Anticipation For Man of Steel

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by LordofHypertime

The B.O. results, and the DVD sales have everything to do with it. It's not unheard of for big money-makers to get cold feet and shove off the deal. Maybe the villains and action will attract more fans. All I can say, is it had better be a damned good trailer to enforce the promise and intoxicate the crowds.



People love throwing this site around, so I'll give it a try.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

76% .... Let's compare that to two other classic characters.

Batman Begins: 84% (+8)
Spider-Man 2: 93% (+17)

For a Superman movie, it didn't meet the mark. That might be subjective, but we have to stop and ask ourselves: "Why wasn't it received better?"



True.

I am still not following you, the box office results were already in by the end of October and Legendary Pictures already had confirmed they were in. After DVD sales come in and the movie makes more money, why would they back out? I still don't understand your theory.

Many turn to Rotten Tomatoes for reference, but luckily I am not one of them. I can't really take stock in 236 movie reviewers, although 180 out of that number thought it was "fresh". That is what they call, a small sampling of the population. We won't really know who is the minority or majority ever, it's speculation.

Sure anything can happen, nothing is guaranteed, especially in Hollywood. You or I don't really have to question why it wasn't received better, that question is for WB to work out on the sequel.

If there is a sequel Singer and company, or whomever is running the show, needs to brighten it up and add some action. Simple formula.

[lexlives]

Originally Posted by Showtime029

It could have been due to the \S/ itself sure, it could have been a combination, or not at all. I thought we were discussing Legendary here, and if the budget is lowered and possible sequel includes more action and a supervillian, how could Legendary not make money?

Many were disappointed? Define many?

This is all speculation anyway. It will all be revealed soon enough and we can talk facts rather than speculation.

As Legendary goes so would the other potential co-financiers WB deals with. If Legendary bails I doubt WB will be able to line up another investor production company. The numbers Legendary bases its decision on will be the same numbers the other companies see and if fronting up to 100 million for a SR sequel does not make financial sense to Legendary, its likely won't to the others either.

IMO the reason a sequel is financially not viable is because its almost impossible for a sequel to make more than SR's 200 million.

In part as the sequel will not have the advantage SR did of being the first Superman film in years. That alone turned out some for SR but a sequel won't have that draw.

More action could make up for this somewhat but that means kic* a** trailers and I doubt Singer and company can do that kind of trailer. Using the poor trailers for SR as a guide of what to expect.

But even if the action is good the baggage reamains. Routh and Bosworth failed to engage audiences with their performances and basically that means there is no ongoing emotional buy in to the characters. Its why WOM was awful and why no one seems interested in seeing Superman return for a sequel. Not to mention poor writing, poor editing, the kid. The perception is that SR was perhaps the biggest disappointment of 2006. That is what audiences will remember and that will keep them away and threaten a sequel with a smaller BO even that SR.

Yes the budget will be cut around 50 million - which begs th question how can they do the absolutely needed 4 or 5 major action scenes on a much smaller budget - and that makes a defacto profit that SR did not have. But that is not a significant sum given the investment. The worry is too that the budget cut could hamper the action and actually lead to an even lesser BO for the sequel than for SR.

The financials simply don't warrant a sequel. The parallel to Hulk is striking. Lee said for almost a year after the Hulk release there would be a sequel, but the studio finally stepped in and said no.

The fact we have heard absolutely nothing from WB for 5 months, despite what Spacey or Harris may have said in passing, is the key here and an indication IMO that the studio is not at all happy with the franchise or solid on a sequel.

Its almost been a year for SR as it was for the Hulk so hopefully it won't be long now before WB puts this horse out to pasture. Only then can Superman start to get out from under the cloud SR and Singer have cast over the franchise. We will also be able to start the countdown - granted a long 15 or 20 year countdown - to the eventual reboot/relaunch of the franchise.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by lexlives

As Legendary goes so would the other potential co-financiers WB deals with. If Legendary bails I doubt WB will be able to line up another investor production company. The numbers Legendary bases its decision on will be the same numbers the other companies see and if fronting up to 100 million for a SR sequel does not make financial sense to Legendary, its likely won't to the others either.

IMO the reason a sequel is financially not viable is because its almost impossible for a sequel to make more than SR's 200 million.

In part as the sequel will not have the advantage SR did of being the first Superman film in years. That alone turned out some for SR but a sequel won't have that draw.

More action could make up for this somewhat but that means kic* a** trailers and I doubt Singer and company can do that kind of trailer. Using the poor trailers for SR as a guide of what to expect.

But even if the action is good the baggage reamains. Routh and Bosworth failed to engage audiences with their performances and basically that means there is no ongoing emotional buy in to the characters. Its why WOM was awful and why no one seems interested in seeing Superman return for a sequel. Not to mention poor writing, poor editing, the kid. The perception is that SR was perhaps the biggest disappointment of 2006. That is what audiences will remember and that will keep them away and threaten a sequel with a smaller BO even that SR.

Yes the budget will be cut around 50 million - which begs th question how can they do the absolutely needed 4 or 5 major action scenes on a much smaller budget - and that makes a defacto profit that SR did not have. But that is not a significant sum given the investment. The worry is too that the budget cut could hamper the action and actually lead to an even lesser BO for the sequel than for SR.

The financials simply don't warrant a sequel. The parallel to Hulk is striking. Lee said for almost a year after the Hulk release there would be a sequel, but the studio finally stepped in and said no.

The fact we have heard absolutely nothing from WB for 5 months, despite what Spacey or Harris may have said in passing, is the key here and an indication IMO that the studio is not at all happy with the franchise or solid on a sequel.

Its almost been a year for SR as it was for the Hulk so hopefully it won't be long now before WB puts this horse out to pasture. Only then can Superman start to get out from under the cloud SR and Singer have cast over the franchise. We will also be able to start the countdown - granted a long 15 or 20 year countdown - to the eventual reboot/relaunch of the franchise.

Opinion does not equal fact.

[VenomsMom]

Smaller budgets, its looking like Superman3 all over again.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by VenomsMom

Smaller budgets, its looking like Superman3 all over again.

Let me guess...with Gus Gorman played by Chris Tucker...

[wellsy]

Originally Posted by Billy Batson

So with a smaller budget, what kind of film will you (SR) fans get?

If all goes well, we'll get a Wrath of Khan (MoS) to our Star Trek: The Motion Picture (SR).

Remember that WoK was made for a third of TMP, but still had phasers firing, ships exploding, the Mutara Nebula, and competition with Star Wars, and did extremely well.

If Singer can do that, then will you all please debate fact rather than opinion. PLEASE?!

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by Showtime029

Let me guess...with Gus Gorman played by Chris Tucker...

Your just too quick.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by VenomsMom

Your just too quick.

I didn't want to feed into your GG obsession...but...

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by Showtime029

I didn't want to feed into your GG obsession...but...

Gus Gorman, one of the greatest villains ever.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Originally Posted by lexlives

The financials simply don't warrant a sequel. The parallel to Hulk is striking. Lee said for almost a year after the Hulk release there would be a sequel, but the studio finally stepped in and said no.

Hmmm... That comment is flawed.

The Hulk B.O.
Domestic: $132,177,234 53.9%+ Foreign: $113,107,931 46.1%= Worldwide: $245,285,165


Now let's see SR in comparison:
Domestic: $200,081,192 51.2%+ Foreign: $191,000,000 48.8%= Worldwide: $391,081,192

Also SR has an oscar nomination. Critically it was much better received than the Hulk.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/

[VenomsMom]

Superman and Hulk. Apples and Oranges.

[Ita-KalEl]

The style of LexLives is "speculations versus facts".
By now we have only confirmations (from the WB, from Variety, from Legendary and from the writers), and I'm sure that Horn will say something about the sequel at the ShoWest.

LexLives if you think to be a smart person with your theories, you are drunk.
According to your crappy logic, at SONY they are only a group of idiots because they greenlited the sequel of Hellboy:

Budget: $66 million
Domestic: $59,623,958 60.0%
+ Foreign: $39,695,029 40.0%

And believe me, Helboy sold 1/10 of the SR merchandise and dvds.
Dear LexLives, prepare your bags, because you'll leave soon this forum

[Freddy_Krueger]

Originally Posted by VenomsMom

Superman and Hulk. Apples and Oranges.

Then why the hell was it brought up as a comparison to begin with?

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

Then why the hell was it brought up as a comparison to begin with?

Why dont you ask them, I didnt bring it up.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

Then why the hell was it brought up as a comparison to begin with?

Guess. Who would bring it up and why would they?

[Freddy_Krueger]

Haha, you're right Showtime. Sorry Venom, for some reason I thought it was you who had brought it up initially.

Ah lexlives, the one person on Earth who has nothing better to do than spend days on in just complaining about a movie he didn't like.

[Freddy_Krueger]

*double post*

[Mentok]

Well, its been a few months since I have been here. I see that LEXLIVES still thinks he can have an effect on the next film by complaining about SR to anybody that will listen.

[what_19]

most of the time the sequels end of being the best of the series...spiderman 2 was better than the 1st...um...superman 2 was pretty damn good...the original star wars 2 was sweet...rocky 2 was sweet...saw 2 (looked good..havent actually seen it but saw 1 was good)...american pie 2 was good...so superman returns 2 will be awesome..how can it fail?

[lexlives]

Originally Posted by what_19

most of the time the sequels end of being the best of the series...spiderman 2 was better than the 1st...um...superman 2 was pretty damn good...the original star wars 2 was sweet...rocky 2 was sweet...saw 2 (looked good..havent actually seen it but saw 1 was good)...american pie 2 was good...so superman returns 2 will be awesome..how can it fail?

For all the reasons that have been argued to death. Generally, this team from Singer to D&H to Routh, Bosworth, the FX team and Ottman failed to deliver a good product. How do you expect that the exact same team with a smaller budget can do better. it doesn't add up.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by lexlives

For all the reasons that have been argued to death. Generally, this team from Singer to D&H to Routh, Bosworth, the FX team and Ottman failed to deliver a good product. How do you expect that the exact same team with a smaller budget can do better. it doesn't add up.

Naturally, the more money the better movie, anyone knows.

[lexlives]

Originally Posted by \S/JcDc\S/

Hmmm... That comment is flawed.

The Hulk B.O.
Domestic: $132,177,234 53.9%+ Foreign: $113,107,931 46.1%= Worldwide: $245,285,165


Now let's see SR in comparison:
Domestic: $200,081,192 51.2%+ Foreign: $191,000,000 48.8%= Worldwide: $391,081,192

Also SR has an oscar nomination. Critically it was much better received than the Hulk.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/

You miss the point. It is what the films cost to produce versus their BO.

Hulk actuially made a little more than it cost to produce from the domestic BO alone. SR did not.

The parallels are striking - down to Lee and some of his team insisting a sequel would happen for up to a year after the releases while the studio was basically silent. Prior to the Hulk DVD launh the studio sort of hinted there could be a Hulksequel but in hindsight I am pretty sure they were trying to boost DVD sales and not really serious.

But even if the Hulk studio was serious in that early indication there could be a sequel they fell silent for a long while and ended up changing their mind.

Again, the Huilk has everything to do with SR. WB will be watching the Hulk relaunch next year and if it does well that may encourage them to try Superman again down the road but as in a reboot/relaunch.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Originally Posted by lexlives

Again, the Huilk has everything to do with SR. WB will be watching the Hulk relaunch next year and if it does well that may encourage them to try Superman again down the road but as in a reboot/relaunch.

Always reaching for another event, eh Lex? "If they don't announce the film at ShoWest, the sequel is DOA."

"If FF2 does well, WB'll be watching and will consider a reboot."

"If the Hulk reboot does well, WB will be watching and will attempt another reboot in about 1.5 billion years."

Pick a theory and go with it. And while you're at it, JUST MOVE ON FOR GOD'S SAKE. Your constant looking for reasons to complain about SR and its impending sequel is just sad at this point. You would think that the coming of a sequel would signal the end of the universe as we know it with the way you're acting.

[Maze]

Lex,

a movie is greenlighted when a script finished and approved:you know for budgetary reason etc ..

Dark knight has been greenlighted in July of last year . One year after the release of begins.

does that mean that one could say that Dark knight was dead in the water for one year?

Another thing ,note that unlike Singer lee has never signed an agreement to write and direct a sequel. expressing interest for a year ? maybe . but not to my knowledge..link?

anyways the studio didn't seem to want him back unlike Singer.

you continue to not make any sense Lex .

[lexlives]

Originally Posted by Maze

Lex,

a movie is greenlighted when a script finished and approved:you know for budgetary reason etc ..

Dark knight has been greenlighted in July of last year . One year after the release of begins.

does that mean that one could say that Dark knight was dead in the water for one year?

Another thing ,note that unlike Singer lee has never signed an agreement to write and direct a sequel. expressing interest for a year ? maybe . but not to my knowledge..link?

anyways the studio didn't seem to want him back unlike Singer.

you continue to not make any sense Lex .

But the key difference is that WB was able to announce TDK as their tentpole 2008 film at ShoWest - even though they did not have a finalized script or budget agreement on that script. That came in July as you say.

But WB was obviously 100% confident and committed back in March of that year and so announced. That won't happen with SR and that makes a world of difference..