View Single Post
Old 08-11-2012, 07:55 AM   #110
Dr.'s Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,865
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton View Post
There are TWO measures of success, and they are the only two that matter:

1. "THOR" had a production budget of $150 million dollars. Much smaller than the SR with a higher return.

2. "THOR" has a sequel curretnly in production.
But in this instance, the context was box office as a general measure of appeal/popularity - the extent to which a movie has successfully tapped into the cultural zeitgeist (or has failed to do so). And under that criterion, profitability is irrelevant. Movie X is either more popular than movie Y, or it’s not. Knowledge of production budgets does not retroactively affect how many people actually saw the films.

The rest is just useless fan-wank for a film that failed, when it SHOULD have succeeded if it was any good.
That's a dubious claim. Some positively loathe Titanic. Does its undeniable popularity mean that those critics are wrong, that they should change their minds? I'm a big fan of Whedon's Serenity - which bombed. But does that mean it "failed" in all respects?

Oh, and SR was in theaters almost 3 weeks longer than "THOR" was. So take that into consideration when you talk about "units sold".....
Also irrelevant. If a "unit" takes a week or a year to sell, it's still only one "unit" sold.

Dr. is offline   Reply With Quote