Superman Returns Could 'Superman Returns' become a footnote...?

[El Payaso]

But you really can't get rid of he biggest problem with SR- the Jason and Richard/ deadbeat dad storyline.

Specially when there's no deadbeat dad storyline. In ytour own words, that's not the exact concept to use.

And Richard is still a great character to explore. The hero without super-powers.

BB was received very differently from SR.

Yes. It made 20 millions less worldwide than SR.

There is information beyond the $$ that WB has considered. If there wasn't we'd have a sequel in production by now.

Exavtly. It was all about what WB had in mind. But as people going to the theaters is concerned, more people went to see SR than BB. And GA was never aware of WB expectations; they just went to see the movie they wanted.

 

[Jordacar]

There's something all of you are forgetting to mention on the $$ issue: Batman Begins made back it's budget, and Superman Returns didn't.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

yea i said that...like i said they dont have to worry about the canceled superman movies cost this time and can hold back the budget for the sequel a bit.

i hope it happens. oh well at least wb tried.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Yes. It made 20 millions less worldwide than SR.

yea and most people will tell you batman begins is better.

 

[El Payaso]

There's something all of you are forgetting to mention on the $$ issue: Batman Begins made back it's budget, and Superman Returns didn't.

And THAT is the real problem. The budget.

yea and most people will tell you batman begins is better.

Any link to this official worldwide opinion poll?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Common sense after the success of Iron Man and The Dark Knight this past summer.

Just because those 2 made money doesnt mean a Superman movie will, not to mention, both of these movies had infinetely better marketing than SR had.

Why would anyone intentionally make a crappy movie? Isn't that a recipe for dissaster?

It is, but studio's keep doing it, see Catwoman, and most Fox movies from the last 10 years.

We know they want not just a successful film, but a HUGELY successful film. If 400 mil WW isn't enough, they aren'e going to break that with a crappy film are they? Do you think TDK was intended for kiddies? None of these comic films are intended for kids. Parents take their kids b/c the parents are stupid and either don't understand or care that these are films for older teens and adults.

No, TDK wasnt made for kiddies, but that is why the budget increase from BB to TDK was very small.

A Superman film that's only about action and thin on story is not going to get the huge success they are looking for. They have to get both worlds- quality film and fun. The right balance of action with the right balance of story. I've said it before, but I don't think the balance of action and story in SR was lopsided either way. It was just the wrong story for SUperman and was more about nostalgia than the character. It was paced too slow and it was pretty boring too. Not too long, just boring and slow. TDK was pretty long, but it wasn't boring once it got going, but it was a slow starter.

But that was my problem with TDK, it wasnt long enough, we didnt get to know the characters enough to care about their plights, IMO, SR did this better than TDK, though TDK is definately the better overall movie.

My point still stands though Mega Joe, if SR had made $50-100 million more WW, WB would be making a sequel, and the thoughts of the fans wouldnt even come into their thoughts, just like they arent now. $ bills are.

 

[afan]

IMO whatever success SR had at the BO, is solely due to the power of the Superman character, and whatever shortcomings it had at the BO is solely due to the GA's dis-satisfaction with the story of SR.

 

[El Payaso]

IMO whatever success SR had at the BO, is solely due to the power of the Superman character, and whatever shortcomings it had at the BO is solely due to the GA's dis-satisfaction with the story of SR.

And what the background for this would be?

 

[afan]

Just my opinion, based on SR first wknd(the initial draw/popularity of the character) and the drop off that followed(the word of mouth for the film itself).

 

[Cosmic]

okay, so wb wants to reboot the superman franchise. Again.

Fine, let's say they take a shot at it, and let's say the next superman movie is awesome. Maybe not the dark knight awesome, but at least iron man/batman begins awesome. Maybe they even bring back brandon routh and make it work.

Since superman returns is considered by many (re: Wb) to be a failed crack at the man of steel, and since its story won't effectively continue in any meaningful way, but instead be replaced by something new and hopefully cooler, i was wondering if this former tentpole event film might eventually be regarded as some sort of overblown b-movie footnote in the history of superman?

<lmao>

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Any link to this official worldwide opinion poll?

i meant like most people you would ask who saw the two. come on now its not like i said "everyone who saw them says batman begins is better"

mmmkay

 

[redfirebird2008]

Fine, let's say they take a shot at it, and let's say the next Superman movie is awesome. Maybe not The Dark Knight awesome, but at least Iron Man/Batman Begins awesome. Maybe they even bring back Brandon Routh and make it work.

This analogy has me confused. Batman Begins and Iron Man are just as good as TDK. I think if they can manage to make a Superman movie on the level of any of those three films, they will satisfy a hell of a lot of people out there. Then again, I'm of the opinion that they already did it with the first two Superman movies, so perhaps they should just stop at this point.

 

[X Knight]

We can all debate whether SR or BB was the better movie or which performed better critic wise and BO wise. We can also debate the exact reasons why SR "underperformed."

But, from WB's perspective at least, it is very clear to me which movie was more successful. And that's BB.

Why?

Because BB has already had a mega-successful sequel in TDK ( which was released 3 years after BB ) and there's already talk of a 3rd movie.

The same happened after the 1st Spider-man movie and Iron Man. Both of those movies were successful, and plans for the sequel were announced fairly quickly.

This summer will be 3 years since SR came out. There still has been no official word as to the future of the franchise. If a sequel were to come out this year, production on it would have been well underway by now. We would already know what the sequel would be about, who the new villain(s) would be, etc. We would NOT be in this murky, ambiguous mess or "waiting period" that we are in now. We would be discussing FACTS ( not rumors or speculations ) about the next Superman movie....not endlessly discussing/debating SR.......

So, in WB's eyes, the Batman franchise has been more successful than the Superman franchise.

Now, could there still be a SR sequel released in the next few years? Yes. This whole Superman Unleashed thing seems to point in that direction. But, WB needs to get the ball rolling fairly quickly if they want to make a sequel.

The longer they wait to make a sequel to SR...the longer they wait before they start releasing some official news......the more likely it will be that we won't get a SR sequel and that SR will indeed become a "footnote."

 

[redfirebird2008]

We can all debate whether SR or BB was the better movie or which performed better critic wise and BO wise. We can also debate the exact reasons why SR "underperformed."

But, from WB's perspective at least, it is very clear to me which movie was more successful. And that's BB.

Why?

Because BB has already had a mega-successful sequel in TDK ( which was released 3 years after BB ) and there's already talk of a 3rd movie.

The same happened after the 1st Spider-man movie and Iron Man. Both of those movies were successful, and plans for the sequel were announced fairly quickly.

This summer will be 3 years since SR came out. There still has been no official word as to the future of the franchise. If a sequel were to come out this year, production on it would have been well underway by now. We would already know what the sequel would be about, who the new villain(s) would be, etc. We would NOT be in this murky, ambiguous mess or "waiting period" that we are in now. We would be discussing FACTS ( not rumors or speculations ) about the next Superman movie....not endlessly discussing/debating SR.......

So, in WB's eyes, the Batman franchise has been more successful than the Superman franchise.

Now, could there still be a SR sequel released in the next few years? Yes. This whole Superman Unleashed thing seems to point in that direction. But, WB needs to get the ball rolling fairly quickly if they want to make a sequel.

The longer they wait to make a sequel to SR...the longer they wait before they start releasing some official news......the more likely it will be that we won't get a SR sequel and that SR will indeed become a "footnote."

It all boils down to the fact that they dumped AT LEAST $120 million more into Superman Returns than Batman Begins. BB apparently came in under budget. It was budgeted at $150 million and the actual cost was $135 million. Superman Returns cost around $200 million for the movie itself, but there was another $60-70 million in "development hell" costs tied to it from the Tim Burton/Nick Cage fiasco of the 1990's and so forth.

I don't know if WB had really good polling numbers from the diehard Batman fans or what coming out of opening weekend, but one of their executives said on the Sunday of its opening weekend that a $70 million 5-day opening was "enough" for a sequel. I don't know if they knew it'd have good legs at the box office like it did or that it would be as popular on DVD as it was, but they were apparently happy enough with a rather lackluster start for it. There wasn't a peep out of WB regarding sequels during Superman Returns' run at the box office.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It all boils down to the fact that they dumped AT LEAST $120 million more into Superman Returns than Batman Begins. BB apparently came in under budget. It was budgeted at $150 million and the actual cost was $135 million. Superman Returns cost around $200 million for the movie itself, but there was another $60-70 million in "development hell" costs tied to it from the Tim Burton/Nick Cage fiasco of the 1990's and so forth.

I don't know if WB had really good polling numbers from the diehard Batman fans or what coming out of opening weekend, but one of their executives said on the Sunday of its opening weekend that a $70 million 5-day opening was "enough" for a sequel. I don't know if they knew it'd have good legs at the box office like it did or that it would be as popular on DVD as it was, but they were apparently happy enough with a rather lackluster start for it. There wasn't a peep out of WB regarding sequels during Superman Returns' run at the box office.

They were talking about an SR sequel during the BO of SR quite a lot, Singer was even signed to a sequel once it reached $200 million domestic also.

Also, were did you hear that BB came in under budget? As most sites list its budget as beinfg $150 million.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

At this point should the thread title be...

Is "Superman Returns" a footnote?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

There's something all of you are forgetting to mention on the $$ issue: Batman Begins made back it's budget, and Superman Returns didn't.

THANK YOU!!!

A reasonable budget, critical and commercial reaction, and an overall satisfactory box office, which made it's budget back is what made Batman Begins a success...

WB had every reason to go for a sequel with a contained budget... and *BOOM* The Dark Knight

-----------

A huge budget (including all it's previous reboots), lukewarm to 'meh' critical and commercial reaction, and a very disappointing budget to what was meant to be the great return of our greatest hero to the big screen is what made Superman Returns a disappointment...

WB has every reason to fear a sequel... they need to be careful and watch their money. Batman is their media darling now and has been since 1989 in one way or another. They only naturally want to focus on what sells.