Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[GL's Light]

He had enough money to make the film because Warners and Legendary gave him extra money to make it after he went over budget. That's not a wise use of a budget.

 

[stargazer]

NOTE:

Also, I did not think SR would destroy X3 mainly for the reason that X3's box office largely road the coattails of that amazing movie called X-Men 2, directed by some guy named Bryan Singer.

Word.

That's why I'm very confident that the same thing will happen with the SR franchise, and even better. I hope WB supports Bryan on his vision, which I and most people liked.

3) Batman Begins took inspiration from several acclaimed comicbooks, notably Batman: The Man Who Falls, Batman: Year One and Batman: The Long Halloween. SR did not base itself on any comicbook stories.

4) Fans were happier overall with Batman Begins. No great online divide, no calls for Nolan to be kicked out of the franchise or Bale to be recast, no Defenders of Nolan's Vision popping up. It pleased fans and gradually won over the mainstream (who had been wary after the previous movies and who also expected camp flamboyance because of the prior movies and the TV series, so the gritty realism was a cold-water shock)

5) Batman Begins had amazing 'legs', never dropping 50% or more until its 15th week of release. That means people were saying good things about it. I recall a woman at work (total non-superhero person, a mum in her 40s) coming in raving about how 'gripping' the movie was after she'd been to see it several weeks after release, based on the recommedations of some tennis-playing friends. Although that's just one woman, it indicates to me that the film was solid enough to get people seeing it who might not otherwise have bothered. The film's reputation spoke for itself.

3. This is irrelevant to general audiences. They have NO idea of any of this, nor they care. It is relevant to same fans, though.
You can say that to the GP, the Donner Superman, aka Christopher Reeve is the version of 'Superman' they know and are most familiar with. General audiences just want an entertaining movie to watch, and I think that SR did well enough as a reintroduction of Superman to the big screen. It had a very respectable BO, and it went against none other than Pirates, which was terrible, IMO. Oh well..

4. It was obvious that the Welling fans, some bitter X-Men fans, and some post-crisis comic fans were never going to like this franchise...it's obvious, and they have been VERY loud, and continue to be so, on their dislike of the movie. Still, they are a tiny minority. The SR franchise had some very clear things against it, but they don't really matter in the grand squeme of things.

5. Wasn't BB in theaters longer than SR?

 

[X-Maniac]

You can't say he didn't spend his budget wisely just because he cut the sequence. He spent money on a sequence and a set element, and still had plenty of money for the rest of the film. Obviously he budgeted well.

Cutting the sequence later on may have been unwise, but the spending of the budget was not. At the time he was spending the budget, he could not have known he was going to be cutting the sequence.

But did he have plenty of money for the rest of the movie? Didn't the climax scene with a tidal wave engulfing Metropolis and Superman lifting a train out of the way get cut for budgetary reasons? Some say it was for story reasons, i'm not sure.

He also asked for more budget beyond the $185m allotted.... and then he cut an $11m sequence. Does that sound like good fiscal management?

I recall also that costly fossil exhibits were loaned from across the world for the opening museum scene in X2 but the opening scene was considerably edited so much of the loaned material is never seen.

I just think it's possible to make a good movie for a lot less than was spent on SR which was largely a human drama not an action movie. Don't mistake my debate for rabid hatred of the movie, I was disappointed but we are chiefly examining what Singer might do for a sequel and why SR didn't create public excitement.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Despite the negativity even the haters should admit that SR was generally well accepted. If you go everywhere from amazon to yahoo.movies you'll see a lot of negative reviews, but the vast majority are more than positive.

It wasn't a bright critical success like Batman Begins or Spiderman, but it remains one of the most successful sh movies: $391m ww at the box office ($20m more than Batman Begins, $103m more than FF2) and good reviews.

I admit that lot of people, me included, were doubtful about its commercial success. At WB they clearly expected more from their main character...and I'm quite sure that since the 2006, the sequel hasn't been a priority for them. They even tried to create a different franchise with the JLA (the famigerate "transformers with superheroes").
Nevertheless by now, after the JLA debacle (they have spent a lot of money for nothing), I suppose that the SR sequel, with more action and a good script, is a fair bet for the future.

 

[tekcopedis]

SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't make as much as WB had hoped for the same reason BATMAN BEGINS didnt make a ton of money. It wasn't aimed at kids. It was a darker, more serious Superman tale. It has nothing to do with the action, it has to do with the tone that was presented, and the more adult conflict that was utilized.



When you say "Excitement" in reference to the suit, what exactly are you referring to? The color palette of it? I think your problem should be with Routh. Not the suit.



Agreed, though the threat need not neccessarily be Darkseid. Kryptonian villains could be utilized, almost anything, really.

And people, how on Earth was SUPERMAN RETURNS "grounded in reality"? Just because it took place on Earth, and no one else in the movie happened to have any superpowers (Other than Jason)? Is that really the logic people have for why Darksied wouldn't make sense in a sequel?

Did anyone notice the man who could fly at supersonic speeds, lift amazing weight, shoot heat from his eyes, freeze things with his breath...and the crystals that grew into an alien continent?

Sometimes I think Chris Nolan's Batman franchise has neutered the logic center of most fanboys' brains.

The movie did not fail because it was too visually reality based.

It failed because it was not emotionally reality based.

Duh.

 

[Showtime]

What're you talking about?

Spider-Man 1: $403,706,375

Spider-Man 2: $373,585,825

Spider-Man 3:$336,530,303

Batman Begins:$205,343,774

Superman Returns:$200,081,192

Just looking domestically...WB had no reason to believe that Superman would do anything near $500 million. Any business analyst worth his Harvard degree could have explained the 14 million different reasons why this version of Superman (which they greenlit) wouldn't make Spider-Man numbers.

Now, if you look at Begins total worldwide, it was around 366m, right around the same for Superman Returns, which made about 30 million more.

This is what we call bad business projections: not bad audience turn out.

WB made an inappropriate judgement.

No one here tells me why WB could expect an $500 million dollar turn-out. It's just this arbitrary number people throw out there and digest. Adjusted for inflation (I believe Boxofficemojo does this), Superman: The Movie made $300 worldwide.

What was this magical world WB was living in or are we having some people wanting to bring a movie down on the backs of a bunch of money-hungry, bad-decision maker studio execs?

They believed Superman Returns would do 500 Million WW, not domestically, and Alan Horn was quoted as saying so?

"I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Hardly seems arbitrary?

Again, that is not even close to Spiderman numbers. If you want to look at this domestically you could cut it down the middle to make it easier and say maybe WB was looking for Superman Returns to make 250 million domestic, again not even close to being unreasonable. On your chart this would fall about 90million below Spiderman 3 domestically, the worst performer out of all the Spiderman movies.

So again how is 500 million WW even close to be unrealistic for a Superman movie? Even if this was true, which there is nothing you have said that proves to me it isn't, Superman Returns didn't make back it's budget, it is right there in black and white. So although it wasn't a failure, it wasn't a profitable entity against it's budget. Which is what all studios look for.

That being said it is still getting a sequel.

 

[X-Maniac]

3. This is irrelevant to general audiences. They have NO idea of any of this, nor they care. It is relevant to same fans, though.
You can say that to the GP, the Donner Superman, aka Christopher Reeve is the version of 'Superman' they know and are most familiar with.

4. It was obvious that the Welling fans, some bitter X-Men fans, and some post-crisis comic fans were never going to like this franchise...it's obvious, and they have been VERY loud, and continue to be so, on their dislike of the movie. Still, they are a tiny minority.

5. Wasn't BB in theaters longer than SR?

Based on your numbering above:

3) Fans are important - they are the ones who see a movie dozens of times and go on and on about it. And so are established versions important. But Batman Begins went away from the established mainstream versions (a camp TV series and the ridiculed previous movies). Remember the last Superman movies were ridiculed too. So, ignoring established versions and using comicbook classic stories can work.

4) Welling fans clearly want Welling, i think most X-Men fans expected something as strong as X2 in using comicbook stories as well as a director's vision (thus pleasing fans as well as the public). I thought SR would be like X2 but taken to another level completely because of Singer developing his craft and having creative freedom, a large budget and not having Fox execs demanding changes. I didn't feel it was X2 taken to another level, it was taken down a notch or at least off to one side on a strange tangent.

5) Batman Begins was out for two weeks more, yes.

Also, BB's budget was $150m and it made $205m domestically, clearing its budget figure by a good amount. SR had a $204m/209m budget but made $200m, in other words it didn't get its budget back domestically. That is a key factor in studio decisions, it's a sign a movie is not performing that well.

I'm not a total worshipper of BB nor a total hater of SR - both are flawed, neither is perfect - but to me BB feels more like an accurate Batman movie than SR feels like a true Superman movie.

 

[Showtime]

People already complain there wasn't enough action, had the WB adhered to the smaller budget there would have been even less. Do you really feel Superman Return would have made more money with less action then it already had?

It wasn't the amount of money that was spent which could have led to more action, it was HOW the money was spent.

 

[The Guard]

He had enough money to make the film because Warners and Legendary gave him extra money to make it after he went over budget. That's not a wise use of a budget.

Welcome to Hollywood. Nolan went over, too. And let me tell you a story about a little project called THE LORD OF THE RINGS...

What does not having enough money at some point to complete this massive movie have to do specifically with not using the budget wisely? Unless you can prove that he didn't, running out of money isn't good enough to say he was irresponsible with the money he was given. It's not like we KNOW how much things cost, and it's not like we know how far $185 million was going to go. WB likely wouldn't have given him that money if they didn't think he needed it. It's not like he asked for it in the middle of filming. He was quoted very early on saying the budget would approach $250 million. And it's very possible that $185 million was simply not enough money to make the movie that WB greenlit.

But did he have plenty of money for the rest of the movie? Didn't the climax scene with a tidal wave engulfing Metropolis and Superman lifting a train out of the way get cut for budgetary reasons? Some say it was for story reasons, i'm not sure.

I don't know. Do you? That stuff very well could have been cut for budget reasons, but that doesn't neccessarily mean much in a film this size. Stuff is going to have to get cut. Look at how much was sliced out of X3 just because of the sheer scale of it all.

He also asked for more budget beyond the $185m allotted.... and then he cut an $11m sequence. Does that sound like good fiscal management?

And asking for more money on a massive film is directly related to cutting that sequence how, exactly? Fiscal management and wise USE of the budget are not neccessarily the same thing.

I recall also that costly fossil exhibits were loaned from across the world for the opening museum scene in X2 but the opening scene was considerably edited so much of the loaned material is never seen.

What is your point? Do you personally know how "costly" those items were?

I just think it's possible to make a good movie for a lot less than was spent on SR which was largely a human drama not an action movie. Don't mistake my debate for rabid hatred of the movie, I was disappointed but we are chiefly examining what Singer might do for a sequel and why SR didn't create public excitement.

And what does the budget have to do with that?

 

[stargazer]

The movie did not fail because it was too visually reality based.

It failed because it was not emotionally reality based.

Duh.

what?!

 

[tekcopedis]

what?!

In simple cave man's terms.

Nobody cares how your movie looks, they care about if they care about it.

Nobody really did. Not in the way they cared about many other successful movies, even the ones that had no way near the hype as Superman Returns did.

People wanted to see a full on character piece, dismantling the character into its up most basics, re-examine the concept of Superman and show us WHY we would need a Superman in todays world.

You know, Batman Begins?

Instead, we got Donner 70's Film Returns From The Grave...Now With A Kid!

....

Yea.

....

...zzzzz...

 

[Ita-KalEl]

IMO the target of the MOS movie should be to increase the SR total gross, with a cheaper budget ($170-$180m).
I'm sure that after of a good trailer with Superman fighting vs a supervillain (maybe with some military aircraft, missiles and fire), the 99.9% of this forum will buy the ticket for the premiere, Singer or not Singer.

 

[The Guard]

That may be why fans didn't respond to it. General audiences don't tend to understand/care about such things.

They just want action.

And seats with beverage holders!

But mainly action.

 

[GL's Light]

Welcome to Hollywood. Nolan went over, too. And let me tell you a story about a little project called THE LORD OF THE RINGS...

Sure, going over budget is hardly rare in Hollywood. Although the two projects you cite aren't particularly relevant. You state that Nolan went over budget and that the actual budget was $170 million, but every source I've seen cites the budget as $150 million, and I've not heard that Nolan went significantly over budget. So unless you can back up what you're saying I'm going to stick with the established facts.

As for The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson achieved an astonishing level of scale and production values on the budget spent on the trilogy. Plus both Batman Begins and, obviously, The Lord of the Rings returned box office grosses that justified the cost of the films.

 

[The Guard]

There are days I wish I could give you my sources phone numbers and have you ask them a few key questions.

There are reasons NEW LINE and Peter Jackson had some friction beyond their legal issues. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of reasons.

I give up. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't make $900 million. I concede it is a failure.

...

 

[stargazer]

1)
3) That one woman is just one woman, but still it's a response i never heard with relation to SR.

.

I have, honestly. All the people I know liked SR, and some love it. But we can't proove anything with that, right? Since we can't verify it. It's funny, all the poeple who don't like SR, only know people who doesn't like it either, and viceversa, lol.
I can't say the same of Hulk, though.. NO one I know likes it, myself included.

 

[Showtime]

There are days I wish I could give you my sources phone numbers and have you ask them a few key questions.

There are reasons NEW LINE and Peter Jackson had some friction beyond their legal issues. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of reasons.

I give up. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't make $900 million. I concede it is a failure.

...

900 Million is kooky, 500 Million WW, is not unrealistic at all.

In regards to Peter Jackson, you don't really need connections, that was pretty well known.

 

[The Guard]

No, no...it had to be $900 million. Or it's a failure.

 

[bosef982]

It didn't perform as well as WB expected because WB had absurd expectations for this project. They have since admitted this. And it didn't perform as fans expected because the movie was more of an adult one, and not a kid's movie. That's just...obvious. Why people haven't figured this out yet is beyond me.

Let's look at some numbers.

SUPERMAN RETURNS made $84.6 million in its first five days.
BATMAN BEGINS made $71.1 in it's first five.

And if you compare their opening weekends:
BATMAN BEGINS had just under 47, and SUPERMAN RETURNS had 52. THat's 17 million per day for SUPERMAN RETURNS, and around 15 for BATMAN BEGINS.

SUPERMAN RETURNS made more money in the long run, so clearly there were more tickets sold. It outperformed BATMAN BEGINS at the box office, this is simple fact.

BATMAN BEGINS had a worldwide box office of $371 million.
SUPERMAN RETURNS had a worldwide box office of $391 million.

BATMAN BEGINS had a reported budget of $150 million, but it was closer to $170 million.
SUPERMAN RETURNS had a reported budget of $270 million. Over $40 million of that number is believed to take into account the failed SUPERMAN LIVES and JJ Abrams SUPERMAN projects.

It seems that early on, both movies performed about the same, which makes a lot of sense. However, SUPERMAN RETURNS cost over $100 million more to make. Therein lies the difference.

SUPERMAN RETURNS not performing as strongly as WB's ridiculous expectations doesn't mean much in context.

And people, PIRATES was a juggernaut. Had BATMAN BEGINS been up against PIRATES, it too would have been "drained".

If you didn't like the movie fine, but don't sit here and pretend that it wasn't a financial and a critical success.

Jesus, Dave, you make me so hot!

And, X-Maniac, I was not blindly defending Singer's movie. I have beef with SR. I was defending what needed to be defended.

Unlike most people, I don't believe a movie's flaws permit you to go on an all-out assault on the director.

 

[bosef982]

1) Even if we blame WB entirely for the AMOUNT of budget, they were not the ones who spent $11m on a Krypton scene then dumped it, nor did they spend cash on growing a field of corn only to replace it with CGI. That's down to Bryan's judgement. He alone decided to cut the $11m sequence, and a whole lot more. So he did not spend the allocated budget wisely.

2) You say 'most people in the general public' then quote critical reviews. Critics are not most people in the general public. If most people in the general public loved it, then it would have opened huge and kept strong. Critics appreciated its cinematic nature outside the normal formula, but that's not the only factor to consider.

3) That one woman is just one woman, but still it's a response i never heard with relation to SR.

4) Sure, Pirates would have sapped some of SR's box office, that's true. But the modest opening weekend DESPITE these glowing critical reviews tells you something was wrong somewhere. Why didn't people rush to see it opening weekend? Why didn't reviews persuade people to go and see it?
Why didn't the marketing get people there to see it?

Blindly defending Bryan's work at any cost is not doing your cause any good.

Clearly, the movie did not resonate with the general public and clearly it created a divide online - the largest and most persistent I've ever seen with a superhero movie. Regardless of your wishing to be in some lofty superior world where anyone who disliked SR has no taste or sense, you've yet to explain why the film didn't perform as expected.

You're right, the film didn't perform as expected.

And as The Guard has pointed out, it's not because of audiences, it's because of the ridiculous expectations of WB.

I've never said that the film performed as expected OR that the film made a profit. I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS.

I've been analyzing the proper context in which this all needs to be viewed. Most of you don't like this context because GOD FORBID it doesn't allow a viewing of Bryan Singer as the anti-christ.

 

[Showtime]

No, no...it had to be $900 million. Or it's a failure.

I'll let you deal with that weirdness.

 

[GL's Light]

I think there's been more debate about SR's budget and box office than about JFK's assassination at this point.

 

[stargazer]

In simple cave man's terms.

Nobody cares how your movie looks, they care about if they care about it.

Nobody really did. Not in the way they cared about many other successful movies, even the ones that had no way near the hype as Superman Returns did.

People wanted to see a full on character piece, dismantling the character into its up most basics, re-examine the concept of Superman and show us WHY we would need a Superman in todays world.

You know, Batman Begins?

Instead, we got Donner 70's Film Returns From The Grave...Now With A Kid!

....

Yea.

....

...zzzzz...

Overblown too much, no? LOL, funny, funny world. You don't care, but where are your facts to say NO ONE cared?! LOL. Did you conduct a poll asking everybody out the theaters after watchin the film? Otherwise, well, it's just your opinion.

And I thought BB was good, but I really don't care much about it, though, I mean, I can't see the amazing and orgasmic inducing things others see.. It had a lot of cheese, and crappy action.. so..

 

[Showtime]

I guess I can put a stop to this at any time.

 

[bosef982]

Word.

That's why I'm very confident that the same thing will happen with the SR franchise, and even better. I hope WB supports Bryan on his vision, which I and most people liked.



3. This is irrelevant to general audiences. They have NO idea of any of this, nor they care. It is relevant to same fans, though.
You can say that to the GP, the Donner Superman, aka Christopher Reeve is the version of 'Superman' they know and are most familiar with. General audiences just want an entertaining movie to watch, and I think that SR did well enough as a reintroduction of Superman to the big screen. It had a very respectable BO, and it went against none other than Pirates, which was terrible, IMO. Oh well..

4. It was obvious that the Welling fans, some bitter X-Men fans, and some post-crisis comic fans were never going to like this franchise...it's obvious, and they have been VERY loud, and continue to be so, on their dislike of the movie. Still, they are a tiny minority. The SR franchise had some very clear things against it, but they don't really matter in the grand squeme of things.

5. Wasn't BB in theaters longer than SR?

Who are you and why haven't we met sooner?

It's so refreshing finding voices of reason on these boards -- few and far between, but also potent and concise.

The general public reacted well to Superman.

And your post touches on the most amazing point of all of this:

The ulterior reasons that people attack this movie -- Welling fans, disgruntled X-fans, etc.

Some of you just have beef with Singer because he's Singer. It's silly.

And I'm not going to sit here, X-Maniac and Showtime, and go through the list of things I didn't like about Superman Returns as if doing so then offers me a permit to make statements concerning the rather skewed and opportunistic manipulation of the box office information by over-eager, disgruntled, scheming fans.

Your information, the way you present it, and the facts you used are patent incorrect and over-analyzed to the point of falsity.

The Guard easily laid out the real numbers, projections, time tables, etc. and they clearly support SR.

So, unless you all want to start hoping over to the Begins boards and blasting that movie in this fashion:

"Jeez, Nolan should thank god he didn't spend a lot of money on Batman Begins otherwise it wouldn't have even turned a profit!!!"

That's where this logic eventually leads.

My advice to most of you, don't push snowballs down cliffs unless you're ready for how big they'll get.