Received an email with a link to Superman Sequel news... Enjoy (link inside)

[Ultimate_Superman]

Originally Posted by BatBruce

The main problem box office wise with SR was it was the wrong time. WB and Singer looked at the situation of superhero films being big at the box office and thought "oh well superman is the biggest icon in comics so a movie with him would be huge!" If they had really done any research they would have found that TRAGIC superheroes(spidey, x-men, batman) were big. Most people's perception (and problem with) of superman is that he's perfect in every way and has no problems. The movie going audience right now don't want flawless heroes like that.

Well said

[BatBruce]

Originally Posted by DanSupKP37

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/...yr=1981&p=.htm

Ilya Salkind even Blamed Raiders for Superman 2 not making as much as one.

Oh, good find! I wonder why on IMDB and everywhere else supes II is listed as 1980?

[BatBruce]

Originally Posted by nintendo nerd

But Superman had a lot of flaws. He left Lois because it was hard for him to say goodbye. He lost 5 years of his life on his trip to Krypton just to find nothing. He didn't know he had a son. He had to realize the world needs a Superman.

Again, the problem with Superman RETURNS, wasn't the kid, Richard or Bosworth looking like a 15 year old. It was the lack of action and fun, people expect to see on a Superman movie.

I completely agree with u that the lack of action and "cool popcorn stuff" led to bad word of mouth, but i remember leading up to the release hearing people all over saying "superman's lame and no one can relate to him". The fact that a whole lot of people never saw the film in theatres to begin with had nothing to do with a lack of action, they would've had to have seen it to make that assumption

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This so-called news sounds like bunk to me.

[DanSupKP37]

Originally Posted by BatBruce

I completely agree with u that the lack of action and "cool popcorn stuff" led to bad word of mouth, but i remember leading up to the release hearing people all over saying "superman's lame and no one can relate to him".

You know it is funny you say that because i was certainly looking forward to SR release and i remember a conversation i had with a group of guys i see at my GYM all the time, about a week before SR release. I asked them if they were going to see it and i got a similiar response. One of basically "We're just not into Superman", they all however went to see X3, probably demanded a refund when it was over.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by nintendo nerd

But Superman had a lot of flaws. He left Lois because it was hard for him to say goodbye. He lost 5 years of his life on his trip to Krypton just to find nothing. He didn't know he had a son. He had to realize the world needs a Superman.

Again, the problem with Superman RETURNS, wasn't the kid, Richard or Bosworth looking like a 15 year old. It was the lack of action and fun, people expect to see on a Superman movie.

Ding ding ding. Last I checked Optimus Prime and Bumblebee aren't "tragic" yet audiences ate them up. Its not the character's fault that SR underperformed. The opening 5 days shows immense interest in the character. Bad word of mouth is what killed SR. Why? Because it was just as Roger Ebert described it. "This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating."

[I SEE SPIDEY]

But Matt, the legs don't seem bad enough to chalk it up to bad word of mouth. I think the real problem is that the word of mouth was mostly, it was pretty good but forgetable. There isn't one really memorable scene in the film. I mean you could say the plane scene if you want but that wasn't nearly as good as the train fight in SM2...in mine and others opinion really, I know I can't prove that. It was a neat scene in a bland movie with no action. Hulk had a hate filled response, 70% drop anyone?, but If I had to guess, I say that SR has the fans that love it because it's Superman and not because it's a good movie, others that love it and like it for legit reasons and large chucks that found it okay, mediocre and just plain awful. The real problem that I think the movie has to deal with is the fact that a huge but minortiy amount of people just plain didn't like it and will not come back for a sqeuel.

[nintendo nerd]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ding ding ding. Last I checked Optimus Prime and Bumblebee aren't "tragic" yet audiences ate them up. Its not the character's fault that SR underperformed. The opening 5 days shows immense interest in the character. Bad word of mouth is what killed SR. Why? Because it was just as Roger Ebert described it. "This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating."

Great. Did I win something?

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by Matt

250 is the budget when you factor in marketing. 275 is closer to when you have the start up costs. I'd say a realistic expectation of a reboot is at least 250 domestic. Superman is one of our country's biggest pop-culture phenoms. I don't believe advertisment killed SR. Look at the first weekend. 52 million. Considering it opened on a Wednesday, make it 76 million for the first five days. That is pretty damn impressive. Is it Spider-Man? No. But it is certainly a good start on the way to 250. And then, the second weekend, a shocking thing happened. The movie PLUNGED...59 %. Nearly 60 % is not a good decrease for second weekend. Sure, you can argue Pirates came out...but it shouldn't have taken that big of a hit. Do you know why it did? Because the movie had absolutely no action at all. It was boring, melo-dramatic, and too long. Pirates or no, 60 % drop implies bad word of mouth. After all, if it had gotten good word of mouth, it wouldn't have inched its way to 200. If Pirates alone were what hurt it, it would've recovered the following weekend, but oh no. Weekend 3, 45 % drop. 40 % drop in weekend 4, and 50 % drop in weekend 5. That my friend, implies HORRIBLE WOM. A Superman movie done right can easily pull in 250, even 300.

why are people never mentioning the marketing with TF,spiderman,batman???

why are people aways saying 250 with marketing?

[X-Maniac]

The critics loved SR, both on RottenTomatoes and Metacritics, but the critics don't care about action or superheroes per se (and I wish people would stop writing the hideous misspelling 'per say' on this forum!); critics are looking for artistic merit, for signs a director has put craft into his work. There is a chasm between what critics want out of a superhero movie and what the public and fans want.

On Metacritic, the critics' ratings put SR higher than any of the X-movies, even the now-acclaimed X2 (it wasn't THAT acclaimed at the time). But user ratings on that site, from members of the public, put SR below all of the X-Men movies.

A dazzling update of the Superman mythos could indeed have been a big success. Singer tried to make him relatable by making him flawed and angst-ridden; but then he made him dislikable and redundant. He leaves earth without telling anyone, abandoning his duty without a word; and the movie tells us the world has moved on and doesn't need him. Although he recaptures the public's interest with the plane rescue in the middle of a sports stadium, the movie largely presented a man who didn't care if he wasn't on earth - and an earth who didn't care if he wasn't here. If he'd drowned in that ocean, would the public know or care; he'd simply left them before, they'd think he'd done it again. Singer made a good case for 'Why the World doesn't need Superman.' I wanted to see why we did need him.

I didn't feel like I related to Superman or wanted to be him, and that must be an important part of empathy and identifying with (and caring for) the characters.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by dark_b

why are people never mentioning the marketing with TF,spiderman,batman???

why are people aways saying 250 with marketing?

It seems to depend on what figures are given.

BoxOfficeMojo gives X3's production budget as $210million, but The Numbers gives it as $150million and then lists one set of marketing costs as $34million. I heard on good authority that marketing was $60m for X3, which if added to the $150million, would indeed make $210million.

The Numbers states this for SR: In Newsweek's July 3-10, 2006 issue, Singer says, "The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million." We (The Numbers) are taking this as the official final budget. Factoring in the tax break (12%) puts the cost at $232 million, and adding the $40 million in previous costs to the studio means that the total expense on the project was in the neighborhood of $270 million. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php

SR shouldn't have cost that much and didn't look like it cost that much (disregarding the previous attempts at a movie and even disregarding the tax break). The production cost of SR is preposterous compared with X3, which had a huge cast of big-name, big-salary actors (Jackman, Berry, McKellen, Stuart) and a lot more action and FX. I think more could have been spent on X3 but, still, it has value for money!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dark_b

why are people never mentioning the marketing with TF,spiderman,batman???

why are people aways saying 250 with marketing?

Because all of the movies you cited made enough that with or without marketing they still made massive profits.

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

The critics loved SR, both on RottenTomatoes and Metacritics, but the critics don't care about action or superheroes per se (and I wish people would stop writing the hideous misspelling 'per say' on this forum!); critics are looking for artistic merit, for signs a director has put craft into his work. There is a chasm between what critics want out of a superhero movie and what the public and fans want.

On Metacritic, the critics' ratings put SR higher than any of the X-movies, even the now-acclaimed X2 (it wasn't THAT acclaimed at the time). But user ratings on that site, from members of the public, put SR below all of the X-Men movies.

A dazzling update of the Superman mythos could indeed have been a big success. Singer tried to make him relatable by making him flawed and angst-ridden; but then he made him dislikable and redundant. He leaves earth without telling anyone, abandoning his duty without a word; and the movie tells us the world has moved on and doesn't need him. Although he recaptures the public's interest with the plane rescue in the middle of a sports stadium, the movie largely presented a man who didn't care if he wasn't on earth - and an earth who didn't care if he wasn't here. If he'd drowned in that ocean, would the public know or care; he'd simply left them before, they'd think he'd done it again. Singer made a good case for 'Why the World doesn't need Superman.' I wanted to see why we did need him.

I didn't feel like I related to Superman or wanted to be him, and that must be an important part of empathy and identifying with (and caring for) the characters.

Well said my friend . I certainly agree.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

It seems to depend on what figures are given.

BoxOfficeMojo gives X3's production budget as $210million, but The Numbers gives it as $150million and then lists one set of marketing costs as $34million. I heard on good authority that marketing was $60m for X3, which if added to the $150million, would indeed make $210million.

The Numbers states this for SR: In Newsweek's July 3-10, 2006 issue, Singer says, "The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million." We (The Numbers) are taking this as the official final budget. Factoring in the tax break (12%) puts the cost at $232 million, and adding the $40 million in previous costs to the studio means that the total expense on the project was in the neighborhood of $270 million. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php

SR shouldn't have cost that much and didn't look like it cost that much (disregarding the previous attempts at a movie and even disregarding the tax break). The production cost of SR is preposterous compared with X3, which had a huge cast of big-name, big-salary actors (Jackman, Berry, McKellen, Stuart) and a lot more action and FX. I think more could have been spent on X3 but, still, it has value for money!

The 2.3 he is talking about is the bullet to the eye shot, I believe (really necessary, huh). Then there is the 10 million wasted from the Return to Krypton. That right there is nearly 15 million dollars Bryan Singer pissed away for basically no reason at all. A quick, 2 second, throw away shot and another that was left on the cutting room floor. Lets say it was, the lowest projected estimate of 204 million. Take away the waste 12 and suddenly it is only a 192 million...and suddenly the 200 million domestic looks a lot better. I can't help but think Singer wasted money other places, especially if the original budget was 184.5. Lets assume Singer kept it at 184.5...we'd probably be talking about the first teaser right about now.

[VenomsMom]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ding ding ding. Last I checked Optimus Prime and Bumblebee aren't "tragic" yet audiences ate them up. Its not the character's fault that SR underperformed. The opening 5 days shows immense interest in the character. Bad word of mouth is what killed SR. Why? Because it was just as Roger Ebert described it. "This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating."

And nearly a rerun of what we had seen before.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

The critics loved SR, both on RottenTomatoes and Metacritics, but the critics don't care about action or superheroes per se (and I wish people would stop writing the hideous misspelling 'per say' on this forum!); critics are looking for artistic merit, for signs a director has put craft into his work. There is a chasm between what critics want out of a superhero movie and what the public and fans want.

On Metacritic, the critics' ratings put SR higher than any of the X-movies, even the now-acclaimed X2 (it wasn't THAT acclaimed at the time). But user ratings on that site, from members of the public, put SR below all of the X-Men movies.

A dazzling update of the Superman mythos could indeed have been a big success. Singer tried to make him relatable by making him flawed and angst-ridden; but then he made him dislikable and redundant. He leaves earth without telling anyone, abandoning his duty without a word; and the movie tells us the world has moved on and doesn't need him. Although he recaptures the public's interest with the plane rescue in the middle of a sports stadium, the movie largely presented a man who didn't care if he wasn't on earth - and an earth who didn't care if he wasn't here. If he'd drowned in that ocean, would the public know or care; he'd simply left them before, they'd think he'd done it again. Singer made a good case for 'Why the World doesn't need Superman.' I wanted to see why we did need him.

I didn't feel like I related to Superman or wanted to be him, and that must be an important part of empathy and identifying with (and caring for) the characters.

I don't think it is that hard to make Superman as vaulnerable and flawed as the rest of us. But you don't do that by creating a Super Dead Beat Dad. You do it by emphasizing the MAN in Superman. Show that Clark is who he is, Superman is what he does. Show Clark and his family...his upbringing by humans. I love a scene in Superman For All Seasons...after Luthor kills Toxin while helping Superman save Metropolis...Superman feels powerless to save her...it is the first time he ever feels powerless. So what does he do? He goes back to the one place he feels safe...like any child would...to his parents. Show a scene like that and the audience will relate to Superman. Add a kid and make Big Blue a stalker...and well...not so much.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Matt

The 2.3 he is talking about is the bullet to the eye shot, I believe (really necessary, huh). Then there is the 10 million wasted from the Return to Krypton. That right there is nearly 15 million dollars Bryan Singer pissed away for basically no reason at all. A quick, 2 second, throw away shot and another that was left on the cutting room floor. Lets say it was, the lowest projected estimate of 204 million. Take away the waste 12 and suddenly it is only a 192 million...and suddenly the 200 million domestic looks a lot better. I can't help but think Singer wasted money other places, especially if the original budget was 184.5. Lets assume Singer kept it at 184.5...we'd probably be talking about the first teaser right about now.

The other thing is how much was the marketing?

If we take those figures given by The Numbers website in my previous post, the cost of SR was $204million, then the tax break brings it up to $232 million, then the cost of previous abortive attempts at a movie adds $40million, making $270million. That doesn't include marketing, which has to be at least $25million to $50million. The Numbers lists it as $41million.

Any combination of the above figures, from the basic $204m to the $270m + marketing, is in excess of the domestic gross.

I liked the bullet to the eye sequence, but the cost of it seems extraordinarily expensive; it does look flawless though, unlike some of the other CGI. The Krypton sequence should have been in the movie, to establish the theme of the story. However, without those sequences and their costs, we are down to a figure just under the US gross, as you say.

Singer's movies always look good from a production value standpoint but he does spend and waste too much money - often on things that are incidental or end up being cut or end up being replaced by CGI. Money was frittered away in X2 on loaning expensive fossils from collections across the world for the museum sequences near the start of the movie, only for most of the scene to be cut. The museum scene is fine within the movie but Singer overestimated what he'd need and use. He needs to be a little more practical. The budgets for 300, The Fountain and even Transformers show what can be done with limited money. I suspect Speilberg's expertise and experience helped spend the money wisely in Transformers.

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

But Matt, the legs don't seem bad enough to chalk it up to bad word of mouth. I think the real problem is that the word of mouth was mostly, it was pretty good but forgetable. There isn't one really memorable scene in the film. I mean you could say the plane scene if you want but that wasn't nearly as good as the train fight in SM2...in mine and others opinion really, I know I can't prove that. It was a neat scene in a bland movie with no action. Hulk had a hate filled response, 70% drop anyone?, but If I had to guess, I say that SR has the fans that love it because it's Superman and not because it's a good movie, others that love it and like it for legit reasons and large chucks that found it okay, mediocre and just plain awful. The real problem that I think the movie has to deal with is the fact that a huge but minortiy amount of people just plain didn't like it and will not come back for a sqeuel.

NO. Your guess is totally wrong. We the SR lovers LOVE the movie because we enjoy it A LOT and see a lot of great and beautiful stuff in it. That's the real reason. You may Not understand it, but it is so.

And to me the plane rescue in SR is GREAT!! One of the best moments ever in superhero movies or cinema in general. I enjoy it faaaar more than anything Spidey ever did.

[Matt]

So much so that you can't even use the proper spelling of plane, huh?

[wellsy]

Lol nice one Matt.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by Matt

Because all of the movies you cited made enough that with or without marketing they still made massive profits.

so because they made enough money we are ignoring the marketing?

[Mostpowerful]

Originally Posted by Matt

So much so that you can't even use the proper spelling of plane, huh?

lol, a typo. You never had one??
Besides, English is not my first language, but I try the best I can.
But good manners there..

[buggs0268]

Originally Posted by BatBruce

Oh, good find! I wonder why on IMDB and everywhere else supes II is listed as 1980?

Superman 2 originally opened in the southern hemisphere in December of 1980, 6 months before it opened in the Northern Hemisphere. The Salkind's did that to have it open in the summer months below the equator, and then the summer months above the equator. So it technically was Winter in 1980 southern, and summer 1981 northern.

Both of those films opened close to each other was all, but Superman 2 broke all BO records before then for opening day.

[buggs0268]

Originally Posted by BatBruce

The main problem box office wise with SR was it was the wrong time. WB and Singer looked at the situation of superhero films being big at the box office and thought "oh well superman is the biggest icon in comics so a movie with him would be huge!" If they had really done any research they would have found that TRAGIC superheroes(spidey, x-men, batman) were big. Most people's perception (and problem with) of superman is that he's perfect in every way and has no problems. The movie going audience right now don't want flawless heroes like that.

That was not the problem. The problem was it was a boring film and the WOM after the first week reflected that in the B.O.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Matt

So much so that you can't even use the proper spelling of plane, huh?

So there was nothing you could reply properly to that you had to point out a typo?