in order for them to make their money back and turn a profit it had to make about 200 million more than it did. Now that they have a lame setup I doubt they'll make MORE money than the first...I mean it hardly set the stage like Spider-man LOL I have dozens of friends who wont go see SR cause they think it's boring and his suit looks ridiculous. And I cant really disagree with them.

Hmm... this post stuck out to me as quite empty:

1) The marketing cost of SR is pretty much assumed with no actual information given. It must be 60 Mil, cuz that other movie had it so.

2) The 50% cut to theatres remains undocumented AND contested.

3) Again, "It may be in the hole" is more wishful thinking than number crunching.

4) "Wanted" to make $500 Mil is somehow confused with "Needed" to make $500 Mil. Do you often confuse off hand wish statements with business marketing goals? The only actual goal I've heard is 200 Mil in the states and that was reached. Sounds like they broke even weeks ago.

5) You say the lame setup dooms SR2... but you say your friends' problem was that it was boring and the suit looked rediculous... then obviously the answer would be including more action changing the suit... not changing the lame setup.

There's no arguement here, and what little logic exists is misapplied.

Oh, and SR2 has a chance of making money because the negative on SR simply isn't strong enough to hold a good movie down, especially if it doesn't open next to the heavyweights of the year. And, lets face it, there is a chance that SR will be good...

[GreenKToo]

:up: good post,but your just not gonna convince some,just like they cant convince us...the only thing that will prove them wrong is when the sequel comes out and does well....

[GL1]

:up: good post,but your just not gonna convince some,just like they cant convince us...the only thing that will prove them wrong is when the sequel comes out and does well....

Thank you, and perhaps so. I just don't get the idea of "no chance" or "guaranteed." To me, that's always theoretical. There's ALWAYS a chance, and conditions that can make something happen. And nothing is EVER a guarantee... there's always a chance that something will go wrong... that POTC3 will suck for instance (see Matrix franchise). It's just insane to say there's NO chance that SR2 will make money... especially when it's been indicated that SR has made money.

[GreenKToo]

I know.I would never say its gonna do great,cause I just dont have the facts to say that.just like they dont have the facts to say its gonna do bad.Heck it could flop,or do 300 mill dom.we just dont know yet.I can guess and say that if it has a supervillian plus a good fight scene(s)then it should do well.but its still just guessing.I never listen to someone if they try to pass opinion as fact anyway.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Mazey! :)

you think yep. but that doesn't prove anything.[/quote

Never said it did, but it does mean we can take polls like rotten tomatoes lightly.

[quote=Maze]But hey Up , seriously you got me ! :hyper: well done buddy i didn't wan't to answer at all because let's face it , you don't wan't a debate you just wan't your opinion to be the truth (but i've got a secret for you ,that's sad i know but that isn't the case !), but yep i've answered you on some of your remarks :yay:

Obviously the inherent natre of this particular debate is subject, since we are asking one another to, in effect, predict the future.

I tried to list some positives and negatives to better gauge how the movie might do.

You sought to challenge one in particular (that some people will steer clear of the sequel because they were disappointed with Returns). Thats an unchallengeable fact - because thats how most of the people I know feel about it.

So while I am happy to discuss this and that and trade opinions, you can't dismiss the points I have raised. You can only comment on the degrees to which you think they matter.

Well done seriously,:yay:

Thanks.

you can continue to believe that your opinion is shared by millions :cwink: :hyper:

Well, given that you agreed fans were split 60/40 (something I would go along with), and further, given the average ticket price, we can acertain that perhaps 60+ million or so people worldwide went to see the movie.

Therefore that must mean 24+ million were unhappy with it.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi GreenKToo! :)

well,its not hated near as much as some think,but its not loved as much as some think either..i'd say bout 60/40 it seems.(60 for it)

I agree.

lets just hope W.B. doesnt force singer to go the B&R route,with mindless action and no substance.all MHO.

Why? Is Singer only capable of delivering one or the other?

For the record I thought X2 had a pretty decent mix of action and drama.

So your comment seems to be more of a belated excuse for the Superman Returns snooze-a-thon, than a worry over whether or not you can have an exciting AND meaningful movie.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Upper_Krust :up:

Hey dude love mate! :)

How does how much it cost have any influence on whether people like it or not? 391 is a good number when you consider a: It's the 8th highest grossing comic book movie, doing better than Batman Begins, obliterating V For Vendetta, the Blade movies, Daredevil etc. b: It opened up next to this generations equivalent of Star Wars and right after the adaptation of the most controversial book ever. One of which made over 1 Billion at the Box office and the other which came really friggin' close.

It has no influence over individuals, but it does give us an insight into the public consciousness or zeitgeist.

The bigger a movies budget the more people the studio think are going to want to see it. Therefore the greater the marlketing budget. Superman Returns had a far bigger marketing budget than, for instance, Batman Begins. Yet it ended up pulling in roughly the same figures.

If a movie doesn't meet its targets (which for SR was $500+ million according to Warner) then there must be a very good reason why. From that perspective we can hypothesise that it just did not entertain or capture the general public's imagination to the degree the Studios thought it would.

[GreenKToo]

no,its no excuse.i'm the first to admitt S.R. wasnt perfect.I'm just saying I hope W.B doesnt panic and think that they have to have something like B&R to make money...I think we all can agree on that....Hi GreenKToo! :)



I agree.



Why? Is Singer only capable of delivering one or the other?

For the record I thought X2 had a pretty decent mix of action and drama.

So your comment seems to be more of a belated excuse for the Superman Returns snooze-a-thon, than a worry over whether or not you can have an exciting AND meaningful movie.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1! :)

Hmm... this post stuck out to me as quite empty:

1) The marketing cost of SR is pretty much assumed with no actual information given. It must be 60 Mil, cuz that other movie had it so.

The marketing budget is almost always determined by the production budget.

ie. the bigger the production budget the bigger the marketing budget.

2) The 50% cut to theatres remains undocumented AND contested.

Well its 45% domestic and 55% overseas as far as I know.

Who are these people contesting it anyway? Do they think the theatres work or free! :woot:

4) "Wanted" to make $500 Mil is somehow confused with "Needed" to make $500 Mil. Do you often confuse off hand wish statements with business marketing goals?

If the president of Warner comes out and says he expected $500 million you know he probably expected $600-700 million. Hes just putting a spin on it.

The movie needed to gross $500 million before Warner started turning a profit.

The only actual goal I've heard is 200 Mil in the states and that was reached.

That was the bare minimum to keep Singer in a job. Not a goal for any 'job well done' congratulations.

They passed 200 million by a few thousand dollars (and by all accounts had to actually pay theatres to keep the movie in cinemas long enough to break the target).

Sounds like they broke even weeks ago.

I'd be surprised if they have broke even after the first week of dvd sales.

5) You say the lame setup dooms SR2... but you say your friends' problem was that it was boring and the suit looked rediculous... then obviously the answer would be including more action changing the suit... not changing the lame setup.

It was helluva lame! :)

Oh, and SR2 has a chance of making money because the negative on SR simply isn't strong enough to hold a good movie down, especially if it doesn't open next to the heavyweights of the year.

I never said it would hold it down, only that it was one of a number of contributing negative factors that would hurt the sequel to some degree.

And, lets face it, there is a chance that SR will be good...

Actually I have already seen SR and there is no chance it will be good.

...or did you mean the sequel to SR? :oldrazz:

[Upper_Krust]

Hi GreenKToo! :)

:up: good post,but your just not gonna convince some,just like they cant convince us...the only thing that will prove them wrong is when the sequel comes out and does well....

I am one of Superman Returns biggest critics (on these forums that is) but even I want Singer to make a great movie this time around.

Its not that he can't make a good movie, its just that (in my opinion) Superman Returns failed on so many levels that I am left wondering how could he get it so wrong?

Based on Superman Returns I am just not confident Singer is the man for the job. But time will tell I suppose.

[GreenKToo]

^your right.like I said before,it could bomb,but then again, it could do 300 mill dom.we just dont know yet..it would help if we knew who they had in mind for the supervillian,and who they cast for the role.

[Maze]

Well, given that you agreed fans were split 60/40 (something I would go along with), and further, given the average ticket price, we can acertain that perhaps 60+ million or so people worldwide went to see the movie.

Therefore that must mean 24+ million were unhappy with it
Nope ,yesterday , i agree more or less on that .. but the thing is when i read the latest results(the Uk results for example) and i add them with what we know i will say for the moment ( awaiting the end of the dvd run)that the people who didn't like the movie are more like 30 prct imo.


The thing is Uper , i understand you ..I was not in the mood yesterday , and i'm sorry... i understand that you don't like this movie and you would like that Warner has a turd on a Hulk level..just so you will have the movie that YOU wan't one day.. But sorry ,it seem , that is just not the case.. more action? so to grab even more people that's a given ..that doesn't mean that the movie was so so .. serisously you can't do a good movie with not a lot of action? i give you a genre Western .. An action genre in general .. Well one of the best in this genre has not a lot action"unforgiven".. ...Alan Horn admitted it himself that there was not a lot of action ? you mean the guy who want to save faces in keeping Singer? ;)while we talk about that, that doesn't make any sense .. or Universal would have kept award winning Ang Lee on Hulk. nope he juste admitted , they would have done more money in adding action.. not that the movie was not so good..And, that's logical that's given this movie was a summer movie Release...you need action when you have a summer release like Superman...you don't need to be brillant to know that...the thing is they took a bet (and an even greater one in facing pirates) they didn't succed as much as they would have liked.. here's what he admitted that's all.

While we talk about that , Singer said for month well before the release that he wanted to do another kind of sequel..so? that's excactly what he did with X2.that was the plan.

now when i look back at this summer , given who Superman was facing , given the fact that for month people was saying that Pirates would be monster , you know what ? Superman really hold on well..

The thing is (because personnaly i don't wan't to do one hundreth useless debates) ..i say let's wait the latest dvd sell number ( hoping that if they are good, you are not going to try to spin things again ;) ) to say if yes or not Superman returns is 60/40 .

And again no that i care .. but i care when people try to pass their own opinion for facts;) (but that said i appreciated that today you didn't forget too add that it was only your opinion :) )

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Maze! :)

Nope ,yesterday , i agree more or less on that .. but the thing is when i read the latest results(the Uk results for example) and i add them with what we know i will say for the moment ( awaiting the end of the dvd run)that the people who didn't like the movie are more like 30 prct imo.

Okay so it was only 16 million who hated it then in your opinion. :woot:

The thing is Uper , i understand you ..I was not in the mood yesterday , and i'm sorry...

Again, no apologies necessary mate - unless you were a part of the Superman Returns creative team.

i understand that you don't like this movie and you would like that Warner has a turd on a Hulk level..just so you will have the movie that YOU wan't one day..

Hulk was not a great movie, but it was moderately entertaining.

The problem with the Hulk movie (IMO) was threefold.

1. Took far too long getting to the action (50 minutes if memory serves correct). A tad unfair given you had to establish the origins, but still pertinent.

2. They really didn't establish the Nick Nolte supervillain in any capacity.

3. The big finale of the movie was just a confusing strobe mess.

But sorry ,it seem , that is just not the case.. more action? so to grab even more people that's a given

If its such a 'given' why did they not do it with Superman Returns? :oldrazz:

..that doesn't mean that the movie was so so ..

It was boring. They would have had to kick Supes up a notch to reach ''so-so'.

serisously you can't do a good movie with not a lot of action?

Of course you can, but not every movie has to be of the action/adventure genre - but a movie involving Superman does (or at least it does if you want it to be a success).

i give you a genre Western .. An action genre in general .. Well one of the best in this genre has not a lot action"unforgiven"..

Unforgiven (as well as many other modern westerns) is more akin to a period drama with action, rather than a pure action film. As most westerns were in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

...Alan Horn admitted it himself that there was not a lot of action ?

Of course! Its as clear as daylight where the two main problems were.

you mean the guy who want to save faces in keeping Singer? while we talk about that, that doesn't make any sense .. or Universal would have kept award winning Ang Lee on Hulk. nope he juste admitted , they would have done more money in adding action..

Hulk needed an action scene to establish the Absorbing Man as a threat (I would have loved some scene of him in the city against the cops).

It then needed to clarify what was going on at the end in the fight between Hulk and Absorbing Man.

So Hulk only needed one extra action scene and one revised action scene to make it work.

Superman Returns needed something far better to close Act 2 (better than Lex stabbing him and a few thugs kicking him on the ground) it also needed a stronger finale (than lifting a big rock - for goodness sake).

Had I done that movie I would have added Metallo. We need one scene in act 2 to establish the Metallo threat (against the cops or so forth), a battle between Supes and Metallo at the end of act 2 (where Superman is almost killed due to Kryptonite) and the rematch in act three (whereupon Metallo has grown to gigantic 60 storey dimensions) where Superman defeats him.

not that the movie was not so good..

It was as good if not better than Superman Returns.

And, that's logical that's given this movie was a summer movie Release...you need action when you have a summer release like Superman...you don't need to be brillant to know that...the thing is they took a bet (and an even greater one in facing pirates) they didn't succed as much as they would have liked.. here's what he admitted that's all.

So basically when you say "You don't need to be brilliant to know that" you are making the point that the Superman Returns creative team obviously didn't know that and are therefore less than brilliant!?

At least we agree on one thing.

While we talk about that , Singer said for month well before the release that he wanted to do another kind of sequel..so? that's excactly what he did with X2.that was the plan.

I remember Singer and his Superman "chick-flick" comment. Backfired on him as anyone could have told him.

now when i look back at this summer , given who Superman was facing , given the fact that since for month people was saying that Pirates would be monster , you know what ? Superman really hold on well..

You know I read this argument a lot and it is total and utter crap.

Did anyone here have trouble getting to see Superman Returns at the cinema!?!?

Was there a gang of pirates waiting to rob you at every theatre!? :woot:

In the days of the multiplex how the heck does the release of the one movie inhibit that of another - NEVER!

The thing is (because personnaly i don't wan't to do one hundreth useless debates) ..i say let's wait the latest dvd sell number ( hoping that if they are good, you are not going to try to spin things again ;) ) to say if yes or not Superman returns is 60/40 .

I don't see the dvd sales having any importance. Superman is not going to be the biggest seller of the year, its going to sell roughly as expected.

They have already greenlit the sequel (with a lower budget), so its a moot point.

And again no that i care .. but i care when people try to pass their own opinion for facts (but tha said i appreciated that today you didn't forget too add that it was only your opinion :) )

I'll be sure and label all facts in future to avoid confusion.

[GL1]

Hey GL1! :)

Yo.

The marketing budget is almost always determined by the production budget.

ie. the bigger the production budget the bigger the marketing budget.

Naturally... still, picking numbers out of the air? Picking movies with similar budgets or similar marketing campaigns?

Well its 45% domestic and 55% overseas as far as I know.

Who are these people contesting it anyway? Do they think the theatres work or free! :woot:

Hmmm... Indeed, I have been informed. It typically is 50-50.

If the president of Warner comes out and says he expected $500 million you know he probably expected $600-700 million. Hes just putting a spin on it.

The movie needed to gross $500 million before Warner started turning a profit.

This is a crazy logic-jump. If he expected 500 mil, then he expected 500 mil, there's no 'spin' here, you pulled that out of midair. It's not factual. You're making up numbers...

There's no reason to say it needed to gross anything to make a profit, especially based on an expectation that has nothing to do with it... especially when we have numbers to look at!

That was the bare minimum to keep Singer in a job. Not a goal for any 'job well done' congratulations.

Says who? And wouldn't a bare minimum be a better indicator of breaking even than a hopeful expectation? Furthermore, knowing the budget of Superman Returns (204 Mil after tax returns) and the box office takes, accounting for the "50%" rule, then 200 Mil domestic actually DOES sound like the breaking even point.

They passed 200 million by a few thousand dollars (and by all accounts had to actually pay theatres to keep the movie in cinemas long enough to break the target).

I'd be surprised if they have broke even after the first week of dvd sales.

So, were they trying to boot Singer or not? On one hand, he can't have a job if he doesn't break 200 Mil, on the other hand, they're supposedly paying theatres to keep in in longer? Especially when Theatres always get a lower cut as the movie stays in theatre's longer. This is not an issue unique to Superman Returns.


I never said it would hold it down, only that it was one of a number of contributing negative factors that would hurt the sequel to some degree

And I suppose the only thing we disagree on is how much. From the math I'm doing, Superman broke even and is cleaning up pure profit from DVD sales, though it may have turned up to 100 Mil of pure profit from overseas Box office (depends on the varying takes). Advertising? Well, there was also merchandizing, and who's to say which one involved more money? Again, DVD sales are pure profit if you're doing any real math.

While it's no question Comics fanboys tend to dislike Superman Returns (regardless of how much they like superman... a lot of guys who don't have anything Superman on their pull list just love to gripe about how different SR was from the comics they don't bother reading)... but negative stigma on the comics boards simply doesn't translate directly into the real world... SR not only has a fanbase, and a profit, but it actually has appeal to those who didn't expect a different kind of Superman movie.

Again, it's not the best movie of the year, but it's a lot better, and a lot better recieved in general than we seem to give it credit for around here.

[DarkSuperman]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, When I went to go see Superman Returns there was about 10 people in the audience, however when I went to go see pirates just about every seat was FULL. That says something.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, When I went to go see Superman Returns there was about 10 people in the audience, however when I went to go see pirates just about every seat was FULL. That says something.

Yeah, it says that Pirates was the most popular movie of the summer.


Anyone looking at its numbers the first weekend could have told you that. Why the comparisons to Pirates and Superman Returns keep coming up this late in the game, I'll never understand.

[GreenKToo]

I'll never understand why pirates 2 did so well.now,I loved the first one,and I liked the second o.k.,it wasnt bad or anything,but a BILLION W.W.???

[TheComicbookKid]

^Pirates is something new. When was the last movie featuring pirates?
The first one was really good. The second one rode the wave of it. The CGI was amazing.

^I can't believe Spidey 2 made less than Spidey 1, but people seem to have a low tolerance for superhero movies.

^I knew people that were skeptical about Batman Begins because they'd already seen Batman on screen unlike Spidey. Superman has a high "whatever" mentality because of how powerful he is. I know some people that didn't care about seeing it in theaters but said they'd see it on DVD. They ran to see Pirates though.

[GreenKToo]

superman will need an adversary as powerful as he for the sequel..someone that can throw him around.a down and dirty street fight if you will,but instead of useing clubs or 2x4s like normal people,they would be using things like cars,streetlights.I didnt really mind supes being that powerful in S.R.,but I want to see someone as powerful as he in the sequel.^Pirates is something new. When was the last movie featuring pirates?
The first one was really good. The second one rode the wave of it. The CGI was amazing.

^I can't believe Spidey 2 made less than Spidey 1, but people seem to have a low tolerance for superhero movies.

^I knew people that were skeptical about Batman Begins because they'd already seen Batman on screen unlike Spidey. Superman has a high "whatever" mentality because of how powerful he is. I know some people that didn't care about seeing it in theaters but said they'd see it on DVD. They ran to see Pirates though.

[Upper_Krust]

Yo.

Howdy! :)

Naturally... still, picking numbers out of the air? Picking movies with similar budgets or similar marketing campaigns?

Is that a question or a statement - slightly confusing

Hmmm... Indeed, I have been informed. It typically is 50-50.

That will work for the purposes of our debate. No need going into too much detail.

This is a crazy logic-jump. If he expected 500 mil, then he expected 500 mil, there's no 'spin' here, you pulled that out of midair. It's not factual. You're making up numbers...

Wrong. It needed $500 million to break even.

There's no reason to say it needed to gross anything to make a profit, especially based on an expectation that has nothing to do with it... especially when we have numbers to look at!

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million.

There are two other factors to consider.

Firstly the alleged 10% of the gross Singer was on (on top of his $11 million salary), which was how Warner were able to steal him from Fox. Which is another $39 million out of the net profit. At this point Warner is down about $47 million.

Secondly the reported $50 million (or so) attributed to the the failed attempts. However, I would ignore this money for the purposes of the debate.

So Warner are down a potential $100 million on Superman.

Says who?

Says various industry insiders at Warner.

And wouldn't a bare minimum be a better indicator of breaking even than a hopeful expectation?

No.

Furthermore, knowing the budget of Superman Returns (204 Mil after tax returns) and the box office takes, accounting for the "50%" rule, then 200 Mil domestic actually DOES sound like the breaking even point.

They needed to gross another $10-15 million to break even on the box-office, assuming we ignore Singer's alleged bonuses.

So, were they trying to boot Singer or not? On one hand, he can't have a job if he doesn't break 200 Mil, on the other hand, they're supposedly paying theatres to keep in in longer? Especially when Theatres always get a lower cut as the movie stays in theatre's longer. This is not an issue unique to Superman Returns.

I believe they were trying to keep Singer, but the rumour broke that the Warner president had said $200 million domestic or else, so I think it was a face saving matter.

And I suppose the only thing we disagree on is how much. From the math I'm doing, Superman broke even and is cleaning up pure profit from DVD sales, though it may have turned up to 100 Mil of pure profit from overseas Box office (depends on the varying takes).

I think it was about $10 to 50 million down, from the box office alone, depending on the validity of Singer's deal, which I would believe because he left Fox while X3 was in pre-production with him scheduled to direct and you wouldn't do that unless it was a monster deal.

Advertising? Well, there was also merchandizing, and who's to say which one involved more money? Again, DVD sales are pure profit if you're doing any real math.

We can igore the marketing because that will likely be offset by television deals and so forth.

I think the dvd sales will start turning a profit depending upon certain aspects (Singers deal, failed restarts).

While it's no question Comics fanboys tend to dislike Superman Returns (regardless of how much they like superman... a lot of guys who don't have anything Superman on their pull list just love to gripe about how different SR was from the comics they don't bother reading)... but negative stigma on the comics boards simply doesn't translate directly into the real world... SR not only has a fanbase, and a profit, but it actually has appeal to those who didn't expect a different kind of Superman movie.

But the flipside of that is those who liked Superman returns know they will not be getting the same type of movie in the sequel.

Again, it's not the best movie of the year, but it's a lot better, and a lot better recieved in general than we seem to give it credit for around here.

No it was just terrible.

Its a badly cast, boring, muted, dull-looking, creepy Super-peeper melodrama sprinkled with self indulgence and homage bordering on copying.

That said, I'll go out of my way and tell you what I did like about it.

1. Routh's Kent - I thought his brilliance as Kent was only matched by how bad his Superman was.

2. Jimmy Olson - Okay the bow tie was a bit much, but again I like the humour Huntingdon added to the role.

3. The Plane scene - okay everybody likes that. Of course Lois should have been dead taking all those bumps, but I forgive that, it was the movies one exciting scene.

4. Bullet to Eye - purely for the novelty of it. Although I am wondering who copied who with regards the King Hyperion scene where the exact same thing happens.

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.

[GreenKToo]

how much of the internationl take counts toward profit??

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GreenKToo! :)

how much of the internationl take counts toward profit??

I believe its something like 45% international, 55% domestic.

[GL1]

Howdy! :)

I'm glad you're so happy. Stick with that. :word:

Is that a question or a statement - slightly confusing

I think it was a question... I don't quite remember now.

Wrong. It needed $500 million to break even.

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million. [/quote]

This $500 Million still doesn't sound like the breaking even point... there's no math that leads to it, it's arbitrary.

While some fine math would suggest a number lower than 8 million, I'll run with it for now.

There are two other factors to consider.

Firstly the alleged 10% of the gross Singer was on (on top of his $11 million salary), which was how Warner were able to steal him from Fox. Which is another $39 million out of the net profit. At this point Warner is down about $47 million.

Secondly the reported $50 million (or so) attributed to the the failed attempts. However, I would ignore this money for the purposes of the debate.

So Warner are down a potential $100 million on Superman.

Yes, the are out an additional about anywhere from $0 to $100 Million on Superman Returns.

They needed to gross another $10-15 million to break even on the box-office, assuming we ignore Singer's alleged bonuses.

That sounds like ANOTHER random number that disagrees with the math that you just did for us.

I believe they were trying to keep Singer, but the rumour broke that the Warner president had said $200 million domestic or else, so I think it was a face saving matter.

Yes you do. And I don't. No facts here.

I think it was about $10 to 50 million down, from the box office alone, depending on the validity of Singer's deal, which I would believe because he left Fox while X3 was in pre-production with him scheduled to direct and you wouldn't do that unless it was a monster deal.

And I don't believe it because it's obvious that Singer wanted to do Superman, and he spent a while telling the world about it after he was hired, and then went on to make a movie which homages Superman 1 & 2 to, apparently, no end. Singer's deal is inquestion, and seeing as how his numbers have been blown up before in the media, I just don't buy it.

I think the dvd sales will start turning a profit depending upon certain aspects (Singers deal, failed restarts).

Ah, yes... sweet agreement. I concur.

But the flipside of that is those who liked Superman returns know they will not be getting the same type of movie in the sequel.

Or, they'll think it's the same type of movie but with more action. Depends on how it's marketted.

No it was just terrible.

Its a badly cast, boring, muted, dull-looking, creepy Super-peeper melodrama sprinkled with self indulgence and homage bordering on copying.

That said, I'll go out of my way and tell you what I did like about it.

1. Routh's Kent - I thought his brilliance as Kent was only matched by how bad his Superman was.

2. Jimmy Olson - Okay the bow tie was a bit much, but again I like the humour Huntingdon added to the role.

3. The Plane scene - okay everybody likes that. Of course Lois should have been dead taking all those bumps, but I forgive that, it was the movies one exciting scene.

4. Bullet to Eye - purely for the novelty of it. Although I am wondering who copied who with regards the King Hyperion scene where the exact same thing happens.

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.

I appreciate you going out of your way. You are obviously contributing more to the conversation than I as far as info goes, I simply disagree with the conclusions you've come to with that info.

I won't dispute your opinion on the quality of the movie... really can't look at it and say "This is not a Good Movie" and I can't look at it and say "This is an awesome movie" either... it remains firmly in the B range to me. Of course, I've only seen it twice... and I can't remember 1& 2 so, perhaps if I had seen those three movies together I would have a different opinion.

That said, I think it's clear at this point that a few slight changes will allow the sequel to make money.

[Cats]

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.
heh, I agree. ^ Personally, I hope Richard kicks Superman's butt in the sequel.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1 dude! :)

I'm glad you're so happy. Stick with that. :word:

I'm generally a jovial person.

I think it was a question... I don't quite remember now.

I'm sure I would have answered it with aplomb, we can take that on faith. :oldrazz:

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million.

This $500 Million still doesn't sound like the breaking even point... there's no math that leads to it, it's arbitrary.

I think its either representative of the $50 million (or thereabouts) spent on failed Superman projects or on Singer's secret deal.

While some fine math would suggest a number lower than 8 million, I'll run with it for now.

Fair enough.

Yes, the are out an additional about anywhere from $0 to $100 Million on Superman Returns.

Well anywhere from 8 to 97, but we are just hypothesisizing the exact figures.

That sounds like ANOTHER random number that disagrees with the math that you just did for us.

Not at all.

They are $8 million down on the box office alone, therefore they needed to make approx. $16 million more to break even. However, given the 55/45% disparity between domestic and international profits it may need to make slightly more or less depending on where the extra money is grossed.

Yes you do. And I don't. No facts here.

That works both ways though.

And I don't believe it because it's obvious that Singer wanted to do Superman, and he spent a while telling the world about it after he was hired, and then went on to make a movie which homages Superman 1 & 2 to, apparently, no end. Singer's deal is inquestion, and seeing as how his numbers have been blown up before in the media, I just don't buy it.

Singer left X-3 during pre-production, its clear Warner offered him a mega deal to jump ship mid-stream. They didn't need to make Superman for 2006, they could have waited an extra year.

Ah, yes... sweet agreement. I concur.

You know it makes sense.

Or, they'll think it's the same type of movie but with more action. Depends on how it's marketted.

There are many on these forums who (erroneously) believe that would be an oxymoron.

The "a movie cannot be exciting and thoughtful" brigade.

I appreciate you going out of your way. You are obviously contributing more to the conversation than I as far as info goes, I simply disagree with the conclusions you've come to with that info.

Thats okay, everyone is entitled to a subjective viewpoint. Its the objective stuff I like debating though.

I also forgot.

6. Christ parallels: I know a few people didn't like this but I did.

I won't dispute your opinion on the quality of the movie... really can't look at it and say "This is not a Good Movie" and I can't look at it and say "This is an awesome movie" either... it remains firmly in the B range to me. Of course, I've only seen it twice... and I can't remember 1& 2 so, perhaps if I had seen those three movies together I would have a different opinion.

I simply think the movie is targeted at the wrong demographic, in fact its difficult to see a demographic the movie does target (gay males?). I don't say that as a cheap slur. At every turn Superman is immasculated.

1. He doesn't get the girl.
2. In the movies only fight (and I use that term loosely) he gets the crap kicked out of him.
3. He ends up in the hospital.
4. He's a bit of a mommy's boy.
5. His best friend is Jimmy Olsen.
6. The costume is a free pass into the Blue Oyster.

That said, I think it's clear at this point that a few slight changes will allow the sequel to make money.

The biggest one being a lower budget for Singer to waste.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think if they can pack a boat load of action into it. Over compensate, I say. Just make action scenes just for the **** of it. Have Superman hit people, toss a truck into the sun from Metropolis. Have him toss a whole building even. Just tons and tons of action, and squeeze in the story they want. But, make it action packed up the mother****ing ass, and I think people will go see it. The trailers would have to obviously showcase the action as well......so, I think to sell tickets that's what they need to do. They can't go for the whole "He's Returned" angle because......well....he's returned already. lol. So, I think that's what they need to try.

[JamalYIgle]

Hey GL1 dude! :)



1. He doesn't get the girl.
[/qoute]
The Hero rarely ever gets the girl,in any story. he redeemed himself in her eyes, setting things up for the next movie.
[quote]
2. In the movies only fight (and I use that term loosely) he gets the crap kicked out of him.

Yes while being poisoned by the one thing in the world that can kill him. It made the scene incredibly dramatic and dificult to watch.

3. He ends up in the hospital.

After being poisoned, getting the crap kicked out of him, Stabbed in the back, dropped off a cliff into the north Atlantic, lifting a Kryptonite ladden continent into orbit and while effectively powerless, falling from High orbit and crashing into the ground.

4. He's a bit of a mommy's boy.

There's nothing wrong with being close to your mother and he has always been in the comics. I'm close to my Mom, although i don't see her often and I live 2 hours away.

5. His best friend is Jimmy Olsen.

Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen? The best friend he's had since I don't know.. 1938?http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20superman%20pal%20jimmy%20olsen%20108.jpg

6. The costume is a free pass into the Blue Oyster.

Sorry I don't see the difference between This
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/JamalIgle/sup-flying-globe.jpg
and This:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/JamalIgle/gl0301221234385606.jpg

[X-Maniac]

I simply think the movie is targeted at the wrong demographic, in fact its difficult to see a demographic the movie does target (gay males?). I don't say that as a cheap slur. At every turn Superman is immasculated.

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.' Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Jamal! :)

The Hero rarely ever gets the girl,in any story. he redeemed himself in her eyes, setting things up for the next movie.

Well if anything its going to be interesting to see how they mess up Richard.

Yes while being poisoned by the one thing in the world that can kill him. It made the scene incredibly dramatic and dificult to watch.

I'll agree with you it was difficult to watch.

After being poisoned, getting the crap kicked out of him, Stabbed in the back, dropped off a cliff into the north Atlantic, lifting a Kryptonite ladden continent into orbit and while effectively powerless, falling from High orbit and crashing into the ground.

The Hulk did all that and he was okay... :woot:

There's nothing wrong with being close to your mother and he has always been in the comics.

I never said there was anything wrong with it, but onscreen such reliance does tend to immasculate.

I'm close to my Mom, although i don't see her often and I live 2 hours away.

Well you should try to make the effort, I lost my mother when I was very young, so in that respect I envy you.

Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen? The best friend he's had since I don't know.. 1938?

Singer has commented in interviews that his Jimmy may be gay.

Sorry I don't see the difference between This

and This:

I was only messing with you on that point...I thought the costume was fine (if a tad too dark). :oldrazz:

[Upper_Krust]

Hi X-Maniac! :)

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.'

Interesting.

Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

Presumably Singer's idea was that kids and males will go see it just because its Superman, so lets cater to the demographic that a Superman movie normally wouldn't appeal to.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

Routh's Superman came across as a bit of a nancy-boy, but I now see how that in itself would not be appealing to a gay male. Gay males are attracted to the masculine rather than the immasculine...is that a fair statement?

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

I think one thing Singer did was impose a lot of himself in the movie. But thats probably a topic for another thread.

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

Agreed.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.

I think thats why you have to make the movie as original as possible. SInger repeated so many elements of Donner's classic, that Superman returns almost becomes pointless.

[DarkSuperman]

[quote=Upper_Krust]

Sorry I don't see the difference between This
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/JamalIgle/sup-flying-globe.jpg
and This:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/JamalIgle/gl0301221234385606.jpg

Well, the Superman below is Waaaaaaay more toned, not to mention his costume is CORRECT. For example, no "S" on the belt, Bright Colors, Etc. I mean the dude above looks like he's wearing a funky doo-doo brown or something...

[dark_b]

[quote=JamalYIgle]

Well, the Superman below is Waaaaaaay more toned, not to mention his costume is CORRECT. For example, no "S" on the belt, Bright Colors, Etc. I mean the dude above looks like he's wearing a funky doo-doo brown or something...the yellow is bright :o

[lexlives]

I doubt a sequel will be able to make much more than SR did. Too much baggage - its the batman and Robin syndrome which hurt BB's box office.

WB should follow what they are doing with the Hulk. Re-starting and doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Hulk from 2003 cause that studio knows an association could be a real killer.

No way do I see an SR sequel being able to overcome the bad buzz - its a very untenable situation to be in and one has to think some of the suits at WB realize this.

[Billy Batson]

I doubt a sequel will be able to make much more than SR did. Too much baggage - its the batman and Robin syndrome which hurt BB's box office.

WB should follow what they are doing with the Hulk. Re-starting and doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Hulk from 2003 cause that studio knows an association could be a real killer.

No way do I see an SR sequel being able to overcome the bad buzz - its a very untenable situation to be in and one has to think some of the suits at WB realize this.

:woot: :up:

[lexlives]

:woot: :up:

Yes Billy - and it seems to be woking for the new Hulk movie which is getting good buzz early on. But they go to great lengths to make clear the new film is not a sequel to or extension of or anyway related to the 2003 Hulk film. You get the whole new excitement as to which actor will be cast as the Hulk and other main roles. Starting fresh gives the new Hulk built-in good will from audiences. Its up to the producers to keep that up of course.

And when they speak of chances of making more money I assume - given that X-Men 2 did better by about 33% at the BO than 1 and 3 did about 17% better than 2 - that WB is expecting something anyways in the 20% or so BO boost.

Taking the number means a SR sequel needs to do at least 235 - 240 million to match X-Men's 3 boost. To me it does not seem possible to do the general antipathy or ambivalence to SR.

[lexlives]

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.' Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.


I disagree that you can't do a Superman remake well. Bond is remade all the time, Batman the best yet in the latest remake, Spiderman now is apparently to go onmto a 4, 5 and 6th film but that will mean a remake of sorts as a new younger actor will have to be brought in to replace Toby probably as soon as Spidey 4 and no later than 5.

The problem with trying to copy/requel S: TM is that you can't go home. it is never as good as you remember it, it is never as perfect as you once thought.

The only proper way to have handled this was, IMO, do a totally new take - does not have to be an origin story.

Singer's problem in casting Routh was that he went for someone who looked like Reeve, but Reeve's greatness was more his persona, charisma, presence. That is what Singer should have looked for in the new actor - a Reeve-like presence as opposed to a physical look.

Singer should have made this his film. He should have become the Donner to today's generation.

[kamaldhamal2007]

hey karea07 that is AISHWARYA RAI!!!!

she rocks!! I love her in DHOOM 2.

[kevinpenni]

Yep that is her... she is a hottie! :up:

[kamaldhamal2007]

Yep that is her... she is a hottie! :up:

are you from india or u just know her??

did you watch DHOOM 2.

You should if you haven't because she rocked in it!!!!

[kevinpenni]

i just know of her... saw her on 60 minutes last year and was mesmerised (sp)

yeah, i did watch that movie. few other white people were there too, so i didnt feel weird :p there was also one black girl representin too! :up: haha

[Danny No-Shame]

I think there are enough comicbook geeks and sci-fi nerds on planet Earth to keep WB and Jon Peters in business for a very long time. See you in the queue suckers :)

[Road Warrior]

I think there are enough comicbook geeks and sci-fi nerds on planet Earth to keep WB and Jon Peters in business for a very long time. See you in the queue suckers :)

Maybe.

[JamalYIgle]

I disagree that you can't do a Superman remake well. Bond is remade all the time, Batman the best yet in the latest remake, Spiderman now is apparently to go onmto a 4, 5 and 6th film but that will mean a remake of sorts as a new younger actor will have to be brought in to replace Toby probably as soon as Spidey 4 and no later than 5.

The problem with trying to copy/requel S: TM is that you can't go home. it is never as good as you remember it, it is never as perfect as you once thought.

The only proper way to have handled this was, IMO, do a totally new take - does not have to be an origin story.

Singer's problem in casting Routh was that he went for someone who looked like Reeve, but Reeve's greatness was more his persona, charisma, presence. That is what Singer should have looked for in the new actor - a Reeve-like presence as opposed to a physical look.

Singer should have made this his film. He should have become the Donner to today's generation.
Brandon Routh has a great Presence, he did a really good job with the part. As far as Singer being this generations Dick Donner, no offense but Donner's made some fun movie but he's mad a couple of real stinkers(Timeline and Ladyhawke spring to mind) So don't hold Donner up as the Holy Grail of Film making. Bryan Singers track record is alot better.

The problem with alot of people here is that they're comparing Superman Returns to STM and complaining because it wasn't as good. I think it was , But that's neither here or there. The point I'm making is your comparing it to a movie most us saw for the first time when were were 5- 10 years old. So to quote Carlos Mencia" Of course you thik the old movies were better, you saw hem when you were 10 Years old... Everythings better when you're 10!"
No one who has a negative opinion has yet to judge the movie on it's own merits, I've been paying attention. When ever there's a complaint it's because they're comparing it to STM, which would have happened with ANY take that would have been done by any director.

[JamalYIgle]

I doubt a sequel will be able to make much more than SR did. Too much baggage - its the batman and Robin syndrome which hurt BB's box office.

WB should follow what they are doing with the Hulk. Re-starting and doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Hulk from 2003 cause that studio knows an association could be a real killer.

No way do I see an SR sequel being able to overcome the bad buzz - its a very untenable situation to be in and one has to think some of the suits at WB realize this.
The Difference is SR Made more money, was better reviewed and did better in general than the Hulk. The WB is happy with the results, So much so that Singer has already dropped out of Logan's Run to work on the sequel, which he signed to do a few months back. Every non fan that I talk on a n almost daily basis, the moment they find out I draw comics they want to talk about SR. You'd be suprised at the reactions,They really liked it. The only people who have problems with the movie are die hard geeks. Frankly there just aren't enough of them in the world to make Warner bros. go in another direction.

[GreenKToo]

^ your right...just not enough people hated S.R. to force W.B. to go in another direction,and really the only place I see hate for it is here.Even the people I know that didnt love it, didnt really hate it.Their biggest gripe was a lack of a supervillian, and that is being taken care of in the sequel.

[FanboyX_Returns]

This movie wont make more than the first, but the budget will surely be less than the first films, so it should make a profit.

The sequel will be lucky to make 120million with all the bad buzz, and how badly the first one turned out.
And given the news that the new movie will have a smaller bidget, and smaller running time.
All that spells doom for the sequel.

Maybe they should pull the plug on it now before they lose more money!

[DavidTyler]

Brandon Routh has a great Presence, he did a really good job with the part. As far as Singer being this generations Dick Donner, no offense but Donner's made some fun movie but he's mad a couple of real stinkers(Timeline and Ladyhawke spring to mind) So don't hold Donner up as the Holy Grail of Film making. Bryan Singers track record is alot better.

I don't.

The problem with alot of people here is that they're comparing Superman Returns to STM .................................................. .................................................. .................When ever there's a complaint it's because they're comparing it to STM, which would have happened with ANY take that would have been done by any director.


That's complete and utter nonsense. These boards are filled with people who have been judging SR on it's own merits or the lack there of.

There have been a lot of inciteful negative reviews on these boards of this movie that have very little to do with Donner or his original film.

You do your fellow posters a grave disservice by dismissing their opinions as those of the uninformed and unable to formulate an opinion on their own.

And just to refute your typecasting - I was never a big fan of the first Donner movie. It's a comedy for the most part. I knew that when I was a kid seeing it for the first time.

I've seen a lot of interpretations of Superman and the only one that even comes close for me is the Timm/Dini version from the animated series. Singer's interpretation just misses the mark on a lot of levels for me. His Christ parallel which is nothing of the kind (hell, except for the cute savior speach and that falling to Earth in a crucifixion pose, there's no parallel at all). His 'returning to a world that's moved on without him - will they accept him back?' is a joke. No one except Lois has any issue with him being gone or being back. It was a pointless plot point. The contradictions with how the Kryptonite effects him was confusing. He lands on the island and almost immediately loses his powers yet he can come back and lift the whole island with the kryptonite growing right into his face.

And this doesn't even come close to covering all my concerns.

I did like Spacey, however. And I thought Bosworth was taking a needless beating from the fans here. She did a reasonably good job with what they gave her.

I would have liked it if they could have touched on the Ben Hubbard and Martha Kent relationship. It was definitely one of the good changes that Singer brought - unlike the kid.

[DavidTyler]

BTW, I was much more pleased with Donner's cut of Superman II than I was his original movie ... and that puts it quite far ahead of SR.

[lexlives]

Sadly, Superman's problem is not all SR or Singer or Routh or writing. It goes beyond that and was there long before Singer came on board.

Sadly, and I hate that this is true, audiences and popular culture see Superman as passe or boring.

In the comic shop where I am purchasing All Star, there are virtually no "kids" buying Superman comics. I'm early 30s and the sjop owner admitted most Superman buyers are my age and older.

Prior to SR target and WalMart and the rest always carried Spiderman or X-Men or Batman toys but you were hard pressed to find a Superman toy.

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

Frankly I am note sure if even a perfectly executed Superman film can do that.

Has the ship sailed on the big-screen Superman?

Is it possible - how - to get Superman at least competitve with FF and Batman again?

[Pickle-El]

*To those who attempt to bite the bate. Keep in mind, more people paid to watch Superman Returns than both FF and BB in theatres. :o

[Jimmy, GL]

Sadly, Superman's problem is not all SR or Singer or Routh or writing. It goes beyond that and was there long before Singer came on board.

Sadly, and I hate that this is true, audiences and popular culture see Superman as passe or boring.

In the comic shop where I am purchasing All Star, there are virtually no "kids" buying Superman comics. I'm early 30s and the sjop owner admitted most Superman buyers are my age and older.

Prior to SR target and WalMart and the rest always carried Spiderman or X-Men or Batman toys but you were hard pressed to find a Superman toy.

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

Frankly I am note sure if even a perfectly executed Superman film can do that.

Has the ship sailed on the big-screen Superman?

Is it possible - how - to get Superman at least competitve with FF and Batman again?

Completely possible. The reasons you say about Superman being unpopular is because of one reason and one only. He's been out of the picture. Batman has been more popular because he's had more and better movies. The same can be said for Spiderman, FF, Hulk, even Ghostrider. The reason that everyone thinks Superman is boring and still do is for the same reason as in SR. People don't think they need him. What the movie was supposed to do was what Spiderman, X-Men, FF, and DareDevil did. Reintroduce the character in a fresh new way and make him popular again among both comic book fans and movie fans alike. Sadly this didn't happen. Somehow they managed to do it with Smallville but they can't do it in a movie yet. Strange.:whatever:

[dark_b]

i will tell you something. people on the earth when see superman they think of epic big action. so if you have a lot of action you make a lot of money.

200 milions and they say that they dint have enough money for more action?

[Brainiac 2009]

Superman will never be as popular as it once was in todays generation. We, as a society, prefer the complex heroes or anti-heroes that are dark or freaks of society.

Singer partially tried to rework Superman into an isolated figure in SR and while it got critical praise, it isolated the old school fans who see Superman as this perfect moral beacon of hope from an America that once was.

If Singer restores Superman to the Alex Ross-like classic vision that alot of comic book fans see Superman as for the sequel, it may make him alot less interesting compared to the darker grittier heroes we have today.

Superman will never phase out completely because hes so fundemental as the basis for what a superhero is in a classical sense but we cant expect a character of such classic American values to stand as tall as he once did in today's controversial wartorn and imperfect world.

[FanboyX_Returns]

Sadly, Superman's problem is not all SR or Singer or Routh or writing. It goes beyond that and was there long before Singer came on board.

Sadly, and I hate that this is true, audiences and popular culture see Superman as passe or boring.

In the comic shop where I am purchasing All Star, there are virtually no "kids" buying Superman comics. I'm early 30s and the sjop owner admitted most Superman buyers are my age and older.

Prior to SR target and WalMart and the rest always carried Spiderman or X-Men or Batman toys but you were hard pressed to find a Superman toy.

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

Frankly I am note sure if even a perfectly executed Superman film can do that.

Has the ship sailed on the big-screen Superman?

Is it possible - how - to get Superman at least competitve with FF and Batman again?

A movie with the right cast, right director, and a great story would be bigger then both Pirate movies, and both Spiderman movies!
SR Just wasn't good on any level, and that's why it flopped...

[superbaby]

Sadly, Superman's problem is not all SR or Singer or Routh or writing. It goes beyond that and was there long before Singer came on board.

Sadly, and I hate that this is true, audiences and popular culture see Superman as passe or boring.

In the comic shop where I am purchasing All Star, there are virtually no "kids" buying Superman comics. I'm early 30s and the sjop owner admitted most Superman buyers are my age and older.

Prior to SR target and WalMart and the rest always carried Spiderman or X-Men or Batman toys but you were hard pressed to find a Superman toy.

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

Frankly I am note sure if even a perfectly executed Superman film can do that.

Has the ship sailed on the big-screen Superman?

Is it possible - how - to get Superman at least competitve with FF and Batman again?

a good writer. and a good director. unfortunately, superman has neither.
i still believe people today appreciate goodness and virtues.

[El Payaso]

Big B.O. hits in movies have never needed good writers or directors or actors, they need mindless action and cool music.

[SatEL]

Sadly, Superman's problem is not all SR or Singer or Routh or writing. It goes beyond that and was there long before Singer came on board.

Sadly, and I hate that this is true, audiences and popular culture see Superman as passe or boring.

In the comic shop where I am purchasing All Star, there are virtually no "kids" buying Superman comics. I'm early 30s and the sjop owner admitted most Superman buyers are my age and older.

Prior to SR target and WalMart and the rest always carried Spiderman or X-Men or Batman toys but you were hard pressed to find a Superman toy.

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

Frankly I am note sure if even a perfectly executed Superman film can do that.

Has the ship sailed on the big-screen Superman?

Is it possible - how - to get Superman at least competitve with FF and Batman again?


Bull**** if done properly superman could have returned with a bang.

[SatEL]

A movie with the right cast, right director, and a great story would be bigger then both Pirate movies, and both Spiderman movies!
SR Just wasn't good on any level, and that's why it flopped...


Very very true all thats needed is the right team who have a clue about the character Superman.

[El Payaso]

A movie with the right cast, right director, and a great story would be bigger then both Pirate movies, and both Spiderman movies!
SR Just wasn't good on any level, and that's why it flopped...

Bigger as in what? Moneymaking? You don't need a great story for that.

[SatEL]

Bigger as in what? Moneymaking? You don't need a great story for that.


Somtimes action action action isnt the key in terms of doing big numbers at the box office a good director would be able to find a medium, Spielberg or Jackson are capable of such tasks if Singer isnt up to it.

[matthooper]

Sequels generally make less than the orignals. There are a few exceptions.

However, looking at comic book franchises, Spider-man made 403 million domestic and SM2 made 373 million domestic. Batman made more than Batman Returns, MIB made more than MIBII. However, since Superman Reurns was a huge dissapointment, any sequel might have a good chance of making more if the marketing is done right. Singer's X-2 made more than X-Men, so it's possible. The problem is, no one cares about Superman Returns or a sequel. I'm not talking about the fans on the board, obviously they care. But the general public is not clammering for a sequel, they are pretty apathetic.

[Mr. Socko]

Big B.O. hits in movies have never needed good writers or directors or actors, they need mindless action and cool music.

NEVER? I could see if you said doesn't always. But NEVER?

James Cameron would bit-ch slap you to no tomorrow if he heard that.

[Brainiac 2009]

Big B.O. hits in movies have never needed good writers or directors or actors, they need mindless action and cool music.

Bingo. Someone gets it. Case in point; critically 'rotten' movies like X3 and POTC2 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pirates_of_the_caribbean_dead_mans_chest/).

With the Superman sequel apparently having more action than any DC film prior produced, I think theres a fair chance it can do better business than SR if marketed as an action flick.

You have to remember hits like Spider-man did well mainly because of kid-appeal and families going over and over to see them. Superman Returns had no appeal to that demographic and thus didnt get those same repeat viewings from families and kids who couldnt sit through it. Superman handled more as an action flick would probably do a better job of drawing them in and retaining them for multiple viewings.

It at the very least may not make a big initial impact but could have good legs like BB did, which could in turn justify more films.

[Mr. Socko]

So now you're saying Singer should just put useless unneeded action into the sequel JUST for better boxoffice results after you praise the first for focusing more on the story...................

You people are disturbing.

[Brainiac 2009]

No...Sock.

I'm saying the studio likely will. I'm not talking about what he 'should' do in my opinion, I'm talking about the approach they are taking.

Yes there is the possibility the sequel could do well because of the action but fail critcally with less focus on the plot.

But theyve decided to go this route, so lets see if they can manage both.

[Buford The Sly]

While I've always prefered "the big guys" much more than Superman I'm sure they can do a movie that does better than Superman Returns. The overall vibe of that movie was just a big misfire IMO. They got some things right (Casting, aside from Bosworth, directing, SFX) but the script was just lame.

[Mr. Socko]

Too bad Singer didn't get better writers.

[dark_b]

Sequels generally make less than the orignals. There are a few exceptions.

However, looking at comic book franchises, Spider-man made 403 million domestic and SM2 made 373 million domestic. Batman made more than Batman Returns, MIB made more than MIBII. However, since Superman Reurns was a huge dissapointment, any sequel might have a good chance of making more if the marketing is done right. Singer's X-2 made more than X-Men, so it's possible. The problem is, no one cares about Superman Returns or a sequel. I'm not talking about the fans on the board, obviously they care. But the general public is not clammering for a sequel, they are pretty apathetic.a guy sits at home and watched a game. when he sees a trailer like the superbowl trailer for matrix reloaded was .....belive me he will go watch the movie.


singer needs to find the balance between lots of big action and a complex story that will chalange superman that we never saw before.
it can be done.

[Mr. Socko]

A man watching a game(I have no clue why he'd be just watching it) for a superbowl trailer with Matrix confused me but I Completely agree on the last sentence.

[matthooper]

a guy sits at home and watched a game. when he sees a trailer like the superbowl trailer for matrix reloaded was .....belive me he will go watch the movie.


singer needs to find the balance between lots of big action and a complex story that will chalange superman that we never saw before.
it can be done.

What I meant was as of now, they don't care about it. That means a new buzz will have to be created and will not have a carry over buzz from the first as we had with Spider-Man.

But I agree, if the marketing is done well, and he makes a good film this time that people are excited about, then of course it will do well.

[dark_b]

What I meant was as of now, they don't care about it. That means a new buzz will have to be created and will not have a carry over buzz from the first as we had with Spider-Man.

But I agree, if the marketing is done well, and he makes a good film this time that people are excited about, then of course it will do well.i didnt talk about the marketing and the buzz. i mean that if hte trailer will show great action( if hte movie will have great action) then belive me people will go in the theater to watch this big epic action movie.

i still think that when it comes to comic book movies people whant to first see action in the theater.

[matthooper]

i didnt talk about the marketing and the buzz. i mean that if hte trailer will show great action( if hte movie will have great action) then belive me people will go in the theater to watch this big epic action movie.

i still think that when it comes to comic book movies people whant to first see action in the theater.

Like I said, I agree with you. If next time around the trailer blows people away, they will see it.

[Mr. Socko]

i didnt talk about the marketing and the buzz. i mean that if hte trailer will show great action( if hte movie will have great action) then belive me people will go in the theater to watch this big epic action movie.

i still think that when it comes to comic book movies people whant to first see action in the theater.

Yeah, like you said, it's the word of mouth being passed around on wheater it's good or not.

[dark_b]

Yeah, like you said, it's the word of mouth being passed around on wheater it's good or not.maybe even a combination of word of mouth and good marketing.

[Mr. Socko]

That helps too lol

[dark_b]

singer also needs new friends. cameron and spileberg would be the best.

[Mr. Socko]

What would that matter? Give him tips?

[WormyT]

Completely possible. The reasons you say about Superman being unpopular is because of one reason and one only. He's been out of the picture. Batman has been more popular because he's had more and better movies. The same can be said for Spiderman, FF, Hulk, even Ghostrider. The reason that everyone thinks Superman is boring and still do is for the same reason as in SR. People don't think they need him. What the movie was supposed to do was what Spiderman, X-Men, FF, and DareDevil did. Reintroduce the character in a fresh new way and make him popular again among both comic book fans and movie fans alike. Sadly this didn't happen. Somehow they managed to do it with Smallville but they can't do it in a movie yet. Strange.:whatever:

My views exactly!
Smallville is proof Superman CAN connect with genX even though he never even wears a costume and every episode is dripping in cheesy Dawsons Creek romance. But he solves mysteries, fights Supervillains, has a very close bond with his parents, the show takes Luthor seriously (and no bloody wigs), and notice how even though Welling plays the Dorky sensitive farmboy, he STILL smacks enemies in the face whether they've got powers or not. In other words, hes acting like a real human/hero we can connect with.

But back to the original Posters point. i DO believe it's possible to make another big screen adaption of Superman and have it be as popular as FF Spidey. But after SR I think it would take 2 movies. ONE to trash SR and reintroduce a new direction (a La Casino Royale, Batman Begins). After that, the next one should be a sure hit.

[Antonello Blueberry]

So can Superman compete with the big guys on film? Frankly, I am not sure he can, The popular culture interest is just not there from what I see around me.

Not talking Spiderman as he is in a league of his own.

More X-Men, Batman and Fantastic 4. My bet is FF 2 does close to 250 million and the Batman sequel too.

You're getting boring
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm
SR made more money than Fantastic Four and the first X-Men movie and more than Batman begins if you consider the worldwide grosses.

[matthooper]

You're getting boring
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm
SR made more money than Fantastic Four and the first X-Men movie and more than Batman begins if you consider the worldwide grosses.

Not true because those films cost much less to make. SR may have taken in more at the box office but it didn't make more money.

Are there actually still people out there who delude themselves into believing Superman Returns was a box office success?

[dark_b]

What would that matter? Give him tips?yes. i think those two guys cna make a mega action movie with a good story. they both made movies when i saw a balance between good action and good story.

if singer doesnt want action he can go and make a tv superman.

[Brainiac 2009]

People dont go to choose to see movies based on budget. Regardless of its initial budget, the figure shows it still attracted that many people to see it, roughly as many as x-men, F4 and BB.

It may not be as healthy from an economic standpoint but from a viewership standpoint and developing a fanbase, it appears just as healthy as the other films.

[dark_b]

People dont go to choose to see movies based on budget. Regardless of its initial budget, the figure shows it still attracted that many people to see it, roughly as many as x-men, F4 and BB.

It may not be as healthy from an economic standpoint but from a viewership standpoint and developing a fanbase, it appears just as healthy as the other films.with that i htink we all agree. it didnt enough money to survive. but WB didnt make a lot of money.

[matthooper]

People dont go to choose to see movies based on budget. Regardless of its initial budget, the figure shows it still attracted that many people to see it, roughly as many as x-men, F4 and BB.

It may not be as healthy from an economic standpoint but from a viewership standpoint and developing a fanbase, it appears just as healthy as the other films.

Again, not true. You cite X-Men 1 in your arguement but X-2 and X-3 were huge hits and higher viewership. BB has a wonderful critical aura as well as massive DVD sales and rentals, again more viewers.

I would agree that FF and it's franchise is on a similar path with SR. Dissapointing in one way or another with a sequel with it's sights set higher.

I’ve said it before, I can respect anyone’s coherent positive opinion on Superman Returns. But people can’t delude themselves enough into believing it was a box-office success. It was $100- $200 million less than projections depending on which exec or expert you hear from.

WB however, has felt that they can bleed it some more because it apparently broke even.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Again, not true. You cite X-Men 1 in your arguement but X-2 and X-3 were huge hits and higher viewership. BB has a wonderful critical aura as well as massive DVD sales and rentals, again more viewers.
DVD rental numbers for BB are the same of SR and in the end the DVD sales numbers will equal too. And SR made more money worldwide at the BO.
Both underperformed, as at WB they were expecting Spider-man numbers, and both will have sequels that will make more money. They served their purpose, to restart the franchise.
So let's cut the crap that Superman will never be as successful as Batman or the X-men.

[Mr. Socko]

The SR budget was roughly $200M.

SR made roughly $200M domestically.

Therefore, SR roughly gained nothing domestically in theaters.

And $200 was just the budget for SR. That's not counting how much went into trying to get it off the ground and paying for the small amount of Superman Lives. So getting Superman back to the silver screen actually cost them roughly $270M.

Edit: I doubt anyone thought SR would be in line with BB numbers, more like Spidey numbers.

[Antonello Blueberry]

And $200 was just the budget for SR. That's not counting how much went into trying to get it off the ground and paying for the small amount of Superman Lives. So getting Superman back to the silver
And your point is?
How does this concern the fact that according to lexlives Superman will never be a successful franchise?