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

[Angeloz]

That isn't always the case if we had IMAX I would have gone there instead of the regular cinema for 1 week. But either way I would have gone. I'll grant you I'm one person. But that would be true for more than one.

Angeloz

 

[Pickle-El]

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.

This is ridiculous. You'll just give credit to anyone but to the film itself won't you?

"IMAX doesn't count"

 

[buggs0268]

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

Angeloz

A lot less. I Know in Hawaii, Superman opened at the WAikiki 3, then went to two smaller theaters, then ended at the kaneohe shopping center theater.

 

[Showtime]

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.

Every major publication, whether it be via internet or other mediums, includes the IMAX take. The IMAX take is also included in the bottom line for the studio. To me your justification is thin.

 

[Excel]

Every major publication, whether it be via internet or other mediums, includes the IMAX take. The IMAX take is also included in the bottom line for the studio. To me your justification is thin.

BUGGS=MAULED.

 

[buggs0268]

It is a fad that not even Pirates of the carribean 2 had and it still kicked it's ass. I am throwing it out because only a few movies are released in IMAX, and it was the only released 3D IMAX hollywood movie. So right there that counts it out when comparing to most films. And had it not had been in 3D, it most likely would not have made that money to begin with. The general theater 2D take would have been a little higher than 160 mill, but not much.

 

[Matt]

I'd say if anything, the masses were impartial to it...which may be worse than bad WOM.

 

[Showtime]

It is a fad that not even Pirates of the carribean 2 had and it still kicked it's ass. I am throwing it out because only a few movies are released in IMAX, and it was the only released 3D IMAX hollywood movie. So right there that counts it out when comparing to most films. And had it not had been in 3D, it most likely would not have made that money to begin with. The general theater 2D take would have been a little higher than 160 mill, but not much.

It counts according to every important site that rates box office take, it only doesn't count to you, I still can't buy your theories.

 

[buggs0268]

Let me put it this way. had it not been on IMAX, and not in IMAX 3D, then it would have only made 160 mill in the regular theater. As it stands, it still didn't make back it's budget domestic.

 

[Angeloz]

So certain are you?

Angeloz

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think it had bad word of mouth...the legs just don't point to that. I think this is one of those movie's that is seen as pretty good to okay. My family seems to be into Batman Begins and Spidey more than Superman Returns but I don't really listen to most of my family when it comes to movies because they can't tell bad movies from good ones most of the time.

SR seems like the type of film that is just harmless enough, made just well enough to convice people that it is better than what it is. The problem is I think that a Superman movie had to be seen as special in order for a second one to be seen as a pontenal biggie for another summer. WB shouldn't wait four or five years to release a sequel because the first movie will slip out of peoples minds too easily, because it is forgetable. WB seems stubborn though, so I see a four year wait with Singer and crew coming back. Lex and Zod will be the villains and the movie will have like one more poorly filmed action scene than the first one and will gross 220mil in total. Too bad it will probably cost that much to make.

 

[TheBat812]

I think you guys forget that word of mouth only comes into account after opening weekend. SR continued to make good money long after its release whereas movies like Spiderman 3, Ghost Rider, FF all had significant drop offs after their huge opening weekends, due to poor word of mouth. Had teh word of mouth been poor for SR, there would have been similar dropoffs. That wasn't the case.

 

[mego joe]

the only people who hate the movie seem to be under 20 year old fan boys..... the general audience seemed to enjoy it.

37 and hating it.

 

[Dr. Fate]

37 and hating it.

23 and also hating it.

 

[superbaby]

I think you guys forget that word of mouth only comes into account after opening weekend. SR continued to make good money long after its release whereas movies like Spiderman 3, Ghost Rider, FF all had significant drop offs after their huge opening weekends, due to poor word of mouth. Had teh word of mouth been poor for SR, there would have been similar dropoffs. That wasn't the case.

if you checked, you would have known that the later 'good legs' was mostly because of the 3-d imax. other cinemas dropped SR faster than a speeding bullet. t:

 

[dude stannis]

if you checked, you would have known that the later 'good legs' was mostly because of the 3-d imax. other cinemas dropped SR faster than a speeding bullet. t:

A: You don't strike me as a reliable source.

B: It hasn't occured to you that if there was no IMAX, those who saw it at IMAX would've gone to see it in theatre instead

 

[Showtime]

Apparenlty this hasn't occured to several of them.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

well if 200 mil for bb means alot people saw it then the same goes for sr budget or not. it also made just about 400 mil worldwide and has over 60 mil in rentals (last time i checked)so i imagine people liked it, and from some people who post on the internet, i almost always hear people say its good, really good. also i think it couldve made more in theaters, but i really think pirates affected it. oh well were getting a sequel, and i cant f****n wait.

 

[Dr. Fate]

well if 200 mil for bb means alot people saw it then the same goes for sr budget or not. it also made just about 400 mil worldwide and has over 60 mil in rentals (last time i checked)so i imagine people liked it, and from some people who post on the internet, i almost always hear people say its good, really good. also i think it couldve made more in theaters, but i really think pirates affected it. oh well were getting a sequel, and i cant f****n wait.

Spider-Man 3's already made more.

 

[Excel]

Ok so yall, if your a studio chief and a film makes 1 million intheaters and 1 billion in miax, would you say "that sucks its a total bomt" because it made it in imax and that somehow doesnt count as money?

money IS money. Period. Superman made MONEY at Imax...so how would that not count?

 

[AgentPat]

money IS money. Period. Superman made MONEY at Imax...so how would that not count?

Of course it counts! But not every film can fall back on IMAX for added revenue, which SR and other films have done.

A: You don't strike me as a reliable source.

Some statements don't need back-up, but if you insist...

"Superman Returns" earned $31 million on Imax screens alone
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963432

In the past few years, 3-D has proven popular on a limited number of Imax screens, where screenings of pics such as "Superman Returns" and "The Polar Express" regularly have outgrossed their 2-D counterparts.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958595

"Superman Returns" is the first commercially released feature to convert portions from 2-D to 3-D Imax -- an expensive process used on 20 minutes of the film. [Foreign] Imax screenings can represent a significant chunk -- perhaps 5% -- of a film's total perf at the mainland box office.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946931

Imax screens also played a key part in [SR's] No. 1 weekend finish [in Australia] -- pic's super-big-screen tallies topped $560,000 in seven markets.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946410.html

[SR's] only record came on Imax screens, where a 3-D version grossed $3 million over the weekend and $5 million since Wednesday, beating the "Batman Begins" record of $3 million over five days.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946226

Remastered Imax versions of the second and third installments of WB's "Matrix" trilogy pulled down solid per-screen figures and have shown more legs than conventional screen releases. ... Imax receives its benefits down the line, as the success of Hollywood event films on Imax screens encourages exhibitors to open more Imax theaters and increase the size of its theater network, Imax's main profit source. ... "Our partnership with Imax has been extremely rewarding and has allowed our films to expand their reach beyond our traditional audiences by offering viewers a whole new way to see Hollywood event films that is uniquely immersive and exciting," said Dan Fellman, Warner Bros. Pictures prexy of domestic distribution.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117897390

As with "300," Imax played a role in Spidey's success with the techie crowd: Movie set a record for the largest domestic gross in domestic Imax theaters, with $4.8 million. Virtually all shows were sellouts, according to Imax brass.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964415

Variety film critic Justin Chang *hammered* "Night at the Museum" in his review, but even he noted that...

"...Imax-enhanced visual wonderment should help 'Museum' exhibit some B.O. life during and beyond the holiday frame." Indeed. It did. ($250.8M Dom, $572.6 WW)
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932351

B: It hasn't occurred to you that if there was no IMAX, those who saw it at IMAX would've gone to see it in theater instead

Has it occurred to you that a LOT of people may have seen SR on IMAX in addition to the standard screening because they could get an incredible visual experience in IMAX and 3D that other formats did not offer? Just a thought.

 

[nocomics]

I for one enjoyed SR. I liked the story aspect of it,the acting(far as situational expressions). It just suffered from lack of action,and somewhat morbid story telling.
I dont think there was a demographical documentation on which group of ppl hated/loved it. I'm probably one of the few who didn't compare it to original superman alot. I just didnt reall comparing the two at all or on every aspect. Reeves superman was in the 80's,and Roths 2006. Two different ways of movie making,and way of making,visualizing movies..
Word of mouth can be good and bad for a movie its just the nature of the beast. For movies who didnt' get alot of commercial time and get 'good word' it may generate more revenue,and vice versa...

 

[AgentPat]

I think you guys forget that word of mouth only comes into account after opening weekend. SR continued to make good money long after its release whereas movies like Spiderman 3, Ghost Rider, FF all had significant drop offs after their huge opening weekends, due to poor word of mouth. Had teh word of mouth been poor for SR, there would have been similar dropoffs. That wasn't the case.

But that's not what the data actually showed. Look at Hulk if you want to see a large drop off (69.7%)

I realize this thread isn't about B.O. figures - and we're going WAY off topic by quoting them - but if folks are going to talk about WOM, you really HAVE to reference the numbers for proper comparison. This includes final B.O. profits. Even if a film is overly front-loaded, the studio isn't going to sweat a large first w/e drop-off if the pic is already in the black after its opening weekend. Some films actually do that. (300, anybody?)

Look at all four of the above film's first seven weeks of release. They were all relatively close in percentage drop offs:

SR (PB $209M):

2 -58.5%
3 -43.7%
4 -40.0%
5 -48.6%
6 -43.0%
7 -42.4% ($192,594,159)


S-M 3 (PB $258M):

2 -61.5%
3 -50.1% ($282,379,655)
4 -50.6%
5 -47.1%
6 -43.2%
7 -41.8% ($330,021,137)


GR (PB $110M):

2 -55.8%
3 -42.4%
4 -43.3%
5 -37.4% ($110,378,574)
6 -59.8%
7 -67.9% ($114,231,820)


F4 (PB $100M):

2 -59.4% ($100,195,795)
3 -44.5%
4 -45.3%
5 -38.3%
6 -45.1%
7 -55.9% ($150,668,328)


Only SR failed to recoup its production budget domestically through its entire run. Even Daredevil made back its PB ($78M) by its 3rd weekend:

2 -55.1%
3 -38.5% ($84,186,869)
4 -53.1%
5 -41.9%
6 -53.2%
7 -56.1% ($99,488,672)


GR took the longest at five weeks, but GR wasn't even a summer release. It made back its PB in the 31 days between February 16 and March 18. This is what the studios actually look at.

 

[superbaby]

But that's not what the data actually showed. Look at Hulk if you want to see a large drop off (69.7%)

I realize this thread isn't about B.O. figures - and we're going WAY off topic by quoting them - but if folks are going to talk about WOM, you really HAVE to reference the numbers for proper comparison. This includes final B.O. profits. Even if a film is overly front-loaded, the studio isn't going to sweat a large first w/e drop-off if the pic is already in the black after its opening weekend. Some films actually do that. (300, anybody?)

Look at all four of the above film's first seven weeks of release. They were all relatively close in percentage drop offs:

SR (PB $209M):

2 -58.5%
3 -43.7%
4 -40.0%
5 -48.6%
6 -43.0%
7 -42.4% ($192,594,159)


S-M 3 (PB $258M):

2 -61.5%
3 -50.1% ($282,379,655)
4 -50.6%
5 -47.1%
6 -43.2%
7 -41.8% ($330,021,137)


GR (PB $110M):

2 -55.8%
3 -42.4%
4 -43.3%
5 -37.4% ($110,378,574)
6 -59.8%
7 -67.9% ($114,231,820)


F4 (PB $100M):

2 -59.4% ($100,195,795)
3 -44.5%
4 -45.3%
5 -38.3%
6 -45.1%
7 -55.9% ($150,668,328)


Only SR failed to recoup its production budget domestically through its entire run. Even Daredevil made back its PB ($78M) by its 3rd weekend:

2 -55.1%
3 -38.5% ($84,186,869)
4 -53.1%
5 -41.9%
6 -53.2%
7 -56.1% ($99,488,672)


GR took the longest at five weeks, but GR wasn't even a summer release. It made back its PB in the 31 days between February 16 and March 18. This is what the studios actually look at.

... is SR the only comic adaptation movie didn't make back its production cost dosmestically? wow, that's very poor.

 

[DieSmiling]

No, Hulk didn't make back its production budget either.