Superman Returns BO numbers aside... Is there just too much negativity in terms of WOM?

[Pickle-El]

LOL I'm sorry but what "indisputable" data do you have out there to say WOM was positive? You say "WOM was positive for SR" but offer nothing to back up that statment.

So if I bust out the widely known user review scores and mostly positive reviews......that shows what exactly? You know very well that that's the only thing we have to go on....Look around the net, and the reviews, SR is NOT much lower on the scales than BB or Spiderman 2. Superman fans themselves make it seem that way because there's always something in there they didn't get that STILL pisses them off. And they'll shout to the high heavens for it.

Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo, IMDB, etc, literally tens of thousands of peope who gave mostly (70% and higher) positive reviews and praise for SR. Tell me these indicate that SR was badly received on a national level. Go ahead and show me something that proves these reviews and viewer reaction were far more negative than positive. (like say Hulk, or Fantastic Four) You can't, SR is much more indicative of the WOM and performance of BB. Subtract that 50 Million dollars extra it took to make SR, and SR beat BB all across the board.

If you dont have anything to prove your initial premise that WOM was good so why would others need to provide "large inundated, indisputable data to prove otherswise?" That's the equivelant of trying someone for murder and not being able to prove they killed anyone but still wanting a conviction because the defendant cant prove they didnt kill anyone.

Like I said, you know the sites..I don't have to post them each time I want to show how SR was received. We have what's availible, in this case websites that track EXACTLY how a film was taken in by audiences and critics alike using larger samples.

Looking at the box office take and the fact the film completely crawled to even make $200 million donestically (longest film ever to do so) is a pretty fair indicator that the public had a lukewarm response to the film at best.

By the same token, it had a 3.9 multiplier....52 million opening weekend and still made it to 200 million. (After POTC2 smashed everything) I'd say, not bad, DEFINATE room for improvement in my eyes. Not, "that's it, give up, people hated it, we should just fire Bryan and quit now."

Since WOm is a term that's used to explain box office performance, I'd say that points more to the fact that WOm was generally indifferent towards the film.

I'd say that considering how it opened and how many people continued to see it....that they simply didn't get enough butts in the seats opening weekend. Plain as that. (which can be fixed, like X2 was) And, I'd still argue, that the general movie-going public who saw SR generally liked it.

But, that's just me. I don't see doom and gloom everywhere. Just look at what Fox has been able to do with the new FF movie. It looks enticing to watch....and will probably crack 60 million opening weekend. And how was that first film received again? You telling me that Bryan Singer and WB can't use the what you called 'indifferent' sentiment from SR and give it a boost for the sequel?

However....ias bad as WOM was for FF1 and FF2 opens huge. I guess WOM doesn't mean **** then does it? All we need is a pretty, shiny trailer, cool villains, explosions, and this argument will be rendered moot.

And funny enough, most complaints for an SR sequel have been.....more action please.

The real question should be....does Word Of Mouth even matter? Or, does the only thing that matter is how many people you can sucker in that first week or general release?

*couth07'summersequelscouth*

Eh.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Pickle don't expect much objectivity from those who hated the film before it was even out in theatres.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

never use box office totals when discussing films worde of mouth. spidey 3 will do 900 million and its wom SUCKS. The reason Superman crawled to 200 million is because pirates opened the weekend after it. Given thta fact and that supes openig wasnt that huge, the fact that supes even got to 200 million is quite astounding.

FACTS-
3.9 multiplier
24.8% average weekend drop
76% on rotten tomatoes
7.0 on imdb
B on yahoo

so I cant use BO for WOM which is basically the public paying to see something they like but you can use the scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDB which represent an infintiely small % of the population?

I didnt say Bo was equal to WOM, however it's one of the best indicators of it since if people dont like something, they wont contiue to see it after it's initial release. You can user SPidey 3 as san example, but as much as the fan community may have been disappointed with it, a lot of the general public seemed to like the film. It had decent exit polling numbers and it's followup business wasnt bad either despite Pirates coming out 2 weeks later whcih you used as an excuse for SR's poor followup performance. Thats one argument I;'ve never understoof BTW since it's not like people cant go see multiple films they like in a long summer.

its word of mouth was good thats why it had fantastic legs once the huge competition stopped; its mor ethat its word of mouth just ewasnt spectacular One reviewer summed it up best

"A good film no doubt, but it's not quite the slam dunk you want it to be"

That is because everybody knows a superman film could be absolutley spectacular...audiences kids, teens, and adults alike, all know it. But Returns was not spectacular, it was exactly like its box office: good, but not great; more of a dissappointment due to huge expectations than an actually bad performance.

It's huge expectations were due to the huge amount of cash that went in to making it. I wouldnt call the BO "good" either. Alan Horn said it was projected to make over $100 million more worldwide then it actually pulled in. That's a huge chunk of change. When you dont make your production budget back domestically, the BO isnt good. They kept it in theaters about 3 weeks longer than usual just so they could say they hit $200 million. They were worried about saving face.

 

[Excel]

Thats besides the point; yall saying thing holding superman back wasits wom when i proved it was being so close to pirates.

 

[Mr. Socko]

If the WOM was so huge why didn't this film get Spider-Man numbers?

 

[bgshw44]

there is no bad word of mouth in the general public. just like every movie, some thought is was really good, some thought it was good, some thought it was just ok, and some didnt like it. the sequel will bring in more money without a doubt and could be really huge if they make it a little more family friendly

 

[Scarlet Spider]

If the WOM was so huge why didn't this film get Spider-Man numbers?

Why hasn't any other comic book film reached Spider-Man numbers?

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Why hasn't any other comic book film reached Spider-Man numbers?

Good point. You would think Batman Begins could have pulled in bigger numbers but it didn't. Xmen franchise also hasn't pulled in spidey like numbers. People are quick to expect Superman to do spidey numbers but other notable characters haven't pulled it off either. Hmmm wtf

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Good point. You would think Batman Begins could have pulled in bigger numbers but it didn't. Xmen franchise also hasn't pulled in spidey like numbers. People are quick to expect Superman to do spidey numbers but other notable characters haven't pulled it off either. Hmmm wtf

Thing is, I do think a more mainstream/action driven film could have made more money but I don't think any Superman film today could reach Spider-Man numbers for various reasons. No way.

The "...but It's Superman" argument doesn't fly with me.

 

[04nbod]

Good point. You would think Batman Begins could have pulled in bigger numbers but it didn't. Xmen franchise also hasn't pulled in spidey like numbers. People are quick to expect Superman to do spidey numbers but other notable characters haven't pulled it off either. Hmmm wtf

I don't think kids got as interested with superman as they do spiderman. Spiderman is seen as cool and young and modern where as relatively speaking superman is the grandad of superheroes and grandads aren't cool

Superman advertised the local electricity company on a billboard by my house- that turned me off a great deal. It was a big WTF?

 

[buggs0268]

so I cant use BO for WOM which is basically the public paying to see something they like but you can use the scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDB which represent an infintiely small % of the population?

I didnt say Bo was equal to WOM, however it's one of the best indicators of it since if people dont like something, they wont contiue to see it after it's initial release. You can user SPidey 3 as san example, but as much as the fan community may have been disappointed with it, a lot of the general public seemed to like the film. It had decent exit polling numbers and it's followup business wasnt bad either despite Pirates coming out 2 weeks later whcih you used as an excuse for SR's poor followup performance. Thats one argument I;'ve never understoof BTW since it's not like people cant go see multiple films they like in a long summer.

[/b]

It's huge expectations were due to the huge amount of cash that went in to making it. I wouldnt call the BO "good" either. Alan Horn said it was projected to make over $100 million more worldwide then it actually pulled in. That's a huge chunk of change. When you dont make your production budget back domestically, the BO isnt good. They kept it in theaters about 3 weeks longer than usual just so they could say they hit $200 million. They were worried about saving face.

Funny thing is, go and read the comments about SR at IMDB. People hate the film. I got so sick of seeing how people rated it on IMDB by those who thing that people like it that I went through all the pages one night. Most people hate the film, and called it boring. The good or allright reviews are few and far between.

And yes, it had such good WOM it took months to crawl to 170 mill in theaters (I am taking off the 30 mill in IMAX as that was in 3D, and an anomoly. I am talking about the real theater)? And if it had such good WOM why did it drop like an anvil in most places in it's second week of opening? Why did it drop like an anvil in American pretty early and the film it was mainly in competition with, which opened the same weekend, was Devil Wears Prada every week after the 3rd week? And why is it that prada won most of those weeks?

It did not have good WOM and it didn't even make it's production budget back in domestic box office take. Spiderman 3 made the same amount WW in 5 days, even with supposed bad WOM that you guys claim it has. Get you heads out of you know where and smell reality. Incredible Hulk is just telling it like it is.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Thing is, I do think a more mainstream/action driven film could have made more money but I don't think any Superman film today could reach Spider-Man numbers for various reasons. No way.

The "...but It's Superman" argument doesn't fly with me.

That never flew with me either.

I've always seen Superman's decline in popularity as a sign of the times. The "reluctant" hero so to speak has been in. Superman is the boyscout and people turned their back on that kind of hero.

 

[Pickle-El]

Thing is, I do think a more mainstream/action driven film could have made more money but I don't think any Superman film today could reach Spider-Man numbers for various reasons. No way.

The "...but It's Superman" argument doesn't fly with me.

I agree. I think even the most optimistic of predictions (realistic that is) were around 300 million plus domestic. I think Singer has created the opportunity for future Superman films to build upon what SR had done....Just like the X-Series did in box office. (not necessarily quality as indicated by X3) the post-Reeve Superman franchise can do some good things. It just so happens, that the sequel won't have all of it's thunder, box office/cooler talk, stolen a week later by the pirates.

Once again, people said the WOM for X1 was also lukewarm. (when truth is that is was good, even then, not as good as SR's WOM).....82 million dollar opening for X2, 215 million domestic....

You guys honestly telling me that the word of mouth was so 'lukewarm' for SR, that with improvements on what people REALLY noted (lack of action), SR can't see the same kind of improvement the way X2 improved on X1 all across the board?

It's the same damn director!

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

So if I bust out the widely known user review scores and mostly positive reviews......that shows what exactly? You know very well that that's the only thing we have to go on....Look around the net, and the reviews, SR is NOT much lower on the scales than BB or Spiderman 2. Superman fans themselves make it seem that way because there's always something in there they didn't get that STILL pisses them off. And they'll shout to the high heavens for it.

Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo, IMDB, etc, literally tens of thousands of peope who gave mostly (70% and higher) positive reviews and praise for SR. Tell me these indicate that SR was badly received on a national level. Go ahead and show me something that proves these reviews and viewer reaction were far more negative than positive. (like say Hulk, or Fantastic Four) You can't, SR is much more indicative of the WOM and performance of BB. Subtract that 50 Million dollars extra it took to make SR, and SR beat BB all across the board.

I wouldnt say that widely known user reviews are any indicator of WOM. They're a random sampling of people who watch movies as a profession. More often than not, what critics like goes against what the general populace likes. Hence, the reason most people whine about never seeing the movies that get Oscar noms. User reviews on the Net are from a very poor sampling statistically speaking. Not only are they small in number but theyre generally skewed to one extreme or the other since people with strong opinions and vested interests tend to be the ones that go out of their way to talk about movies online. 99.5 of the movie going public doesnt do that. Even if as you say you could find the opinions of 10,000 people on websites, the sample size is much too small and skewed. Assuming for arguments sake the film made $400 million WW, at an average of $8 a ticket, that's $50 million people. 10,000 people is roughly .02% of people who went to see the film.

Again I'll say the closest (but not perfect) approximation you have of WOM is how a film does in theaters after release, and perhaps the exit polling to a lesser extent.

But, that's just me. I don't see doom and gloom everywhere. Just look at what Fox has been able to do with the new FF movie. It looks enticing to watch....and will probably crack 60 million opening weekend. And how was that first film received again? You telling me that Bryan Singer and WB can't use the what you called 'indifferent' sentiment from SR and give it a boost for the sequel?

FF got a sequel because it made enough back on the first one to justify further films so it was received well enough apparently. It made a profit just based on it's box office take, something SR failed to do.

You guys also seem to be hoping against hope that Singer can "X2" the Supes franchise simply because X2 did better than X-Men and he directed them. The circumstances this time around are a bit different. Unlike with X2, it's already been said any SR sequel would have a smaller budget by at least $35-$40 million. Singer couldnt deliver the first time with almost unlimited funds and story ideas at his disposal. Now he's chained to a silly continuity and wont have nearly as much $$ to work with to up the ante and add in "more action" as he seems to be saying. When usually more action = bigger budget.

The real question should be....does Word Of Mouth even matter? Or, does the only thing that matter is how many people you can sucker in that first week or general release?

*couth07'summersequelscouth*

Eh.

good point. I guess if you can make all your money back before anyone knows it sucks it doesnt matter. However that will get harder to do as you make more movies. I think you may fool the public once, but you wont fool them twice. I guess we'll see in a few weeks about F4

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Pickle don't expect much objectivity from those who hated the film before it was even out in theatres.

or for that matter those who were convinced they would love the film before it was even out in theaters.

 

[Excel]

1. I never said wom was huge; I just said it wasnt bad...

2. You asked no films have reached spider-man when, inreality, when SUPERMAN and BATMAN were in the same position, they both did.

SPIDER-MAN 1 broke opening weekend and totaled over 400 million.

both superman the movie and batman 1989 broke the weekend records in their time, and inflate to over 400 million. worldwide superman the movie is the biggest, he inflates to just over 900 million with spidey at 878 and batman at 681.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Why hasn't any other comic book film reached Spider-Man numbers?

Like Excel said, both Batman '89 and Superman: TM drew just as much of an audience as Spider-Man. If you adjust for inflation, STM made more than Spider-Man.

 

[buggs0268]

That is right. I went to a site where you can take ticket prices from whatever year, add the amount the film made for that year, and hit "enter", and it will adjust that to what it would have made with today's ticket prices. Superman The Movie, had it been released today, would have made around or over 840 million.

 

[KalKai]

I wouldnt say that widely known user reviews are any indicator of WOM. They're a random sampling of people who watch movies as a profession. More often than not, what critics like goes against what the general populace likes. Hence, the reason most people whine about never seeing the movies that get Oscar noms. User reviews on the Net are from a very poor sampling statistically speaking. Not only are they small in number but theyre generally skewed to one extreme or the other since people with strong opinions and vested interests tend to be the ones that go out of their way to talk about movies online. 99.5 of the movie going public doesnt do that. Even if as you say you could find the opinions of 10,000 people on websites, the sample size is much too small and skewed. Assuming for arguments sake the film made $400 million WW, at an average of $8 a ticket, that's $50 million people. 10,000 people is roughly .02% of people who went to see the film.

Again I'll say the closest (but not perfect) approximation you have of WOM is how a film does in theaters after release, and perhaps the exit polling to a lesser extent.




FF got a sequel because it made enough back on the first one to justify further films so it was received well enough apparently. It made a profit just based on it's box office take, something SR failed to do.

You guys also seem to be hoping against hope that Singer can "X2" the Supes franchise simply because X2 did better than X-Men and he directed them. The circumstances this time around are a bit different. Unlike with X2, it's already been said any SR sequel would have a smaller budget by at least $35-$40 million. Singer couldnt deliver the first time with almost unlimited funds and story ideas at his disposal. Now he's chained to a silly continuity and wont have nearly as much $$ to work with to up the ante and add in "more action" as he seems to be saying. When usually more action = bigger budget.



good point. I guess if you can make all your money back before anyone knows it sucks it doesnt matter. However that will get harder to do as you make more movies. I think you may fool the public once, but you wont fool them twice. I guess we'll see in a few weeks about F4

QFT.

Jc, shouldn't you be hiding somewhere right now? lol.

 

[Showtime]

Funny thing is, go and read the comments about SR at IMDB. People hate the film. I got so sick of seeing how people rated it on IMDB by those who thing that people like it that I went through all the pages one night. Most people hate the film, and called it boring. The good or allright reviews are few and far between.

And yes, it had such good WOM it took months to crawl to 170 mill in theaters (I am taking off the 30 mill in IMAX as that was in 3D, and an anomoly. I am talking about the real theater)? And if it had such good WOM why did it drop like an anvil in most places in it's second week of opening? Why did it drop like an anvil in American pretty early and the film it was mainly in competition with, which opened the same weekend, was Devil Wears Prada every week after the 3rd week? And why is it that prada won most of those weeks?

It did not have good WOM and it didn't even make it's production budget back in domestic box office take. Spiderman 3 made the same amount WW in 5 days, even with supposed bad WOM that you guys claim it has. Get you heads out of you know where and smell reality. Incredible Hulk is just telling it like it is.

Whether you hated the movie, or your arguing BO or WOM, you can't take off the IMAX profit just because you feel like it? What kind of number crunching is that? You can't say it's an "anomoly", IMAX is huge all over the country now. It's like saying, "Well we can't count digital theaters."

 

[Angeloz]

Also not all of them are 3D either. And I wish we had it in IMAX here. Maybe next time.

Angeloz

 

[true316]

Like Excel said, both Batman '89 and Superman: TM drew just as much of an audience as Spider-Man. If you adjust for inflation, STM made more than Spider-Man.

Actually, I think that is inaccurate. Here is a link to Box Office Mojo's, "All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation."

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

And in case you don't want to look through the rankings...
33. Spider-Man---$457,209,600
47. Batman------$414,241,400
60. Superman---$377,416,500

That is a pretty sizable lead for Spidey. To be honest, I don't even understand why people expect Superman to make dramatically more than Batman. Even in Superman's box office prime, he was still well behind the Dark Knight. Until SR, every subsequent Superman film did progressively worse at the box office. Superman 4's box office was just pitiful! It made about $15-16 million unadjusted! Compare that to the $134 million (unadjusted) S:TM made about ten years earlier. I would say SR is a pretty significant step in the right direction.

 

[Angeloz]

There were less screens back then. But no DVDs or videos either I believe.

Angeloz

 

[Excel]

supermansoverseas gross is bigger and supes worldwide gross-inflated-is right near spidey1s.

superman: 377.4 + 514 overseas=891
spider-man: 457+474-931

 

[buggs0268]

Whether you hated the movie, or your arguing BO or WOM, you can't take off the IMAX profit just because you feel like it? What kind of number crunching is that? You can't say it's an "anomoly", IMAX is huge all over the country now. It's like saying, "Well we can't count digital theaters."

I can becasuse to compare it to ther Superhero films who only debuted in regular theaters. Also, Disney said that the 3d anolmoly is a big money maker just for the 3D. IN meet the Robinson's. they had theaters that the movie played with both 3D versions and 2D versions, the #D versions outsold the 2D versions just because of the 3D. It is a fad and when comparing to other films who didn't have IMAX or 3D, then you have to compare the regular 2d Theater take. And, if there was no IMAX or 3D SR, then what it took in the regular theater is what it would have made in the regular theater.