Superman Returns Box Office Preview

[sameone]

I can't speak for my friends...

quite frankly? i couldn't care less..i'm here to disscuss superman returns.

OK, SR andPOTC - why did not one studio release July 4th weekend and the other late July?

Both films get hurt this way IMO and though I am a Superman fans given that POTC is the stronger franchise Returns should have moved to late July.

It would have brought big crowds in again which would give POTC a month later boost and SR might have been at the top of the box for or 3 weeks.

The scheduling stinks.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

OK, SR andPOTC - why did not one studio release July 4th weekend and the other late July?

Both films get hurt this way IMO and though I am a Superman fans given that POTC is the stronger franchise Returns should have moved to late July.

It would have brought big crowds in again which would give POTC a month later boost and SR might have been at the top of the box for or 3 weeks.

The scheduling stinks.

Well no not really, Being a big movie fan..most will see both..as both has sparked interest.. both can be watched by a younger audiance..which Batman Begins lost alot of revenue to.Being at the top doesn't mean a thing..have you seen some of the crap that goes to the top spot?

 

[sameone]

Well no not really, Being a big movie fan..most will see both..as both has sparked interest.. both can be watched by a younger audiance..which Batman Begins lost alot of revenue to.Being at the top doesn't mean a thing..have you seen some of the crap that goes to the top spot?

Yeah, but a back to back opening is not wise. Variety had a piece on the crowded may/June/July movie debuts this year. How some films will uinderperform for it. But X-Men, coming in the middle and POTC at the end were likely to suffer least which is traditional it sounds like.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Yeah, but a back to back opening is not wise. Variety had a piece on the crowded may/June/July movie debuts this year. How some films will uinderperform for it. But X-Men, coming in the middle and POTC at the end were likely to suffer least which is traditional it sounds like.

Both movies will do extreamly well.. This is superman the mac daddy of Super heros he is going to soar again... Pirates was a suprise hit for us.. Judgeing how well the first did,this is why this will do well.. kind of like the matrix.. the first was a suprise hit the second only did well because of the first.


all 3 movies will do well..unfortunatly its threads like this that try to make rivelry between the movies.

 

[Venom71]

Both movies will do extreamly well.. This is superman the mac daddy of Super heros he is going to soar again... Pirates was a suprise hit for us.. Judgeing how well the first did,this is why this will do well.. kind of like the matrix.. the first was a suprise hit the second only did well because of the first.


all 3 movies will do well..unfortunatly its threads like this that try to make rivelry between the movies.

I agree

 

[AgentPat]

Yeah, but a back to back opening is not wise. Variety had a piece on the crowded may/June/July movie debuts this year. How some films will uinderperform for it. But X-Men, coming in the middle and POTC at the end were likely to suffer least which is traditional it sounds like.

There are some interesting B.O. fallacies with major films opening on the same weekend. One theory suggests that audiences will flock to the more popular film (whatever that might be) and the other film(s) will unduly suffer because of that. But Brandon Gray of BOM wrote a column a while back where he suggested that the B.O. does quite well when multiple popular films open concurrently. There's spill over (if the desired film is sold out, people often pay to see the other one anyway) and there's age restriction deception (G, PG, and PG-13 films often do better when a popular R-rated film plays because teens often purchase tickets to those films and then illegally enter the R-rated ones.)

That said, USA Today printed an interesting article/questionnaire for readers on January 12th of this year. Among the many questions posed was this one:

Which of these sequels will have the biggest three-day opening weekend box office?
1. Big Momma's House 2
2. Ice Age 2
3. Mission Impossible III
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
5. The Santa Clause 3
6. Superman Returns
7. X-Men 3

(Interesting to note even USA Today is labeling SR a sequel.)

Anyhoo, here's what their "experts" predicted:

Marla Backer (Research Associates): POTC
Christopher Dixon (GGCP): POTC
Mark Greenberg (AIM Leisure Fund): MI
Dennis McAlpine (McAlpine Associates): XM3
Hal Vogel (Vogel Capital Management): POTC
Tom Wolzien (Wolzien LLC): POTC

BOP posted a three part editorial on film financing, selling and ROI back in May of 2004. It's a nice read for those interested. Enjoy...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8353
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8354
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8359

 

[sameone]

There are some interesting B.O. fallacies with major films opening on the same weekend. One theory suggests that audiences will flock to the more popular film (whatever that might be) and the other film(s) will unduly suffer because of that. But Brandon Gray of BOM wrote a column a while back where he suggested that the B.O. does quite well when multiple popular films open concurrently. There's spill over (if the desired film is sold out, people often pay to see the other one anyway) and there's age restriction deception (G, PG, and PG-13 films often do better when a popular R-rated film plays because teens often purchase tickets to those films and then illegally enter the R-rated ones.)

That said, USA Today printed an interesting article/questionnaire for readers on January 12th of this year. Among the many questions posed was this one:

Which of these sequels will have the biggest three-day opening weekend box office?
1. Big Momma's House 2
2. Ice Age 2
3. Mission Impossible III
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
5. The Santa Clause 3
6. Superman Returns
7. X-Men 3

(Interesting to note even USA Today is labeling SR a sequel.)

Anyhoo, here's what their "experts" predicted:

Marla Backer (Research Associates): POTC
Christopher Dixon (GGCP): POTC
Mark Greenberg (AIM Leisure Fund): MI
Dennis McAlpine (McAlpine Associates): XM3
Hal Vogel (Vogel Capital Management): POTC
Tom Wolzien (Wolzien LLC): POTC

BOP posted a three part editorial on film financing, selling and ROI back in May of 2004. It's a nice read for those interested. Enjoy...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8353
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8354
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8359

Well Bryan calls it a vague sequel or has called it that so USA Today is not wrong to label it as such.

interesting none of the marketing experts predicted SR to do the biggest 3 day weekend. So much for long anticipated film. Little doubt it will be POTC.

 

[AgentPat]

Well Bryan calls it a vague sequel or has called it that so USA Today is not wrong to label it as such.

Indeed. Sad, but it's the way it is, unfortunately.

interesting none of the marketing experts predicted SR to do the biggest 3 day weekend. So much for long anticipated film. Little doubt it will be POTC.

I tend to agree. But another article I had read recently compared the opening w/e of SR with that of X-Men3 (X-Men3 was predicted to do better among the two) suggested that SR would make it up in the foreign market. I confess to being a little confused by this assumption since BB was (apparently) the only blockbuster film last year to make less coin in the worldwide B.O. than it did domestically. This isn't to say that SR will follow in kind, but it's in the same genre - and so is X-Men for that matter - so I'm baffled by this prediction. The writer didn't elaborate on any bias for or against the Superman franchise among foreign audiences either.

 

[sameone]

Indeed. Sad, but it's the way it is, unfortunately.

I tend to agree. But another article I had read recently compared the opening w/e of SR with that of X-Men3 (X-Men3 was predicted to do better among the two) suggested that SR would make it up in the foreign market. I confess to being a little confused by this assumption since BB was (apparently) the only blockbuster film last year to make less coin in the worldwide B.O. than it did domestically. This isn't to say that SR will follow in kind, but it's in the same genre - and so is X-Men for that matter - so I'm baffled by this prediction. The writer didn't elaborate on any bias for or against the Superman franchise among foreign audiences either.

In the US X-Men 3 will likely do 250 - 280 million and SR 185 - 210 so I agree with the writer on the domestic box for X-Men being better. Foreign, SR will do better than X-Men but neither may do as well as they do domestically. FF did poorly in the foreigh box too.

 

[Weadazoid]

In the US X-Men 3 will likely do 250 - 280 million and SR 185 - 210 so I agree with the writer on the domestic box for X-Men being better. Foreign, SR will do better than X-Men but neither may do as well as they do domestically. FF did poorly in the foreigh box too.

Jeezus man if SR olny tops out at about 210 Million people will jump off bridges in the forum



it cost 250 Million to make...according to Box ofice Mojo and that doesn't even include Marketing


If it opens on the 4rth and pulls only 210.... the series is dead in the water WB will never authorize a sequel

 

[sameone]

Jeezus man if SR olny tops out at about 210 Million people will jump off bridges in the forum



it cost 250 Million to make...according to Box ofice Mojo and that doesn't even include Marketing


If it opens on the 4rth and pulls only 210.... the series is dead in the water WB will never authorize a sequel

To clarify I said 185 to 210 domestically and I predict about 185 foreign for a total WW of 370 - 395. It will do slightly better than BB WW I think.

BB did 205 domestically and 167 or so foreign for a total of around 372 million.

You are right that if it just does 210 domestically there would be a sequel.

A BB sequel has been green lighted but you have to figure BB cost just 150 million to make so it turned a nice profit. Not great like Spiderman of course.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I see it more around 250-275 Domestic and around the 500M WW mark

 

[AgentPat]

In the US X-Men 3 will likely do 250 - 280 million and SR 185 - 210 so I agree with the writer on the domestic box for X-Men being better. Foreign, SR will do better than X-Men but neither may do as well as they do domestically. FF did poorly in the foreign box too.

Interesting. You're probably pretty close there, though I think you might be a little high for X-Men, and a tad too low for SR. I know next to squat about the new X-Men film, but the first film grossed $157M and the second one did $215M (domestically). Considering the latter grossed $215M in 2003 and BB only did $205M, a few theories could be put forward.

The first one seems obvious: superhero films are declining in popularity (Spider-Man grossed $404M in 2003, while its sequel, S-M2, did $374M in 2004.) Box office attendance has also fallen over the last few years, due in no small part to the explosion of electronic entertainment options as well as a prevailing preference among film goers to wait for the film to hit home video. Back in the 70's, I used to go to the theater once a week. Every Friday night - it was like clockwork. If I go five or six times a year now, it's a LOT. Seriously. And I still enjoy movies - even "stupid" ones LOL.

Back to SR... Warners is currently the top studio right now in handling films overseas, so that might be why the writer of the other article thought SR would do better in the foreign market. Doesn't explain BB slump in that dept., but poop happens, I guess.

Last November, Dave Poland of The Hot Button made some interesting points about Warners recent business approach to sharing production budget costs. He wrote:

"[Even though] Legendary Pictures was taking on "at least" half the cost of Superman Returns, this fact doesn't change the profitability potential of Superman Returns, but it does limit the studios profitability upside to such a degree that unless Superman grosses more than $700 million worldwide, it would have to be considered a loss leader, not endangering overall profitability for the year but unlikely to enhance it much either."

Worldwide...
X-Men (2000) grossed $296M
Spider-Man (2002) grossed $822M
X-Men 2 (2003) grossed $406M
Spider-Man 2 (2004) grossed $784M
Batman Begins (2005) grossed $372M
Fantastic Four (2005) grossed $330M

(I could look up more, but I'm lazy LOL)

Anyhoo, SR *could* do $700M worldwide, but it's gonna be re-heeeeeeeely difficult, IMHO. I don't know what it is about the Spider-Man franchise, but every other superhero franchise including Batman is lucky to break $400M worldwide. And SR production budget was what? $250M Something ridiculous like that? They're gonna be counting Every. Last. Dime. of revenue. They HAVE to.

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

So now its AgentPat backing up lexlives. Both People who are well known to not be looking forward to this Movie. You must make lexlives proud Pat.

 

[Hunter Rider]

So now its AgentPat backing up lexlives. Both People who are well known to not be looking forward to this Movie. You must make lexlives proud Pat.

no,Pat is cool,she is smart when it comes to box office

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

no,Pat is cool,she is smart when it comes to box office

Still like lexlives they are picking those Numbers based on the fact they hope / want Superman Returns does horribly.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Still like lexlives they are picking those Numbers based on the fact they hope / want Superman Returns does horribly.

Lexlives maybe but not Pat,she has never been like that

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

Lexlives maybe but not Pat,she has never been like that

She only wants Superman to fail because she (thinks) that if this Movie fails WB will go right ahead & make a Movie with Tom Well Starring. Like lexlives Pat has her ideal Superman & she has always been widely known to be mad at the fact Tom Welling never got the role. Shes a Wellingnite

 

[sameone]

She only wants Superman to fail because she (thinks) that if this Movie fails WB will go right ahead & make a Movie with Tom Well Starring. Like lexlives Pat has her ideal Superman & she has always been widely known to be mad at the fact Tom Welling never got the role. Shes a Wellingnite

That does not make sense. if the movie fails there will not be a sequel so don't see how Welling factors into this.

As to Agent Pat - the one thing I don't get about David's 700 million figure is how BB reportedly tuned a nice profit that added to WB's bottom line when it cost 175 million and made 372 million and profits also had to be shared by Legendary.

The escalation figure to get from 250 to 700 million applied to BB 175 milllion would put the same profit point at 490 million. Which it did not make.

I've e-mailed him and asked if he could explain what looks like a disparity between the two films and their break/even/profit points.

 

[Hunter Rider]

She only wants Superman to fail because she (thinks) that if this Movie fails WB will go right ahead & make a Movie with Tom Well Starring. Like lexlives Pat has her ideal Superman & she has always been widely known to be mad at the fact Tom Welling never got the role. Shes a Wellingnite

Pat wanting Welling to be Superman does not negate the intelligence of her analysis

 

[Pickle-El]

Interesting. You're probably pretty close there, though I think you might be a little high for X-Men, and a tad too low for SR. I know next to squat about the new X-Men film, but the first film grossed $157M and the second one did $215M (domestically). Considering the latter grossed $215M in 2003 and BB only did $205M, a few theories could be put forward.

The first one seems obvious: superhero films are declining in popularity (Spider-Man grossed $404M in 2003, while its sequel, S-M2, did $374M in 2004.) Box office attendance has also fallen over the last few years, due in no small part to the explosion of electronic entertainment options as well as a prevailing preference among film goers to wait for the film to hit home video. Back in the 70's, I used to go to the theater once a week. Every Friday night - it was like clockwork. If I go five or six times a year now, it's a LOT. Seriously. And I still enjoy movies - even "stupid" ones LOL.

Piracy Piracy Piracy..That's the sole reason SW3 didn't cross 400 Million last year. That's probably the biggest culprit. DVD sales are still strong across the board for these movies. (BB has grossed about 200 Million on DVD sales/rentals alone already)

Back to SR... Warners is currently the top studio right now in handling films overseas, so that might be why the writer of the other article thought SR would do better in the foreign market. Doesn't explain BB slump in that dept., but poop happens, I guess.

Batman has generally always done better at home than overseas....Happened with Batman 89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman Begins. Seems llike Batman doesn't quite 'click' as much overseas in BO.

Last November, Dave Poland of The Hot Button made some interesting points about Warners recent business approach to sharing production budget costs. He wrote:

"[Even though] Legendary Pictures was taking on "at least" half the cost of Superman Returns, this fact doesn't change the profitability potential of Superman Returns, but it does limit the studios profitability upside to such a degree that unless Superman grosses more than $700 million worldwide, it would have to be considered a loss leader, not endangering overall profitability for the year but unlikely to enhance it much either."

Well I read this when lexlives kept referring to it like it was scripture.....It removes very much from the equation that which is essential to 'bottom line'. (ie toys/dvds/rentals etc) Hence the reason why rumors keep bring brought up about 'Hulk 2'.

He could be right...but we don't know the complete details of the vested interest Legenday Productions has in SR. (As is the case with BB and it's sequels) I mean, if BB did 'only' 370 WW and 'only' did 50 past it's production budget or 150 Million domestically, then why would Legendary want to gain a minimal return on its investment? Doesn't make much sense, but I guess a Million is a million.

Worldwide...
X-Men (2000) grossed $296M
Spider-Man (2002) grossed $822M
X-Men 2 (2003) grossed $406M
Spider-Man 2 (2004) grossed $784M
Batman Begins (2005) grossed $372M
Fantastic Four (2005) grossed $330M

(I could look up more, but I'm lazy LOL)

Anyhoo, SR *could* do $700M worldwide, but it's gonna be re-heeeeeeeely difficult, IMHO. I don't know what it is about the Spider-Man franchise, but every other superhero franchise including Batman is lucky to break $400M worldwide. And SR production budget was what? $250M Something ridiculous like that? They're gonna be counting Every. Last. Dime. of revenue. They HAVE to.

Singer already corrected all the rumors. (Budget at 186)

That really changes the entire ballgame if it's the case....Then again we have Singer's word vs inflated figures that gone as high as 300 Million dollars for SR.

Yeah, where's that great New York Post Page 6 Gossip Article? Anyone?

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

& even in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY Event that Superman fails even if it makes just as much as Batman Begins did. That is still good for WB. You are completely forgetting the fact that this Movie can also be geared more towards Children. Sure theres a little romance involved but what Movie does not have that. The reason why Fantastic Four did not do so well was because it was the first of its kind & not everyone was really famaliar with them. But now with the DVD Kids seem to love the Movie & Kids will be the ones that make the Sequel to Fantastic Four an even BIGGER Success because they would be more famaliar with them. With Superman Returns the kids know the S the kids know Superman. They know the Suit & what it looks like etc & sure while you may not exactly see Superman in the beginning of the Movie but I also think its nicely how Bryan did the first half. You got the Movie started off with Superman in Space in a Space Ship which I am sure kids will find cool & then theres 20 Minutes or so of Superman using his Powers on the farm & in when Clark thinks back to when he first discovered his Powers etc. There is plenty in the beginning to keep Kids entertained until we see Superman in Full Costume. Heck the first time we see Superman hes in a Semi Suit with the S. So kids will know right away whos Superman & they should get hooked from the get go. Kids will be a big reason this Movie WILL succeed

 

[Pickle-El]

& even in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY Event that Superman fails even if it makes just as much as Batman Begins did. That is still good for WB. You are completely forgetting the fact that this Movie can also be geared more towards Children. Sure theres a little romance involved but what Movie does not have that. The reason why Fantastic Four did not do so well was because it was the first of its kind & not everyone was really famaliar with them. But now with the DVD Kids seem to love the Movie & Kids will be the ones that make the Sequel to Fantastic Four an even BIGGER Success because they would be more famaliar with them. With Superman Returns the kids know the S the kids know Superman. They know the Suit & what it looks like etc & sure while you may not exactly see Superman in the beginning of the Movie but I also think its nicely how Bryan did the first half. You got the Movie started off with Superman in Space in a Space Ship which I am sure kids will find cool & then theres 20 Minutes or so of Superman using his Powers on the farm & in when Clark thinks back to when he first discovered his Powers etc. There is plenty in the beginning to keep Kids entertained until we see Superman in Full Costume. Heck the first time we see Superman hes in a Semi Suit with the S. So kids will know right away whos Superman & they should get hooked from the get go. Kids will be a big reason this Movie WILL succeed

That is something that CANNOT be overlooked. After the success of the Potter franchise, I'm sure the WB is licking their chops for more. School will be out, Superman Returns will be the first major movie of the official summer season, and they'll be coming in droves.

Remember, there is no age limit here folks....SR is going to be targeted at ALL audiences. I believe the quote was:

'From 8 to 80.'

 

[sameone]

Piracy Piracy Piracy..That's the sole reason SW3 didn't cross 400 Million last year. That's probably the biggest culprit. DVD sales are still strong across the board for these movies. (BB has grossed about 200 Million on DVD sales/rentals alone already)



Batman has generally always done better at home than overseas....Happened with Batman 89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman Begins. Seems llike Batman doesn't quite 'click' as much overseas in BO.



Well I read this when lexlives kept referring to it like it was scripture.....It removes very much from the equation that which is essential to 'bottom line'. (ie toys/dvds/rentals etc) Hence the reason why rumors keep bring brought up about 'Hulk 2'.

He could be right...but we don't know the complete details of the vested interest Legenday Productions has in SR. (As is the case with BB and it's sequels) I mean, if BB did 'only' 370 WW and 'only' did 50 past it's production budget or 150 Million domestically, then why would Legendary want to gain a minimal return on its investment? Doesn't make much sense, but I guess a Million is a million.




Singer already corrected all the rumors. (Budget at 186)

That really changes the entire ballgame if it's the case....Then again we have Singer's word vs inflated figures that gone as high as 300 Million dollars for SR.

Yeah, where's that great New York Post Page 6 Gossip Article? Anyone?

I do agree David's analysis, when you compare 700 mil as the breakeven point for SR then using the same factroing figure (Legendary get 50% of profits in both deals) at 370 million BB would not have turned a profit for WB. But it did.

So David must be adding other stuff to come up with that 700 mil figure for SR he is not using the same multiplier factor to calculate it.

 

[AgentPat]

no,Pat is cool,she is smart when it comes to box office

Thanks, HR. My personal interest in the film is irrelevant to its potential BO gross, or my predictions thereof. I'm merely looking at the big picture in terms of other films in similar genres, as well as quoting what other experts in the industry have said. SR will stand on its own laurels.

I don't think I've ever put a number on it, but right now I'm thinking around $250M (dom) assuming modest reviews. The general rule of thumb is 3 times opening weekend, but SR will be opening over the July 4th frame, so that makes extrapolation a little difficult. If we just look at the Friday - Sunday window, that would calculate out to about 83M, which is pretty close to what I *think* it will do (in three days.) If collective reviews are amazing (90% or higher "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes), the film *could* break $300M. That would be quite a coup for Warners. If reviewers pan it (unlikely, but always possible), it will probably ceiling at considerably less, but I still think it will break $200M. It's Superman. To think it will do less than that is just being naive.

As to folks in my ignore bin, reality confirmation for their continued residence there is always a good thing, so thanks!

PS: Can we keep it on topic people. This forum is NOT for discussing other users, and as much as I love to think the world revolves around lil ole me I don't post here for that purpose.