All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 2

[DieSmiling]

I think Green Lantern will go over 200 mil. for four reasons:

1. WB has improved their marketing quite a bit.

2. The movie will play well on IMAX and 3D...Like Avatar it will be able to truly take advantage of the technology.

3. It looks kid friendly ala Spider-Man.

4. Martin Campbell

I hope you're right but I'm not optimistic.

1. True, but there are different perspectives to it. Some (like the dbags at boxofficemojo) think it's coming off as desperate, some think it's trying to hard. Some made their opinion up early and won't change it. Some just think all the aliens look cheesy. The marjeting has improved and I think the film looks awesome, but I don't think it's a given that the marketing boost will pay off.

2. I don't think GL is playing in IMAX, and I'm worried audiences are burned out on 3D.

3. This I totally agree with. I hope Warners is marketing during kids programming as much as they are during the shows I watch, because I think GL is the type of property that appeals HEAVILY to kids.

4. What does that matter? He's not well known to the mainstream, nor is he a bankable director. Casino Royale was awesome (and I'm kind of shocked they haven't had "from the director of Casino Royale" in any of the trailers, I think that's a mistake) but they haven't marketed Campbell as a selling point at all.

 

[Sabaoth]

I think Green Lantern will go over 200 mil. for four reasons:

1. WB has improved their marketing quite a bit.

2. The movie will play well on IMAX and 3D...Like Avatar it will be able to truly take advantage of the technology.

3. It looks kid friendly ala Spider-Man.

4. Martin Campbell

I dunno. I'm not sold on GL yet.
I think GL will post Thor like numbers if it's successful.

The marketing for GL has been less then stellar, as it was with SR.
Need I remind you of the first image of RR in costume?
How about the first trailer?

It seems WB did not give GL the care and attention that MOS seems to be receiving.
I also think it is not good for a movie that has not been released, that seems to be hoping to become a franchise, to have the director state he will not be involved in a sequel. (Even if it is his approach not to do sequels, IMO, he should not have stated it publicly at this time.)

I hope I'm wrong and GL beat Thor; I will end up going to see it anyway.

But, I'm just not feeling it, when it comes to GL.

 

[roach]

I dunno. I'm not sold on GL yet.
I think GL will post Thor like numbers if it's successful.

The marketing for GL has been less then stellar, as it was with SR.
Need I remind you of the first image of RR in costume?
How about the first trailer?

It seems WB did not give GL the care and attention that MOS seems to be receiving.
I also think it is not good for a movie that has not been released, that seems to be hoping to become a franchise, to have the director state he will not be involved in a sequel. (Even if it is his approach not to do sequels, IMO, he should not have stated it publicly at this time.)

GL is all over the place now.
i also seem to recall a movie that just came out that had first images and a trailer wasnt that good...X-something...X-men First class..thats it

 

[Sabaoth]

GL is all over the place now.
i also seem to recall a movie that just came out that had first images and a trailer wasnt that good...X-something...X-men First class..thats it

Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, X-men First Class had a disappointing opening. I hope GL does not follow suit.

 

[roach]

Who did it disappoint?:

Domestically, Fox said Matthew Vaughn’s First Class—costing close to $140 million to produce after tax credits--achieved its goal in matching the $54.5 million opening of the first X-Men. Dune Entertainment and Ingenious were Fox's co-financing partners on the movie.
More bullish box office observers had expected First Class to hit $60 million in its debut, but Fox always kept its projections in the $45 million to $55 million range.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Who did it disappoint?:

Domestically, Fox said Matthew Vaughn’s First Class—costing close to $140 million to produce after tax credits--achieved its goal in matching the $54.5 million opening of the first X-Men. Dune Entertainment and Ingenious were Fox's co-financing partners on the movie.
More bullish box office observers had expected First Class to hit $60 million in its debut, but Fox always kept its projections in the $45 million to $55 million range.

Studios tend to be conservative with their own internal projections so that is just PR spin at work. Nothing to take to heart. Remember when WB said they were happy with Superman Returns' opening weekend and compared it favorably to Batman Begins? Same exact thing here.

It's a major disappointment because projections from professional box-office analysts and rival studios had First Class opening $60 million on the low-end and as high as $75 million. Also when adjusting for inflation First Class doesn't even come close to X-Men eleven years ago.

 

[roach]

Studios tend to be conservative with their own internal projections so that is just PR spin at work. Nothing to take to heart. Remember when WB said they were happy with Superman Returns' opening weekend and compared it favorably to Batman Begins? Same exact thing here.

It's a major disappointment because projections from professional box-office analysts and rival studios had First Class opening $60 million on the low-end and as high as $75 million. Also when adjusting for inflation First Class doesn't even come close to X-Men eleven years ago.

Fox was always predicting it to be around 45-55 mil...it was others who were predicting the 60 mil opening

SR took in 52 mil its opening weekend and within 5 days it took in 84.2 mil which was a record at the time. The real reason why there was no sequel is that this movie cost 209 mil to make(after tax breaks) and it only brought in 391 mil. It didnt break even. Add to that a sharp decline helped by the Pirates sequel coming out the next week. Had this movie been made for 100 mil or less we'd be seeing plenty of sequels.

 

[sf2]

i thought X first class is doing very good. (50+M) the first weekend.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

First Class has been saved by its budget.

 

[Superman2007]

First Class has been saved by its budget.

I'm sure it's marketing budget will keep it from making up all its money back, for a while...

 

[El Payaso]

Fox was always predicting it to be around 45-55 mil...it was others who were predicting the 60 mil opening

SR took in 52 mil its opening weekend and within 5 days it took in 84.2 mil which was a record at the time. The real reason why there was no sequel is that this movie cost 209 mil to make(after tax breaks) and it only brought in 391 mil. It didnt break even. Add to that a sharp decline helped by the Pirates sequel coming out the next week. Had this movie been made for 100 mil or less we'd be seeing plenty of sequels.

That's right.

 

[roach]

That's right.

so it wasnt the story or the kid or lack of a super-punch that killed SR...it cost too much to make

 

[El Payaso]

so it wasnt the story or the kid or lack of a super-punch that killed SR...it cost too much to make

That's right again. You have plenty of crap in TF2 and Ghost Rider and they're having sequels.

 

[KyleDW2]

That's right again. You have plenty of crap in TF2 and Ghost Rider and they're having sequels.

Here's the difference between Superman Returns and Transformers. In Superman Returns, even if they wanted to make a sequel, and even if the money was there, I think they would find it hard to make something out of the situation the last movie left the characters in. More specifically, the whole kid and Lois' family situation. That's a bad situation for Superman to be in, as in any resolution he ends up screwed in some way. Compare that with Transformers. Two of the worst things about the last one were the Twins. They were annoying side characters. You know what happened to the Twins? They were cut out. No more Twins.

That's the difference between stupid movies like Transformers and stupid movies like Superman Returns. With Transformers its the little details, but audiences liked the overall picture. So cut out the bad little details and things are fine. Its also why I think Fox went after X-Men prequels after X3. How do you make a sequel after all the heroes except Halley Berry and Wolverine are dead? Similarly, how do you make a sequel to Superman Returns that fixes the problems people saw in the first movie when you have to have some of those same problems in the sequel to maintain continuity?

 

[Dozerman]

Here's the difference between Superman Returns and Transformers. In Superman Returns, even if they wanted to make a sequel, and even if the money was there, I think they would find it hard to make something out of the situation the last movie left the characters in. More specifically, the whole kid and Lois' family situation. That's a bad situation for Superman to be in, as in any resolution he ends up screwed in some way. Compare that with Transformers. Two of the worst things about the last one were the Twins. They were annoying side characters. You know what happened to the Twins? They were cut out. No more Twins.

That's the difference between stupid movies like Transformers and stupid movies like Superman Returns. With Transformers its the little details, but audiences liked the overall picture. So cut out the bad little details and things are fine. Its also why I think Fox went after X-Men prequels after X3. How do you make a sequel after all the heroes except Halley Berry and Wolverine are dead? Similarly, how do you make a sequel to Superman Returns that fixes the problems people saw in the first movie when you have to have some of those same problems in the sequel to maintain continuity?

I hate to say it because I did like SR. But they would have had to have Lois leave her fiance, kill Jason and get a new actress to play Lois give him a new suit(or update it) and give the movie a different feel. At this point you have a new cast anyways. Might as well do a reboot. Plus that is the way all Hollywood is going. I would love to have seen Routh do supes again but not at the cost of not getting any more movies out of it. Maybe they can use him for the new JL movie. At least with transformers the cgi is flawless cant say that for SR. I did love this movie but I cant stand up for it at all cost.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Only posting this to beat anyone to the punch.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49930

Uh....this originated here on the Hype I'm pretty sure. If anyone here looks at that for a second and thinks it's real, I'll disown you.

 

[Kelly]

Looks like they took it down...

 

[roach]

Here's the difference between Superman Returns and Transformers. In Superman Returns, even if they wanted to make a sequel, and even if the money was there, I think they would find it hard to make something out of the situation the last movie left the characters in. More specifically, the whole kid and Lois' family situation. That's a bad situation for Superman to be in, as in any resolution he ends up screwed in some way. Compare that with Transformers. Two of the worst things about the last one were the Twins. They were annoying side characters. You know what happened to the Twins? They were cut out. No more Twins.

That's the difference between stupid movies like Transformers and stupid movies like Superman Returns. With Transformers its the little details, but audiences liked the overall picture. So cut out the bad little details and things are fine. Its also why I think Fox went after X-Men prequels after X3. How do you make a sequel after all the heroes except Halley Berry and Wolverine are dead? Similarly, how do you make a sequel to Superman Returns that fixes the problems people saw in the first movie when you have to have some of those same problems in the sequel to maintain continuity?

Incorrect as everyone was signed on to a sequel and had an idea in place. The ONLY thing that kept WB from making a sequel is it didnt break even because it cost too much to make.

and Fox is working on an X4 which leads into X5

 

[roach]

Looks like they took it down...

what was it?

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

It was based on that manip of Cavill and Amy Adams from a Smallville image. Him handing her the glasses and Knowles claims it's the real image from The Man of Steel from another site with linking. Even though the site that used the manip flat out said "This is a manip!"

I'm 99.99999999% sure that manip originated here from like 6 months ago.

EDIT: This is the site AICN was referring to and this manip:

 

[Superman2007]

It was based on that manip of Cavill and Amy Adams from a Smallville image. Him handing her the glasses and Knowles claims it's the real image from The Man of Steel from another site with linking. Even though the site that used the manip flat out said "This is a manip!"

I'm 99.99999999% sure that manip originated here from like 6 months ago.

EDIT: This is the site AICN was referring to and this manip:

Yep, hobo123 first posted it in the manip thread.

 

[Showtime]

Incorrect as everyone was signed on to a sequel and had an idea in place. The ONLY thing that kept WB from making a sequel is it didnt break even because it cost too much to make.

and Fox is working on an X4 which leads into X5

That is by far not the ONLY thing that kept WB from going forward with a Superman Returns sequel.

What do you mean "didn't break even."?

 

[Kal-El.9859]

that's a pretty cool manip though...wow

 

[Solidus]

Just bought the Superman Anthology on blu, came with a free ticket to Green Lantern (which I can't wait for anyways) so that was pretty cool.

Soon I will have to have a marathon of the adventures of Kal-El.

 

[Ponyboy]

Just bought the Superman Anthology on blu,

I'm curious... I already have Superman and Superman 2 on blu-ray that I bought 2 years ago... are the new versions, visually, any better?