Rise of the Silver Surfer BOX OFFICE Discussion

[Antonello Blueberry]

Same cast and crew for the second movie, that cost more than the first one and still made less.

Same cast and crew for a third one that would have to cost even MORE money than the second. Despite the series itself not showing good legs as a franchise.

No, unless one of them wins an Oscar.
As the movie slightly underperformed in theatres (and the let's wait the final WW numbers to say that) they wouldn't get more money from the studio.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Come on guys, the truth is that with the exception of Spider-man, the sh franchises can't do huge numbers.

The triple-A franchises (X-men, Superman, Batman) have a potential of $200-240m in the US and $350-430m ww.

The mid range franchises have a potential of 100-150m in the US and 230-320m ww.

It's clear that if you greenlit a 200m budget for a "triple A" franchise or a +120m budget for a mid range franchise, they'll struggle to be profitable.

 

[TheVileOne]

That’s crap. My local supermarket had a Harry Potter DVD stand right in the aisle by the entry (the box set of all four films for £18), then a shelf of toys and prroducts with a stand in front of it with a woman selling/offering something (didn’t stop to find out what it was... some sort of food product tied into the movie, or book ordering, or something).

ONCE AGAIN I AM TALKING ABOUT IN THE DAMN MOVIE! THE MOVIE THE MOVIE THE MOVIE!

Poor marketing was definitely a factor in the disappointing performance of FF2.

This is absolutely hilarious to me. And one of the worst excuses ever.

 

[TheVileOne]

No, unless one of them wins an Oscar.
As the movie slightly underperformed in theatres (and the let's wait the final WW numbers to say that) they wouldn't get more money from the studio.

The movie will still cost more by the virtue of it being a sequel. Sequels generally do NOT cost less than the previous ones.

Evan Almighty starred freaking Steve Carrell and it still cost $175 million. Bruce Almight did NOT cost that much.

 

[X-Maniac]

ONCE AGAIN I AM TALKING ABOUT IN THE DAMN MOVIE! THE MOVIE THE MOVIE THE MOVIE!





This is absolutely hilarious to me. And one of the worst excuses ever.

Hilarious or not, it’s a fact. Harry Potter has the worldwide frenzy over Rowling’s very average and derivative books (people feel the need to worship something other than God in this secular age, so people like authors and pop starlets are the new gods).

What F4 needed was for some of the animated series to be shown heavilty before the movie, for UK trailers featuring the London Eye, for more TV trailers (I saw none), for talk shows featuring clips, and some toys/games. A buzz can be built. As if this should need spelling out.

But the budget was low - and possibly that’s why less went on promoting, why some parts of the movie are lacking (Galacta-nimbus) and probably why the movie has sponsorship deals and funding for products like Dodge’s Fantasticar.

Of course, the movie needed to be better too. It’s not memorable enough - too superficial, too fast-moving. So most of those that did see it haven’t recommended it or been to see it again.

Promotion/marketing was definitely a factor, but not the only one.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

No, let's forget about Hostel and the whole torture porn genre....

Thank you.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The movie will still cost more by the virtue of it being a sequel. Sequels generally do NOT cost less than the previous ones.

Evan Almighty starred freaking Steve Carrell and it still cost $175 million. Bruce Almight did NOT cost that much.

Bruce Almighty didn't have a full zoo of digital animals. And it was a worldwide success, so for the sequel the director and the screenwriters were allowed to ask for more.
Think of Hellboy 2 which will have a budget similar to that of the first chapter. Or the next Superman movie, which will probably cost less than SR.

 

[TheVileOne]

Bruce Almighty didn't have a full zoo of digital animals. And it was a worldwide success, so for the sequel the director and the screenwriters were allowed to ask for more.

Yup. And since FF 2 was a disappointment, studio types will be reluctant to go for a third one. Since it wouldn't be cheaper to make, and since the second one did not do as well.

Think of Hellboy 2 which will have a budget similar to that of the first chapter. Or the next Superman movie, which will probably cost less than SR.

Look how long it took for Hellboy 2 to happen.

Fantastic Four 2 cost most than the first one. A third would cost more than the second.

Hellboy's case is different. It's not a big franchise either. A Hellboy movie will never make $100 million in the US.

A Superman Returns sequel, if it ever happens, I don't believe it will cost less than the last one.

Hilarious or not, it’s a fact. Harry Potter has the worldwide frenzy over Rowling’s very average and derivative books (people feel the need to worship something other than God in this secular age, so people like authors and pop starlets are the new gods).

If you are trying to tell me that the promotions and merchandise tie-ins for Rise of The Silver Surfer were bad, and terrible sorry I can't buy into that nonsense.

As for your opinions about the Potter series, can't help you there. But the Fantastic Four movies are the epitome of derivative and commercial dumb dreck to me.

What F4 needed was for some of the animated series to be shown heavilty before the movie, for UK trailers featuring the London Eye, for more TV trailers (I saw none), for talk shows featuring clips, and some toys/games. A buzz can be built. As if this should need spelling out.

They had toys. They had games, video games. They had all of that. I saw the London Eye in clips. Fast food tie-in at Burger King. They had the typical commercial blitz these movies have.

The animated series was recently released on DVD as I recall. So it's all out there.

But the budget was low - and possibly that’s why less went on promoting, why some parts of the movie are lacking (Galacta-nimbus) and probably why the movie has sponsorship deals and funding for products like Dodge’s Fantasticar.

Ugh. $130 million is not low to me, especially when it's not a huge name cast.

And Harry Potter did not have the stupid product placements that FF 2 had. that's part of why I like Harry Potter. I know I'm not going to hear any stupid lines such as the exchange with Reed and Johnny about the Fantasticar. When I watch the movie, I know I'm not going to see lame shoe-horned marketing of a product.

"Harry, at this school we only wear Wizard Skechers."

Of course, the movie needed to be better too. It’s not memorable enough - too superficial, too fast-moving. So most of those that did see it haven’t recommended it or been to see it again.

This is not because of bad marketing.

Promotion/marketing was definitely a factor, but not the only one.

I don't see it. The promotion and marketing for the movie wasn't weak at all. People are underestimating the fact that the first movie for a lot of people wasn't this great, "I loved it and have to see it again and again!" type of movie. Word of mouth and feedback on the flick obviously wasn't that great. And it was the same here.

Nonetheless, they had the chance to make a much better knock your socks off type of movie and sequel after the first one, and they failed to do so. No amount of excuses about the marketing.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

Let's not forget about Hostel 2. It didn't even make it one month in theatres.

But thats just cause of piracy. the the film was out for sale on the bootleg scene two weeks before it came out. And the company decided to pull it after only a few weeks .

 

[X-Maniac]

This is not because of bad marketing.

I don't see it. The promotion and marketing for the movie wasn't weak at all. People are underestimating the fact that the first movie for a lot of people wasn't this great, "I loved it and have to see it again and again!" type of movie. Word of mouth and feedback on the flick obviously wasn't that great. And it was the same here.

Nonetheless, they had the chance to make a much better knock your socks off type of movie and sequel after the first one, and they failed to do so. No amount of excuses about the marketing.

Why are you arguing with me and then repeating what I have said?

I said:

"Of course, the movie needed to be better too. It’s not memorable enough - too superficial, too fast-moving. So most of those that did see it haven’t recommended it or been to see it again."

You said:

"This is not because of bad marketing."

Who said that what I said had to do with the marketing? I was mentioning the other factors - that, besides the marketing, the film wasn't good enough.

I then said:

"Promotion/marketing was definitely a factor, but not the only one."

You said:

"I don't see it. The promotion and marketing for the movie wasn't weak at all. People are underestimating the fact that the first movie for a lot of people wasn't this great, "I loved it and have to see it again and again!" type of movie. Word of mouth and feedback on the flick obviously wasn't that great. And it was the same here.

Nonetheless, they had the chance to make a much better knock your socks off type of movie and sequel after the first one, and they failed to do so. No amount of excuses about the marketing."

So, when I talk about the movie being too fast and shallow to get word of mouth, that's nothing to do with it...and then you talk about word of mouth being something to do with it!

Let me spell it out: I believe weak marketing played a part, but is not the whole story. I also believe that lack of word of mouth (or bad word) played a part, as the film is too fast and superficial (too unmemorable).

 

[TheVileOne]

Why are you arguing with me and then repeating what I have said?

I was talking about the first movie not being memorable.

Who said that what I said had to do with the marketing? I was mentioning the other factors - that, besides the marketing, the film wasn't good enough.

You claimed the film and marketing, merchandising, and promotion for the movie was poor. Which I think is not true.

Let me spell it out: I believe weak marketing played a part, but is not the whole story. I also believe that lack of word of mouth (or bad word) played a part, as the film is too fast and superficial (too unmemorable).

Good. And I believe weak marketing didn't play a part at all. At least not for the reasons you are suggesting. It was not for a LACK of marketing. They had all those things you suggested they should have had for the movie.

Either way, this is all a misinterpretation of my original point which had nothing to do with the actual marketing or promotion of Harry Potter as it related to FF 2.

My simple point is that within the movie itself, you don't see bad product placement in Harry Potter The Order of The Phoenix. In FF 2 . . . you do.

 

[Iron Maiden]

To tell the truth, I think the power of product placement is negligible... just because I there is a box of Kellogg's corn flakes on the table in a film's breakfast scene, that doesn't mean I am going to run out and buy a box. For me, it blends into the reality of the scene and I would find it more distracting and noticable if there was a fake product name like a box of Colon-Blow Cereal on the table instead. I was not annoyed at all by the Dodge tie in and found it amusing myself. The fake commericial that ran before the movie got a few laughs in the theater when I went, so what's the harm? They even lampooned about it in the movie with Johnny's NASCAR-like costume .... it happens in the real world so why not address it in the movie in a humorous way? Now the real crime is when Comisky was torn down and the White Sox moved too US Cellular Field.... how memorable

But I think there are other factors at work in the constantly changing worldwide market. First of all, the very crowded schedule this year. There was just wasn't that much of a cushion this year for the movie to develop "legs". Fox's own product, "Die Hard", came out around 9 days later. Secondly, if Fox was planning on promoting this movie to children, you sure couldn't tell from the products in the store. There's only about 5 pretty tame FF toys in the story and Toys R US even trotted out some toys left over from the first movie, since they were so similar probably few, if anyone, noticed. There were many, many shelves of Transformer, Spider-Man and POTC toys.

But then I think it has been a major miscalculation to market this movie to 10 year olds anyway. Still, I can imagine this will do well in DVD sales.

 

[Dark Knight]

The disappointing BO of this movie should not be a surprise to anybody.

If you look at it, the second movie only followed the trends of the first one. The first movie came out in a summer of fierce competition. Had a decent opening weekend. However, the first movie's BO dropped on Saturday, and then dropped again on it's first Sunday. Most big or tentpole releases open big on their first Friday, and increase even more on their first Saturday. Not so for F4, and then Rise of the Silver Surfer it was the same way.

Taking ticket inflation into account, the opening weekends of both movies were virtually the same, the second movie's was actually a bit bigger.

Both movies opened up with similarly terrible reviews. Very low tomato meters as well.

To me the opening weekends of this movie show some of the kids and families go out to see it. Some of the fans see it. But then they don't have any interest to go back and see it again.

The second weekends of these movies, humongous dropoffs. The second weekends show bad word of mouth and feedback. And bad repeat business. People aren't inspired to go back and wanting to see this movie again and again. This movie doesn't try to draw in people who normally wouldn't go to the movies either. And at the end of the day, it's really just a dumb kids movie. It does not do a good job of playing well to a broad age demographic.

This movie was even SHORTER than the first one. After all the promises that they listened to our complaints and sought out to correct them, none of that happened. The tone and content of the movie was generally the same as the first one. This is one of the most epic and important F4 (and Silver Surfer for that matter) stories ever. And they didn't give it the respect and attention it deserves.

Despite claims otherwise, there wasn't this giving the finger from the audiences to the critics to make this movie a huge, much loved hit.

At the end of the day, this was a fairly mediocre sequel, to a fairly mediocre first movie. That's why it's performing worse than the first one.

The majority of people did NOT leave the first movie hungry and excited for a sequel. And what was done for the new movie did not inspire them to get excited and come out in droves.

Bravo!

 

[Dark Knight]

So with the updated international figure from Variety, FF 2 has now made $ 127.1 mil domestic and $ 101.2 mil international for a total of $ 228.3 mil worldwide.

Keeping track of the race to be Fox's # 1 summer film, Die Hard 4 has now grossed $ 225.9 mil worldwide.

My money's on Die Hard.

Plus Die Hard has great word of mouth.....

 

[GL's Light]

In terms of whether or not there'll be another FF sequel, I've said before that from simple observation of which films get sequels and which don't that a worldwide gross of around 2.4 or 2.5 times production budget is usually necessary for a studio to make a direct sequel within the usual two- to three-year timeframe.

This observation was further confirmed in a recent Variety article where a studio insider was quoted as saying that to justify a sequel a film generally has to gross twice its production budget plus 20%. In other words, it has to gross 2.4 times its production budget.

If one looks at the comic book films that have got direct sequels, this pattern can be confirmed. Those superhero films with returns of more than 2.4 - Blade, X-Men, Blade II, Spider-Man, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four - all got quick direct sequels.

Daredevil grossed 2.3 times its production budget and got a much cheaper spinoff in Elektra, but no sequel. Constantine and LXG grossed 2.3 times their budgets and there was sequel talk in both cases, still ongoing in Constantine's case, but nothing has come to fruition yet.

Hulk, The Punisher, Catwoman, Blade: Trinity, and Elektra fell well short of a 2.4 times return and none of them received direct sequels. There's still some talk of a Punisher sequel, but it certainly hasn't been a smooth development process to say the least. Ghost Rider is likely to join this group of films, with no sequel being made, given its level of return.

There are rare instances where a studio will make a sequel to a film that grosses substantially below the level of a 2.4 times return. Hellboy is an example, although even there the sequel has taken an unusual route, with Sony declining to make Hellboy 2 and Guillermo del Toro then moving Heaven and Earth to get another studio to step in, which Universal eventually did (although he has to make the sequel for about the same relatively limited budget as he had on the first film).

Superman Returns obviously grossed well below a 2.4 times return, which is why there's been some indecision on WB's part as to whether they should make a sequel. If it was just about any other franchise there wouldn't be a direct sequel, but Superman is a very important property to Warners and they may give it another chance.

So, after all of that, FF 2 basically has to gross $ 312 million worldwide to have a good shot at a direct sequel, and $ 325 million worldwide to really strengthen its chances (since most films with direct sequels go that one step further and gross 2.5 times their budget).

 

[DieSmiling]

In terms of whether or not there'll be another FF sequel, I've said before that from simple observation of which films get sequels and which don't that a worldwide gross of around 2.4 or 2.5 times production budget is usually necessary for a studio to make a direct sequel within the usual two- to three-year timeframe.

This observation was further confirmed in a recent Variety article where a studio insider was quoted as saying that to justify a sequel a film generally has to gross twice its production budget plus 20%. In other words, it has to gross 2.4 times its production budget.

If one looks at the comic book films that have got direct sequels, this pattern can be confirmed. Those superhero films with returns of more than 2.4 - Blade, X-Men, Blade II, Spider-Man, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four - all got quick direct sequels.

Daredevil grossed 2.3 times its production budget and got a much cheaper spinoff in Elektra, but no sequel. Constantine and LXG grossed 2.3 times their budgets and there was sequel talk in both cases, still ongoing in Constantine's case, but nothing has come to fruition yet.

Hulk, The Punisher, Catwoman, Blade: Trinity, and Elektra fell well short of a 2.4 times return and none of them received direct sequels. There's still some talk of a Punisher sequel, but it certainly hasn't been a smooth development process to say the least. Ghost Rider is likely to join this group of films, with no sequel being made, given its level of return.

There are rare instances where a studio will make a sequel to a film that grosses substantially below the level of a 2.4 times return. Hellboy is an example, although even there the sequel has taken an unusual route, with Sony declining to make Hellboy 2 and Guillermo del Toro then moving Heaven and Earth to get another studio to step in, which Universal eventually did (although he has to make the sequel for about the same relatively limited budget as he had on the first film).

Superman Returns obviously grossed well below a 2.4 times return, which is why there's been some indecision on WB's part as to whether they should make a sequel. If it was just about any other franchise there wouldn't be a direct sequel, but Superman is a very important property to Warners and they may give it another chance.

So, after all of that, FF 2 basically has to gross $ 312 million worldwide to have a good shot at a direct sequel, and $ 325 million worldwide to really strengthen its chances (since most films with direct sequels go that one step further and gross 2.5 times their budget).

So in other words, no, FF3 won't be happening? Because there's no way FF2 is grossing $312-$325 million worldwide at this point.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I think they will skate in at just under 300 million. By the way, I have to contend that Vile One's assertion that the reviews were universally terrible for FF2. There were a lot more positive ones than for the first and I can point you to quite a few of them whereas you'd be hard pressed to find the same number of positive ones for FF1. Even on the Ebert/Roeper show, it got one thumbs up from the guy (who's name escapes me) who actually knew comics, unlike Roeper. FF1 got a thumbs down from both reviewers.

 

[Kelly]

I don't think anyone can say that the 2nd was better than the first, even reviewers.....unfortunately I do not believe the better reviews, and this mediocre BO will get it a sequel.......if #3 is greenlit, I will be happily surprised, but surprised is the operative word here.

 

[Malus]

I don't think anyone can say that the 2nd was better than the first, even reviewers.....unfortunately I do not believe the better reviews, and this mediocre BO will get it a sequel.......if #3 is greenlit, I will be happily surprised, but surprised is the operative word here.

You mean you think there is consensus among critics and viewers (in general) that this film is considerably better than the first, don't you?
I'm assuming you meant to write "wasn't" in that first sentence.

As for FF3?
I think it will be made.
Late November 2009 release.

 

[Spade]

I don't think the issue was the marketing. Everyone I talked to knew about it, of all age groups that I'm familiar with. It's just that everyone was tepid about seeing this movie after the first one, and the initial reviews went out of their way to bash this movie thoroughly.

 

[X-Maniac]

It's just not a big franchise. The Incredibles stole its thunder and some of the characters' powers (orange rock, stretchy limbs) are very cartoony and difficult to turn into a totally serious movie. Imagine a scene from your favourite movie - Titanic, Casino Royale, The Godfather, whatever it is - then put Thing into the middle of it or have Mr Fantastic in his skintight blue suit with rubbery limbs stretching all over the place.. it just doesn't work. This kind of 60s fantasy sci-fi is hard to bring to life in a modern live-action movie... but a more serious approach might have worked better.

 

[highguard]

Look, there were a lot of misteps with this movie. The first created a firestorm of criticisms among the fanboys. Now I never really cared about the critics. they hated 300 too. Critics tend to hate all the movies i love.

The problem for me as a fanboy is that I felt at the end of the day that they (the suits) were giving the hardcore fans the finger.

It felt to me like they were twisting Tim Story's arm to move him away from the elements that long term fans were familiar with.

I mean this coming from the the interviews is what actually went down. The number crunchers got together and did their exit analysis of moviegoers who saw the first film, and saw that a lot of the younger kids saw the movie and everything about the movie was tailored for that demographic, from Julian's performance to the running time which necessitated or precluded a fitting climactic battle.

Well they probably got that demographic but nothing else although the exit polls this time around actually say otherwise, there was like a 50/50 split in the over 25 and under. However I think that the pg crowd had all the other cool stuff coming out this summer and as you know that crowd's attention span is fickle so after the hoopla of FF and the sequel fatigue of Spidey, Pirates and Shrek that left a less than stellar taste in the movie going public the FF took a hit. None of the over 25 crowd must have gone back to see this movie.

The hit was in the 40 years of fans and support this franchise had access to because the studio felt that 40 years plus of groundswell support these characters had was unimportant and they could play with the material willy nilly. They changed Doom and got blasted, man there was so much support for this property that ff1 survived a blasting by nearly every known critic.

Ok who cares about them but the fans, blasted the changes to Doom. They said they understood and then they made corrections to Doom but then destroyed the coming of Galactus storyline in the FF, because they wanted to do a SS spinoff and decided to make him the focus of the film. This should have been a two parter ala Pirates 2 and 3.

Again they failed to understand that this story is about the coming of Galactus not the Silver Surfer. So I can see them sitting around a table telling Tim Story what he can include, what the final script will be like etc etc etc.

Someone should have told them that there is a reason Directors go to film school and number crunchers graduate with MBAs (myself included).

Its a classic case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

Now about a sequel. Gl said the sequel needs like a 2.4 multiplier. FF now has 127 million and needs to make at least 312. So the foreign take has to be assuming the film closes at 130 domestic, 182 million.

The first film made like 175 million overseas so we are looking at a required 7 million increase.

I have been hearing that the foreign take has been outstripping the first films take.

Anyone has the numbers at their finger tips and can weigh in on what the trends are looking like right now.

Carp can you help out here?

 

[Tony Stark]

It's just not a big franchise. The Incredibles stole its thunder and some of the characters' powers (orange rock, stretchy limbs) are very cartoony and difficult to turn into a totally serious movie. Imagine a scene from your favourite movie - Titanic, Casino Royale, The Godfather, whatever it is - then put Thing into the middle of it or have Mr Fantastic in his skintight blue suit with rubbery limbs stretching all over the place.. it just doesn't work. This kind of 60s fantasy sci-fi is hard to bring to life in a modern live-action movie... but a more serious approach might have worked better.

I could see that, and I really hope they give a 3rd film a chance, because it sounds like the actors want the 3rd one to be a more serious one.

 

[tviceman]

You mean you think there is consensus among critics and viewers (in general) that this film is considerably better than the first, don't you?
I'm assuming you meant to write "wasn't" in that first sentence.

As for FF3?
I think it will be made.
Late November 2009 release.

Daredevil made 2.3x it's production costs in total world wide box office sales. A sequel has yet to be made.

FF2 has currently made back 1.73x it's production costs.... A sequel will eventually be made, but I highly doubt it'll be released as soon as 2009.

 

[Agent 194]

I fear something terrible has happened....as if millions of voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.....oh and that Fox doesn't care either.