Will Superman Return again?

[Steelsheen]

dont quite know where to put this, but i found this over at CHUD:





WILL SUPERMAN RETURN AGAIN?
08.14.06
By Devin Faraci
Contributing sources: Variety


There’s been a lot of talk on our message boards about the future of the Superman franchise. At this point the talk isn’t about where the series will go but rather will there even be a series? I’m not feeling the positivity – the film cost too much and underperformed too much to make a sequel sensible.

Today’s Variety has an article about just this issue, and they shed some interesting light on the whole situation. One of the things that confuses average moviegoers the most seems to be how films earn money at the box office and what films are truly successful. The experts at Variety seem to think that Superman Returns is on target to lose money for Warner Bros and their co-financer, Legendary Pictures, to the tune of 20 million a piece – before the marketing costs are even added in, and some estimates have the film at 100 million for prints and advertising alone. If the film does very well on DVD, those losses could be lessened, but the film would have to VERY well on DVD to make a huge difference.

The problem there is that no one has figured out why Superman can’t fly. Is it because of Pirates? Is it because the character is hokey? Is it because the film just isn’t that good? If it’s the first one, the DVD could do very well. If it’s the second two, there’s trouble in Metropolis. Everyone keeps comparing Superman Returns to Batman Begins, but besides the fact that their budgets are very, very different, Batman had legs, which indicated good word of mouth. That later materialized as good DVD sales. Superman has legs like Christopher Reeve, and that could mean a poor showing at the video store.

One thing is certain – if Superman does return again, it’s going to have to be cheaper. Variety says that the word around town has Warner Bros demanding a budget south of 200 million dollars, a big chunk of change away from the original’s 240-260 million dollar cost. While Bryan Singer was at Comic Con last month touting a 2009 release date for his Superman sequel, Warner doesn’t even have him nailed down yet, and any deal is almost certainly going to include an enforced budget cap. Could the studio demand more control over the sequel?

A sequel doesn’t make much sense to me on any level. Singer promises a more action packed movie, but how is he going to pull that off with a budget below 200 million? Rumors have Spider-Man 3 clocking in at 300 million plus, and there’s an indication that the Pirates sequels may well cost 700 million combined. Like it or not, the effects film budget threshold is getting higher and higher, and Superman Returns had a hard time competing with a big budget as it was.

But beyond that, no one needs a Superman sequel. These films should be blockbusters or they shouldn’t exist at all. It isn’t like Warner Bros needs a film franchise to move Superman merchandise – the character does pretty well all on his own. Why sink millions more into another boondoggle film when you’re already getting the auxiliary benefits anyway?

Of course no one knows where this will end up going. This buzz on the studio lot could just be Warner Bros being prepared in case the DVD does explodes like Superman’s home planet, or to minimize the perception of the film as an underperformer. And even if the studio does intend right now to go ahead with a new Superman, that could all vanish in a puff of smoke if the studio has another year as poor as this one is turning out to be. Hell, everybody who works there today could be gone by this time next year. Or the studio could be serious about making this franchise work, and we really will see Bryan Singer returning to the Man of Steel in 2009.

Maybe in Bizarro World.

from: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7389

[Kabuki_Jo]

Hopefully, yes.
Without Singer directing it.

[batman44]

I hope so, actually I'm going to be more optimistic and say we will get another Superman movie.

[GreenKToo]

ya,no way W.B.wont milk Superman for all he's worth.....now it may be another 5 yrs before they do,who knows,but they will make another...

[The Kid]

Drop singer and we'll talk. I want someone who's not stuck in some other director's shadow to handle superman.

[C. Lee]

Will Superman Return again?

Yes, of course Superman will. But wether it has Singer at the helm or again uses the Reeve movies as a template is questionable.

[Lighthouse]

I don't think were going to know for sure until the DVD comes out. We might have a better idea after it opens in a few more countries this weekend.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Steelsheen

Superman has legs like Christopher Reeve,

Thats in bad taste even to me.

[WTFwuzThT]

If Superman returns it won't be done by Singer or by anyone else that can't get it through their skulls nobody wants to see a remake.

[The Kid]

oh god I couldn't take it. There's just so much stuff you could explore outside of Sky captain zod and hackman lex.

Right now...The most interesting aspect of the potential sequel to me is Jason. That's really it. I don't care about anyone else or whether superman gets with lois. They both are such fools. Jason's the real genius of the group and for the next one if singer's still onboard, I hope he shows us a story about growing up feeling that you're different from all your peers, feeling alienated, wanting to date the popular girl but being afraid she'd learn your secret so tragically continue alienating himself, though he might have a freind or two who discovers it accidentally... hmmm this might make a good show for tv. Don't anybody steal my idea now.

My fear is that superman won't raise his son, won't teach him how to fly and all that stuff. That's his responsibility and for them to say superfather might co-raise jason with Cyclops... well... I wouldn't like that too much. Because superman to me, would gladly be a father to his son no matter who lois' boyfriend is at the time. Oh I can't wait until Jason learns the truth. He'll be so excited.

[rduce]

If they were smart they would get rid of Peters, get someone from DC to oversee that damn thing and just maybe stick a Superman comic or two infront of whomever the director is and say, "This is Superman!"

[Freddy_Krueger]

The actual Variety article is a lot more positive about the outlook for the sequel. It pretty much says while it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for, bailing out right now would be a waste of their investments and the film wasn't such a disappointment that a sequel is out of the question anyway.

I think it's funny that this guy at Chud thinks an action packed flick has to cost $200 million. The Star Wars prequels cost $115 million and Lucas was able to create entire worlds. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings' $94 million budgets (per film) or the Matrix sequels' $150 million budget. A lot can be done without the film costing an arm and a leg.

But beyond that, no one needs a Superman sequel. These films should be blockbusters or they shouldn’t exist at all.

Why? There's only one superhero franchise that's hit the $300 million mark and that's the Spider-man franchise (which is just a freak of nature). Just because it's Superman doesn't mean that the film should be guaranteed to make Spider-man money. Batman is just as popular and "only" made $200 million. Should it not exist?

[millennium movies]

To further more the sequel idea Weseyed was on, i would like the sequel go this direction with the storyline;
-Violence and its use

What i mean by that is have the story continue with jason growing up sort of in his father's shadow, looking up to him. Of course Superman wants to show his son that anyone can help and make a difference and that violence should never be used for evil. Then since krypton is floating in space, have something happen that creates some sort of microscopic lifeform that lands on earth and perhaps takes over computer systems. Later it will get a body of its own. That is obviously Brainiac. That would be a perfect struggle right there and give everyone something to chew on. Hardcore fans a superfight, average moviegoers would get a conflicting situation for superman as well as character development with the father image. The film would also continue on the factor that Superman has come back in people's lifes, no he has to make it worth it. Show the people again the way.

Then you could also obviously have Lex Luthor build his empire somehow in the shadows, perhaps with a little computer help from Brainiac. I also want to see more of a field journalism and research being done by Lois , Clark and Jimmy. I want to feel that there's life in the DP besides just the main players.

I could go on but thats all the ideas i could think of the top of my head and that would work as a sequel/continuation and also bring excitment and juice to the "franchise".

EDIT: I would like for no one to know that Superman is the father and i dont want to see no Smallville here, it would be perfect to have Richard be the father but the kid looks up to Superman alot more. But enough with the melodrama that is the love triangle, tone it down and make it interesting but subtle. Considering Lex knows the kid is Superman's this could also pose a very grave sense of danger to Superman. Perhaps at the end if the kid gets in danger again, they would have him go back to smallville and let Martha raise him like she raised Kal-El. This would protect him from futher danger and repetitive bait in future movies.

[The Kid]

The factors are many. Spiderman's no freak unless we count his organic shooters. The Marketing as we are aware having seen the great trailers was unbelievably brilliant and it payed off extremely well on top of the film being amazing fun for all kinds of movie goers. Now you know batman wasn't as heavily marketed as spidey, nor do I personally believe he's as popular as Marvel's #1 hero, since he's a much darker unfriendlier one, and also struggled to overcome the stigma from the last batman adventure to have been in theaters only, what was it... 8 years prior. Superman has of course a two decade time frame to eliminate such stigma from the last franchise as well as I'd say very good marketing pre-release so it didn't have as much of a struggle, and being about the most popular hero in comics or anywhere probably gave him an edge that for some reason didn't pay off as much as was expected. Tell anyone months ago that it would make this much and you'd have been told to shoot yourself for being a disgrace to humanity.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Originally Posted by Wesyeed

Now you know batman wasn't as heavily marketed as spidey, nor do I personally believe he's as popular as Marvel's #1 hero, since he's a much darker unfriendlier one, and also struggled to overcome the stigma from the last batman adventure to have been in theaters only, what was it... 8 years prior. Superman has of course a two decade time frame to eliminate such stigma from the last franchise as well as I'd say very good marketing pre-release so it didn't have as much of a struggle, and being about the most popular hero in comics or anywhere probably gave him an edge that for some reason didn't pay off as much as was expected. Tell anyone months ago that it would make this much and you'd have been told to shoot yourself for being a disgrace to humanity.

I'd have to argue that Batman is more popular, meself. Sure, he's darker and unfriendlier, but that's why people like him so much. That's why Burton's two films are so popular to the general public (as much as the comic community may whine about his films, the general public ate them up...well at least the first one. ).

The thing about Superman is that although he is known around the world, that doesn't necessarily make him everyone's favorite. He may be my personal favorite (well...I usually toss up between him and Bats ), but not everyone else's. Usually when conversing with friends and the like, they'll say something along the lines of "he's too powerful" or "you can't relate to him."

Hopefully these same people will discover the film on DVD and will realize that although he is powerful, he does have struggles and he can be related to despite his alien background.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by millennium movies

To further more the sequel idea Weseyed was on, i would like the sequel go this direction with the storyline;
-Violence and its use

What i mean by that is have the story continue with jason growing up sort of in his father's shadow, looking up to him. Of course Superman wants to show his son that anyone can help and make a difference and that violence should never be used for evil. Then since krypton is floating in space, have something happen that creates some sort of microscopic lifeform that lands on earth and perhaps takes over computer systems. Later it will get a body of its own. That is obviously Brainiac. That would be a perfect struggle right there and give everyone something to chew on. Hardcore fans a superfight, average moviegoers would get a conflicting situation for superman as well as character development with the father image. The film would also continue on the factor that Superman has come back in people's lifes, no he has to make it worth it. Show the people again the way.

Then you could also obviously have Lex Luthor build his empire somehow in the shadows, perhaps with a little computer help from Brainiac. I also want to see more of a field journalism and research being done by Lois , Clark and Jimmy. I want to feel that there's life in the DP besides just the main players.

I could go on but thats all the ideas i could think of the top of my head and that would work as a sequel/continuation and also bring excitment and juice to the "franchise".

EDIT: I would like for no one to know that Superman is the father and i dont want to see no Smallville here, it would be perfect to have Richard be the father but the kid looks up to Superman alot more. But enough with the melodrama that is the love triangle, tone it down and make it interesting but subtle. Considering Lex knows the kid is Superman's this could also pose a very grave sense of danger to Superman. Perhaps at the end if the kid gets in danger again, they would have him go back to smallville and let Martha raise him like she raised Kal-El. This would protect him from futher danger and repetitive bait in future movies.

Very interesting premise. I like Martha taking Jason in and helping the next superman along by sharing her wisdom with him like she did with clark at the beginning. She and Pa Kent are really the root of superman's whole heroic drive, like if bruce wayne's parents had lived and he was taught by them to be a great hero/leader and all that so he's driven to become batman because of them. That interest me. Jason being influenced to put on his own tights some day like his father out of respect for his heroic spirit is what I'd like to see too, maybe not the smallville-esque stuff, ok...

New villains and new everything. It's a new world to explore in Superman Beyond.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

The actual Variety article is a lot more positive about the outlook for the sequel. It pretty much says while it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for, bailing out right now would be a waste of their investments and the film wasn't such a disappointment that a sequel is out of the question anyway.

I think it's funny that this guy at Chud thinks an action packed flick has to cost $200 million. The Star Wars prequels cost $115 million and Lucas was able to create entire worlds. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings' $94 million budgets (per film) or the Matrix sequels' $150 million budget. A lot can be done without the film costing an arm and a leg.



Why? There's only one superhero franchise that's hit the $300 million mark and that's the Spider-man franchise (which is just a freak of nature). Just because it's Superman doesn't mean that the film should be guaranteed to make Spider-man money. Batman is just as popular and "only" made $200 million. Should it not exist?

Star Wars didn't cost that much because there was almost zero location shooting, and almost all of it was shot green screen in a studio (not to mention that he owns the premiere special effects company and knows how to keep costs down with them). Thats why Batman Begins cost so much. It had lots of location shooting, but fairly light on CGI effects. SR had combination of location shooting and heavy CGI effects, making it fairly expensive.

One of the interesting things about the Matrix movies is that Keanu Reeves took a pay cut so that they could keep costs down.(Say what you want about Reeves, I constantly here that the guy is a class act). I doubt Spacey or Singer would be willing to do such a thing.

I think a lot of this is going to depend on how flexible Bryan Singer is. I think WB will want to go ahead with a sequel, but they are going to want to hold back on somethings and Singer is a fairly demanding director. If Singer agrees to a cut budget, and maybe not such as sweet a deal as he got on SR, then more power to him, but I've read from a lot of staff that consider him difficult to work with. We'll have to see how this weekend performs in Japan and Germany.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Star Wars didn't cost that much because there was almost zero location shooting, and almost all of it was shot green screen in a studio (not to mention that he owns the premiere special effects company and knows how to keep costs down with them). Thats why Batman Begins cost so much. It had lots of location shooting, but fairly light on CGI effects. SR had combination of location shooting and heavy CGI effects, making it fairly expensive.

True about the Star Wars films, but look at Lord of the Rings. Yes, there was a lot of greenscreen stuff, but even more location shooting. And the film still cost only $94 million. I think now that Singer and co. know how to achieve their visual effects shots (which will require less testing), the cost of the next film won't be so...inflated.

[millennium movies]

Wesyeed, you and me both dont mind the son but for those picky hardcore fans and action amateurs, they need to go somewhere futher than that. They dont need to focus the entire movie on Jason being in danger as that will get tiring very fast and very easy for any Superman foe that seeks his weakness. Have Martha keep Clark informed of the kid by sending letters. Seeing as how the kid still seems unshure of the truth.

Thats why i posted the proposed storyline as it ties in this one perfectly and brings something fresh and loyal to the table too. Lex with his corporation, first comic book supervillain, real journalism at the Planet and a new aspect to his return struggle. This is basicly his first real test from the humans as he will be facing one of his own and the first threat since his acceptance back on earth.

I really dont want to see this go the Spider-Man direction and focus too much on the love. I want Lois to finally accept his return and become the straight-talking, take charge reporter she used to be. I want to see Clark actualy do some research for once, make us "believe" that Kal-El and Clark are two different people. So to speak.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

True about the Star Wars films, but look at Lord of the Rings. Yes, there was a lot of greenscreen stuff, but even more location shooting. And the film still cost only $94 million. I think now that Singer and co. know how to achieve their visual effects shots (which will require less testing), the cost of the next film won't be so...inflated.

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think shooting in forest locations cost nearly, NEARLY as much as shooting in the cities. The fact that each movie only cost 94 million is interesting though, I'm not sure how he kept the cost down so well. The only problem with the sequel is that when a second movie comes, budgets usually go up and contracts are renegotiated. If there is any truth to the supposed deal Singer got (12 million, a percentage of the box office and DVD sales) then I can see there being some real obsticles for WB on the negotiating table for them.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

The actual Variety article is a lot more positive about the outlook for the sequel. It pretty much says while it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for, bailing out right now would be a waste of their investments and the film wasn't such a disappointment that a sequel is out of the question anyway.

I think it's funny that this guy at Chud thinks an action packed flick has to cost $200 million. The Star Wars prequels cost $115 million and Lucas was able to create entire worlds. Same goes for the Lord of the Rings' $94 million budgets (per film) or the Matrix sequels' $150 million budget. A lot can be done without the film costing an arm and a leg.

Using Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is a bad comparrison. Peter Jackson and George Lucas own the companies that did special effects for both projects. They didn't have to pay an arm and a leg to outsource the SFX work because they could do it themselves.

[Freddy_Krueger]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think shooting in forest locations cost nearly, NEARLY as much as shooting in the cities. The fact that each movie only cost 94 million is interesting though, I'm not sure how he kept the cost down so well. The only problem with the sequel is that when a second movie comes, budgets usually go up and contracts are renegotiated. If there is any truth to the supposed deal Singer got (12 million, a percentage of the box office and DVD sales) then I can see there being some real obsticles for WB on the negotiating table for them.

True, but do remember that they actually built entire villages and even created Hobbiton from scratch. Sure, shooting in the forest is cheap, but not building actual...buildings.

As for Singer, there's no real evidence that there is any truth to Singer's deal. In my opinion, if it were true then WB most likely wouldn't even be trying to contact him for a sequel.

Using Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is a bad comparrison. Peter Jackson and George Lucas own the companies that did special effects for both projects. They didn't have to pay an arm and a leg to outsource the SFX work because they could do it themselves.

True, they did, but it still shouldn't cost an arm or a leg for effects shots even if you're outsourcing. I don't really think there's been a single film by ILM that has cost a ridiculous amount of money because of the effects shots.

And don't forget that Peter Jackson also used his own company to do the effects for King Kong, and that film cost a ridiculous $210 million to make as opposed to LOTR's $94 million each.

[Thot]

JASON is part of the reason SR didn't have legs! The whole stupid kid aspect deeply divided fans and turned off many in the audience. Not to mention creates a headache for anyone doing a sequel and not wanting to deal with that turd Singer dropped. Richard Donner should be begged to helm the next film. At least he understood Superman. Heck, Superman II: The Donner Cut will probably outsell SR.

[The Kid]

Well I know I'm buying the donner cut for sure. I don't really feel like ever seeing SR again unless it's for free.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Freddy_Krueger

I'd have to argue that Batman is more popular, meself. Sure, he's darker and unfriendlier, but that's why people like him so much. That's why Burton's two films are so popular to the general public (as much as the comic community may whine about his films, the general public ate them up...well at least the first one. ).

The thing about Superman is that although he is known around the world, that doesn't necessarily make him everyone's favorite. He may be my personal favorite (well...I usually toss up between him and Bats ), but not everyone else's. Usually when conversing with friends and the like, they'll say something along the lines of "he's too powerful" or "you can't relate to him."

Hopefully these same people will discover the film on DVD and will realize that although he is powerful, he does have struggles and he can be related to despite his alien background.

heh. Lois is right imo. everbody loves superman. Everybody on earth probably knows superman in some way thanks to his huge popularity over the years that I think peaked with the reeve films. He's on a level of icon status that I think spidey's probably the only one that rivals him as the most well known and popular hero. Batman's also very well known, no doubt about that but he's either popular for adam west's version as a joke or for burton's more serious and dark version which of course soon went back to turning batman into a joke of a character. DCAU has done what it could to salvage his public image, but now that crappy the batman show has to come along to try and ruin it. Well He's back to being a serious brooding badass in theaters so now maybe he'll build back his popularity for the right reasons though even then I'm not exactly sure if such a character has as wide an appeal as more friendlier heros like supes and spidey. hmmm Ironically the next batman film features the joker.