All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 2

[roach]

boobies

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

No. The Hype is a place where fanboys gather because of their shared interests in superheroes. It has expanded its areas of discussion to a broader and miscellaneous variety, but the core demographic remains the same; we are the comic book fans.

You won't find much (if any) posters that actively go here because they were under the impression that this was primary a free-for-all community. In spite of whatever non-superhero related discussions take place here, it's clear as day we were all brought here by one common interest.

Bingo.

 

[Solidus]

As for the date thing, Bond 23 comes out November 9th, and Twilight the 18th. I think if they released MOS on Thanksgiving, or the day before, it would do well. I do believe that there is probably enough of a difference of demographics that neither would suffer badly. I mean it would give it 3 weeks free and clear before any other big films came out.

I mean I'm not the best "guesser" with this kind of stuff, but I just think the Thanksgiving date sounds best, families go out to watch films the day before/after Thanksgiving, and during that weekend. It could get the word of mouth going with a bigger opening weekend and keep it some what strong for a few weeks (if the film is good that is).

 

[Dr.]

...It's a reality that domestic box office is more relevant to to a studio's bottom line than overseas box office.

As a point of interest, I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this with some details.

In other contexts, I’ve had debates with folks over how the profitability of films is measured. The rough rule-of-thumb seems to be that a movie needs a gross that doubles its budget in order to break even. E.g., a $100 million movie needs to earn $200 million before it’s in the black.

But I was never sure if the same rule-of-thumb applies to the “foreign” box office. If it does, then there’s no reason that a studio would give any particular standing to domestic numbers over foreign. Money is money.

For example, the expensive Quantum of Solace was a “bomb” according to its domestic earnings. But it kicked butt overseas. Likewise, Inception, the last Harry Potter and (now) Pirates 4. If the foreign BO wasn’t “relevant to the bottom line,” it seems odd that the studios would continue to make these high-end movies that earn 50 to 70% of their totals overseas.

Cheers,

 

[Dark Knight]

As a point of interest, I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this with some details.

In other contexts, I’ve had debates with folks over how the profitability of films is measured. The rough rule-of-thumb seems to be that a movie needs a gross that doubles its budget in order to break even. E.g., a $100 million movie needs to earn $200 million before it’s in the black.

But I was never sure if the same rule-of-thumb applies to the “foreign” box office. If it does, then there’s no reason that a studio would give any particular standing to domestic numbers over foreign. Money is money.

For example, the expensive Quantum of Solace was a “bomb” according to its domestic earnings. But it kicked butt overseas. Likewise, Inception, the last Harry Potter and (now) Pirates 4. If the foreign BO wasn’t “relevant to the bottom line,” it seems odd that the studios would continue to make these high-end movies that earn 50 to 70% of their totals overseas.

Cheers,

Some in here have always under valued the international overseas foreign Box Office for some reason. If the overseas box office market wasn't relevant than studios would not even bother releasing the damn films overseas. It would be a big giant waste of time and resources.

 

[Dark Knight]

No. The Hype is a place where fanboys gather because of their shared interests in superheroes. It has expanded its areas of discussion to a broader and miscellaneous variety, but the core demographic remains the same; we are the comic book fans.

You won't find much (if any) posters that actively go here because they were under the impression that this was primary a free-for-all community. In spite of whatever non-superhero related discussions take place here, it's clear as day we were all brought here by one common interest.

Umm...doesn't Star Trek have a comic book line as well?

 

[DorkyFresh]

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Showtime]

How do YOU know that the general public would rather see a damn Star Trek film ahead of a potentially kick ass Superman film? My views are based on conversations I have had with other movie goers and other genre fans. Like I said, it's an OPINION, based on some minor unofficial research. Where are you basing your opinion on? Some made up delusion that the Trek films are some Box Office Juggernaut?

If the Trek sequel were to come out the same day as the new Superman Man Of Steel movie, I'm willing to bet more people would flock to see the Superman movie ahead of any Star Trek film, just as long as the MOS film is clearly marketed and promoted as the opposite of what SR was. However, we both know that neither WB's or Paramount will not run the risk of releasing these two films the same weekend.

Star Trek attracts a smaller movie demographic than a Superman film would and always has. Trek gets the Trekkies and male Sci Fi geeks (women don't want to see a Trek film and neither do teenagers or under 13 year olds) while Superman attracts a much broader movie demographic. A new kick ass Superman film that is the opposite of what SR was has the potential to be a Box Office juggernaut like The Dark Knight. I don't see how a Star Trek film can ever be that type of Box Office juggernaut.

The only possible way that I see for Star Trek to have a chance at being a legit box office juggernaut is to have a compelling, intense, multi dimensional baddie like Khan and they are not going that route. So no chance at a Trek sequel being a box office juggernaut IMO. Just not going to happen.

The next Superman film has that type of box office juggernaut potential, your big bad Trek sequel does not and will probably only do as well as the last film and that is it buddy.

Sorry to disappoint you Showy, but the Trek films have always had a limited movie demographic that can only carry it for for so long. The name SUPERMAN means a lot more to a much broader movie demographic than any Star Trek film ever will.

You better pump the breaks a bit with the way you're responding. You have some strange hate of Star Trek or believe I have some strange love of it. I don't know what is weirder.

I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I'll go over this again, even though I've said it several times. I never said Star Trek is a "Juggernaut". I never even said that Star Trek was going to beat Superman at the box office. You are going on ranting and raving about Star Trek for no reason.

This was my original point:

I don't like the idea of Superman: Man of Steel going up against Star Trek 2 & TheHobbit. I don't understand placing The Hobbit in December with Superman, strange move by the Brothers Warner, unless they are moving Superman. But where can they move it?

So what is causing you to go all lunatic about Star Trek? You're becoming a frothing fanboy about Superman. Relax. I'm moderating a Superman forum with a Superman avatar and you're trying to paint me as some kind of Trekkie and making yourself look over the top in the process.

My opinion is based of being much closer to part of the general public than you are, obvious by your maniacal posts about Star Trek and Superman.

 

[Showtime]

As a point of interest, I’d greatly appreciate if you could expand on this with some details.

In other contexts, I’ve had debates with folks over how the profitability of films is measured. The rough rule-of-thumb seems to be that a movie needs a gross that doubles its budget in order to break even. E.g., a $100 million movie needs to earn $200 million before it’s in the black.

But I was never sure if the same rule-of-thumb applies to the “foreign” box office. If it does, then there’s no reason that a studio would give any particular standing to domestic numbers over foreign. Money is money.

For example, the expensive Quantum of Solace was a “bomb” according to its domestic earnings. But it kicked butt overseas. Likewise, Inception, the last Harry Potter and (now) Pirates 4. If the foreign BO wasn’t “relevant to the bottom line,” it seems odd that the studios would continue to make these high-end movies that earn 50 to 70% of their totals overseas.

Cheers,

I certainly can Dr. I have a lot of facts on the subject that I can link you too or send as attachments. I'll gather some info together for you.

Some in here have always under valued the international overseas foreign Box Office for some reason. If the overseas box office market wasn't relevant than studios would not even bother releasing the damn films overseas. It would be a big giant waste of time and resources.

Nobody said it isn't relevant, it's just AS relevant. Again, reading comprehension.

 

[Showtime]

By the way Showy. A small indication of what I'm talking about can be seen on these boards. The Superman threads are far more active than the Trek forums are and this is when news is slow also.

You're proving my point. Using the forums to gauge interest in a project is completely misguided. Do you think the general public made Dark Knight huge or people in the Batman Forum?

Remember when forums and the internet was a buzz with Watchmen, Scott Pilgrim, The Incredible Hulk, Kick-Ass, so on and so forth? How did that work out?

 

[Dark Knight]

I certainly can Dr. I have a lot of facts on the subject that I can link you too or send as attachments. I'll gather some info together for you.



Nobody said it isn't relevant, it's just AS relevant. Again, reading comprehension.

You can spin it whatever way you want to spin it guy.

SUPERMAN means more to pop culture and the general movie going public than Star Trek ever will. That's just the way it is.

 

[Dark Knight]

You're proving my point. Using the forums to gauge interest in a project is completely misguided. Do you think the general public made Dark Knight huge or people in the Batman Forum?

Remember when forums and the internet was a buzz with Watchmen, Scott Pilgrim, The Incredible Hulk, Kick-Ass, so on and so forth? How did that work out?

This is a no spin zone Show.

 

[Dark Knight]

My opinion is based of being much closer to part of the general public than you are, obvious by your maniacal posts about Star Trek and Superman.

Now my posts are "maniacal" compared to yours?? Please.....

 

[Dark Knight]

I can't wait to see if Man Of Steel makes more money Domestically and Overall at the Box Office and on Blue Ray/DVD than the Trek sequel does Show.

I'm 90% certain it will.

 

[Showtime]

You can spin it whatever way you want to spin it guy.

Dark Knight...the studio receives a higher profit margin for domestic box office than it does for overseas box office. It's not spin, it's a reality.

SUPERMAN means more to pop culture and the general movie going public than Star Trek ever will. That's just the way it is.

Pop Culture? What does that have to do with what we were actually talking about. Hobbit and Star Trek providing competition to Superman? You're under the illusion that Superman will just crush everything in it's past because people all over the world recognize the \S/ logo?

This is a no spin zone Show.

Then why are you posting in this section?

Now my posts are "maniacal" compared to yours?? Please.....

Compared to mine? Oh definitely. Overall, maybe not as much.

 

[Showtime]

I can't wait until Man Of Steel comes out Show and makes more money Domestically and Overall at the Box Office and on Blue Ray/DVD than the Trek sequel does.

Wow. I never said Star Trek was going to make more than Superman? Did you actually read any of my posts.

I would be really angry if Superman made more than Trek at the box office and DVD, because I really hate Superman and am a big Trekkie.

 

[Dark Knight]

Dark Knight...the studio receives a higher profit margin for domestic box office than it does for overseas box office. It's not spin, it's a reality.



Pop Culture? What does that have to do with what we were actually talking about. Hobbit and Star Trek providing competition to Superman? You're under the illusion that Superman will just crush everything in it's past because people all over the world recognize the \S/ logo?



Then why are you posting in this section?



Compared to mine? Oh definitely. Overall, maybe not as much.

Go wear your Star Trek T-Shirt someplace else and wear it proud Show.

 

[Dark Knight]

The "reality" of it Show is that the name SUPERMAN and the S symbol/logo means more to pop culture and is far more appealing to a broader demographic of the general movie going public than Star Trek ever will be.

That's just the way it is.

 

[Sam]

Star Trek made 385 million ww
Superman Returns made 391 million ww

Franklly, i dont dont think Star Trek would hurt the new Superman movie. And I dont believe they will be able to put everything together to release a new Star Trek movie by december 2012. Specially to release it between Hobbit and Superman.

 

[routhman]

Go wear your Star Trek T-Shirt someplace else and wear it proud Show.

You realize that you're making very little sense, right? You must. Oh wait, you don't? That's embarrassing.

Showtime never admitted partiality to Star Trek. He reasonably stated that it's a bad idea to release Superman close to both Star Trek and The Hobbit. That'd be a bad idea for any film, no matter its magnitude, because it'd inevitably lose money. The average movie-goer doesn't see three movies in a short span. He sees one movie every so often, and given the fact that Star Trek and The Hobbit are huge movies, he won't necessarily choose for that one movie that he sees to be Superman.

Now carefully read that. It'll help you understand Showtime's simple point, which was not, in any way, putting Star Trek above Superman. I don't even know where you got that.

 

[Showtime]

Go wear your Star Trek T-Shirt someplace else and wear it proud Show.

You can think about me in my shirt while you're tucked into your "Fanboy" the movie sheets.

The "reality" of it Show is that the name SUPERMAN and the S symbol/logo means more to pop culture and is far more appealing to a broader demographic of the general movie going public than Star Trek ever will be.

That's just the way it is.

Again...I never said that Superman was more appealing or less appealing to the general public than Star Trek...

Am I taking crazy pills or do you just recreate my half of the conversations in your head to fit with whatever mission you are on.

Star Trek made 385 million ww
Superman Returns made 391 million ww

Franklly, i dont dont think Star Trek would hurt the new Superman movie. And I dont believe they will be able to put everything together to release a new Star Trek movie by december 2012. Specially to release it between Hobbit and Superman.

IF Star Trek, Superman, and Hobbit are in the same month, they all will hurt each other. Superman is the one I care most about getting hurt.

In regards to the release, very possible they can't get Star Trek together, which opens things up a little bit for both Hobbit and Superman.

You realize that you're making very little sense, right? You must. Oh wait, you don't? That's embarrassing.

Showtime never admitted partiality to Star Trek. He reasonably stated that it's a bad idea to release Superman close to both Star Trek and The Hobbit. That'd be a bad idea for any film, no matter its magnitude, because it'd inevitably lose money. The average movie-goer doesn't see three movies in a short span. He sees one movie every so often, and given the fact that Star Trek and The Hobbit are huge movies, he won't necessarily choose for that one movie that he sees to be Superman.

Now carefully read that. It'll help you understand Showtime's simple point, which was not, in any way, putting Star Trek above Superman. I don't even know where you got that.

YES. Thank you.

 

[BlueLantern]

Star Trek grossed $257m on the domestic circuit whilst Superman Returns only grossed $200m.

Considering the fact that Superman's supposed to be more famous than Star Trek, or for that matter any fictional character other than Mickey Mouse, that's a pretty poor run. Says more about Returns' than Trek, which was an amazingly crafted film.

I think the new Superman film will be pulled forward to prevent Warners having it clash with the Hobbit and Trek will get pushed to March 2013 anyway, so everyone wins.

If the Man of Steel is a good film and marketed well it should be amongst the top three highest grossing films of 2012 regardless of whether Star Trek comes out or not. It's Superman.

But then again that's its problem for the fanboy community. It's Superman. It's almost impossible to get it right.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Only with Superman can 200 million dollars follow the word "only."

 

[C. Lee]

Go wear your Star Trek T-Shirt someplace else and wear it proud Show.

The trolling is getting ridiculous....take some time off to cool down.

 

[Kelly]

Star Trek made 385 million ww
Superman Returns made 391 million ww

Franklly, i dont dont think Star Trek would hurt the new Superman movie. And I dont believe they will be able to put everything together to release a new Star Trek movie by december 2012. Specially to release it between Hobbit and Superman.

I've read through this little Superman vs. Star Trek (FYI, I am not a fan of either really...) but honestly I think some around here are just not reading the posts. There is a HUGE difference between a "who's movie will do better" discussion, AND "what movies will possibly hurt the bottomline of another movie" It is VERY OBVIOUS, BEYOND BELIEF actually that Showtime was speaking of the latter.
Showy did not even imply that Star Trek would "beat" Superman at the boxoffice, only that it could take away from its bottomline. And, that is simply logical thinking.