Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[Showtime]

The first film introduced a measure of sci-fi Kryptonian elements. The most logical way to go with the sequel is to expand on that and to have Brainiac as a villain. Perhaps New Krypton continues to develop and evolve as it drifts through space, and either Brainiac is drawn to it or actually develops on New Krypton as the result of AI embedded within Kryptonian crystals there.

Then when you've had a progression towards a greater level of sci-fi, and you've had a sci-fi villain in Brainiac, you could continue that sci-fi progression and move on to Darkseid in the third film.

Well I think from what Singer set up, it can easily transfer into Braniac, Metallo, Eradicator, Bizzaro, and Doomsday or any combination of the two.

Let me ask you a question: was Batman Begins a box office failure?

No?

Okay, well then, neither was Superman, who made more.

Any expectation of box office performance is an expectation, subject to human flaw and exaggeration -- not reality.

That argument holds no weight at all. The reason Batman Begins was a box office success and considered as such is because it made profit on the domestic side. This is a standard that all movies are held. Superman Returns did not.

And Box Office performance may be expectation or speculation to fans and websites, but to the studios they are calculated projections as to whether or not they are going to make a profit. So box office performance is extremely important to the studios and very much a reality.

Bosef, I love SR. But I was expecting it was going to be the winner at the BO that summer and WB was expecting that too. But you're right maybe failure wasn't the right word, dissappointment fits better.

I didn't at all, but I projected much more 250-285million domestic.

 

[GL's Light]

Personally I have no wish to see Doomsday in a live action Superman film.

 

[The Guard]

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.

The way Singer's costume was cut and coloured, there was very little excitement and Routh certainly looked out of proportion - i.e. Long torso, thin neck, narrow chest.

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.

The first film introduced a measure of sci-fi Kryptonian elements. The most logical way to go with the sequel is to expand on that and to have Brainiac as a villain. Perhaps New Krypton continues to develop and evolve as it drifts through space, and either Brainiac is drawn to it or actually develops on New Krypton as the result of AI embedded within Kryptonian crystals there.

Then when you've had a progression towards a greater level of sci-fi, and you've had a sci-fi villain in Brainiac, you could continue that sci-fi progression and move on to Darkseid in the third film.

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.

 

[Showtime]

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

Not to mention studio executives.

 

[bosef982]

But you yourself were surprised, perhaps disheartened, at Superman's lukewarm box office.

What you need to ask yourself is why people weren't running through the streets to get to see this film, DESPITE the positive reviews. And why all those glowing reviews didn't mean the film picked up pace as a 'must see' movie.

I wasn't on this part of the board prior to the movie so I am not sure what the general feeling was on here but I do recall that many people elsewhere on the Hype said SR would blow X3 out of the water. They ate crow for their meal, and were sat at the table with egg on their face.

So what was it? Crap marketing? Or a film that could not be marketed as an exciting summer superhero adventure because it just wasn't one.

I expected Superman to make about as much money as Batman, which it did and then some.

Everyone here who wants to say that Superman Returns sucks or was a box office failure side-steps this ONE CRUCIAL FACT -- Superman pulled in as much money as Batman. The same amount of people who were "running" through the streets to see Superman, did so for Batman.

This is a fundamental point you CANNOT argue with. If you consider Superman a BO failure, than you must to consider Batman Begins.

The audiences that were there for both franchises were tapped into and utilized.

The only reason SR is regarded as a BO failure was because WB lauded a huge amount of money into the film, atop inflated pre-production costs and the movie has to wallow with that burden.

It's sad because the positive reviews for Superman were the same for Batman and the same audience logically came out to see it thus producing the same box office -- with Superman taking in more.

What is so difficult to understand about this point?

 

[The Guard]

He does have a point. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't perform as well as WB expected, but that doesn't really mean it was a box office failure.

 

[bosef982]

Well I think from what Singer set up, it can easily transfer into Braniac, Metallo, Eradicator, Bizzaro, and Doomsday or any combination of the two.



That argument holds no weight at all. The reason Batman Begins was a box office success and considered as such is because it made profit on the domestic side. This is a standard that all movies are held. Superman Returns did not.

And Box Office performance may be expectation or speculation to fans and websites, but to the studios they are calculated projections as to whether or not they are going to make a profit. So box office performance is extremely important to the studios and very much a reality.



I didn't at all, but I projected much more 250-285million domestic.

To say that argument holds no water at all is shallow and incorrect, Showtime. You're better than that.

it of course holds water, and it takes to the natural next point which you stated --

WB!

Superman Returns was a ridiculously expensive movie. WB invested too much into it without properly considering the market out there.

It is reasonable when looking at say, Batman, and say "this movie will make right around that much." Instead, WB projected that Superman was Spider-Man (which it is not) and invested accordingly. Of course, not even the Spider-Man movies cost as much as Superman did.

What you're witnessing with Superman Returns in not box office failure; you're seeing bad business sense on behalf of the WB.

And if you watch WB closely, they are not the most savy business people when it comes to franchises (i.e. JLA debacle)

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.

 

[Seen]

I don't think anyone should consider "Superman Returns" a box office failure -- it made $400 million!

People expected it to make more, but just because it didn't reach people's high expectations, doesn't mean it's a failure.

People will argue that Superman should have made more because he's a more popular character. That might have been true before, but now...

Not so much.

 

[Showtime]

To say that argument holds no water at all is shallow and incorrect, Showtime. You're better than that.
it of course holds water, and it takes to the natural next point which you stated --

It's not shallow and incorrect in the least?

You can't compare Batman Begins which turned a profit against the domestic, with Superman Returns which did not? This is what studios hold as a standard across the board. It's apples and oranges.

For the record, I never said that Superman Returns was a box office failure. It didn't meet projections or expectations though, and no matter how you spin it, that means something in the movie industry.

WB! Superman Returns was a ridiculously expensive movie. WB invested too much into it without properly considering the market out there. It is reasonable when looking at say, Batman, and say "this movie will make right around that much." Instead, WB projected that Superman was Spider-Man (which it is not) and invested accordingly. Of course, not even the Spider-Man movies cost as much as Superman did.What you're witnessing with Superman Returns in not box office failure; you're seeing bad business sense on behalf of the WB. And if you watch WB closely, they are not the most savy business people when it comes to franchises (i.e. JLA debacle)

Warner Bros projected that Superman Returns would make 500 Million WW, I don't see how that is a unrealistic projection for the movie at all? How is that even close to Spiderman? Well short of the 800 Million + WW that Spiderman made.

I also blame WB for a lot of things with Superman Returns that I don't like, but the original budget for the movie was 184 Million and if that was adhered too they would have turned a profit against the domestic. Food for thought there.

 

[X-Maniac]

I expected Superman to make about as much money as Batman, which it did and then some.

Everyone here who wants to say that Superman Returns sucks or was a box office failure side-steps this ONE CRUCIAL FACT -- Superman pulled in as much money as Batman. The same amount of people who were "running" through the streets to see Superman, did so for Batman.

This is a fundamental point you CANNOT argue with. If you consider Superman a BO failure, than you must to consider Batman Begins.

The audiences that were there for both franchises were tapped into and utilized.

The only reason SR is regarded as a BO failure was because WB lauded a huge amount of money into the film, atop inflated pre-production costs and the movie has to wallow with that burden.

It's sad because the positive reviews for Superman were the same for Batman and the same audience logically came out to see it thus producing the same box office -- with Superman taking in more.

What is so difficult to understand about this point?

Well, disregarding your increasing font size (font isn't audible, although i can see you're trying to raise your voice)... let's look at what you say

1) Batman Begins cost less to make, so it made more profit. Studio execs were happier

2) Batman Begins was a total restart, establishing the character's origins, how he became Batman, where he got the technology and gadgetry. It was not a vague history, it was not an homage to anything. It was a clearly defined reboot.

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.

6) It's not just WB who overspent on SR, it was Singer. I recall Singer saying he could spend whatever he wanted and execs then tightened the purse strings. But the movie overspent its original $185m budget considerably. Despite that, Bryan spent $3million on the 'bullet to the eye' scene alone and then he absurdly cut the $11m Krypton scene. Does this sound like wise use of budget on Singer's part? Does growing a wbole field of corn and then replacing it with CGI sound like prudent use of funds? No.

7) Look at the budgets for Transformers ($150m), 300 ($65m). And look at the budget for X3 ($150m on The Numbers website is nearest the right figure - ignore the $210m on BoxOfficeMojo as it incorrectly adds other costs just as BoxOfficeMojo incorrectly states $270m for SR). And yet X3 had a huge salary bill approaching $100m with the huge paychecks for Halle, Hugh Jackman, McKellen and Stewart and all the other cast. Even if we take the BoxOfficeMojo figure for X3 as correct, it still got a lot more value for money than SR. Bottom line - Singer is not good at spending money wisely.

 

[bosef982]

It's not shallow and incorrect in the least?

You can't compare Batman Begins which turned a profit against the domestic, with Superman Returns which did not? This is what studios hold as a standard across the board. It's apples and oranges.

For the record, I never said that Superman Returns was a box office failure. It didn't meet projections or expectations though, and no matter how you spin it, that means something in the movie industry.



Warner Bros projected that Superman Returns would make 500 Million WW, I don't see how that is a unrealistic projection for the movie at all? How is that even close to Spiderman? Well short of the 800 Million + WW that Spiderman made.

I also blame WB for a lot of things with Superman Returns that I don't like, but the original budget for the movie was 184 Million and if that was adhered too they would have turned a profit against the domestic. Food for thought there.

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?

 

[Olea]

Well, disregarding your increasing font size (font isn't audible, although i can see you're trying to raise your voice)... let's look at what you say

1) Batman Begins cost less to make, so it made more profit. Studio execs were happier

2) Batman Begins was a total restart, establishing the character's origins, how he became Batman, where he got the technology and gadgetry. It was not a vague history, it was not an homage to anything. It was a clearly defined reboot.

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.

6) It's not just WB who overspent on SR, it was Singer. I recall Singer saying he could spend whatever he wanted and execs then tightened the purse strings. But the movie overspent its original $185m budget considerably. Despite that, Bryan spent $3million on the 'bullet to the eye' scene alone and then he absurdly cut the $11m Krypton scene. Does this sound like wise use of budget on Singer's part? Does growing a wbole field of corn and then replacing it with CGI sound like prudent use of funds? No.

7) Look at the budgets for Transformers ($150m), 300 ($65m). And look at the budget for X3 ($150m on The Numbers website is nearest the right figure - ignore the $210m on BoxOfficeMojo as it incorrectly adds other costs just as BoxOfficeMojo incorrectly states $270m for SR). And yet X3 had a huge salary bill approaching $100m with the huge paychecks for Halle, Hugh Jackman, McKellen and Stewart and all the other cast. Even if we take the BoxOfficeMojo figure for X3 as correct, it still got a lot more value for money than SR. Bottom line - Singer is not good at spending money wisely.

All valid points!!! Very well said!!!

 

[bosef982]

Well, disregarding your increasing font size (font isn't audible, although i can see you're trying to raise your voice)... let's look at what you say

1) Batman Begins cost less to make, so it made more profit. Studio execs were happier

2) Batman Begins was a total restart, establishing the character's origins, how he became Batman, where he got the technology and gadgetry. It was not a vague history, it was not an homage to anything. It was a clearly defined reboot.

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.

6) It's not just WB who overspent on SR, it was Singer. I recall Singer saying he could spend whatever he wanted and execs then tightened the purse strings. But the movie overspent its original $185m budget considerably. Despite that, Bryan spent $3million on the 'bullet to the eye' scene alone and then he absurdly cut the $11m Krypton scene. Does this sound like wise use of budget on Singer's part? Does growing a wbole field of corn and then replacing it with CGI sound like prudent use of funds? No.

7) Look at the budgets for Transformers ($150m), 300 ($65m). And look at the budget for X3 ($150m on The Numbers website is nearest the right figure - ignore the $210m on BoxOfficeMojo as it incorrectly adds other costs just as BoxOfficeMojo incorrectly states $270m for SR). And yet X3 had a huge salary bill approaching $100m with the huge paychecks for Halle, Hugh Jackman, McKellen and Stewart and all the other cast. Even if we take the BoxOfficeMojo figure for X3 as correct, it still got a lot more value for money than SR. Bottom line - Singer is not good at spending money wisely.

You can't just saying Singer was paying out of his own pocket. WB holds the purse-strings. They say yes or they say no. Ultimate spending responsiblity holds with them. In the movie industry, the director's primary concern is MAKING THE MOVIE. The producer's main concern is the budget and making the money. If WB can be excused for overspending (which they can't), then it falls onto the producers of the film (this is why you have line producers, UPM's, executive producers, etc.) -- but even that's not fair because in the end it's WB who has the money. Anyone saying otherwise is just playing in fiction.

And also I'd love to see other people knit-pick the entire prices of particular scenes in movies. I mean come on...are we trying this hard? Let's see how much the bridge sequence cost to do in X3 and find out how much it cost to a scene that was COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!!!

Come on, this is fanboy desperation. It's pathetic.

Superman Return's has a mixed reputation among fanboys for various reasons.

Most people in the general public enjoyed it; look at its positive reviews.

You're judging the entire population's response because of one woman.

Let's also note that Batman didn't have Pirates coming right after it that possibly could've contributed to it's "legs" issues. And don't discount that just because you want to...

You're very good at creating elaborate fictions that throw away some facts and nestle like lovers with other fallacies. When I first got on these boards, it was amusing to read these "stories." Now, it's just frustrating, and slightly depressing.

But whatever, no accounting for taste anymore, and apparently common sense either.

 

[GL's Light]

Adjusted for inflation (I believe Boxofficemojo does this), Superman: The Movie made $300 worldwide.

Superman: The Movie made $300 million worldwide in unadjusted terms. Adjusted for inflation that comes to just over a billion dollars in today's terms.

 

[X-Maniac]

You can't just saying Singer was paying out of his own pocket. WB holds the purse-strings. They say yes or they say no. Ultimate spending responsiblity holds with them. In the movie industry, the director's primary concern is MAKING THE MOVIE. The producer's main concern is the budget and making the money. If WB can be excused for overspending (which they can't), then it falls onto the producers of the film (this is why you have line producers, UPM's, executive producers, etc.) -- but even that's not fair because in the end it's WB who has the money. Anyone saying otherwise is just playing in fiction.

And also I'd love to see other people knit-pick the entire prices of particular scenes in movies. I mean come on...are we trying this hard? Let's see how much the bridge sequence cost to do in X3 and find out how much it cost to a scene that was COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!!!

Come on, this is fanboy desperation. It's pathetic.

Superman Return's has a mixed reputation among fanboys for various reasons.

Most people in the general public enjoyed it; look at its positive reviews.

You're judging the entire population's response because of one woman.

Let's also note that Batman didn't have Pirates coming right after it that possibly could've contributed to it's "legs" issues. And don't discount that just because you want to...

You're very good at creating elaborate fictions that throw away some facts and nestle like lovers with other fallacies. When I first got on these boards, it was amusing to read these "stories." Now, it's just frustrating, and slightly depressing.

But whatever, no accounting for taste anymore, and apparently common sense either.

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.

 

[The Guard]

I don't understand all the sniping. The movie made a lot of money by the time worldwide box office and DVD sales and merchandising was taken into account. A lot of money. WB holds the option to make a sequel. I mean, that's where we stand. Arguing about how it didn't do as well as they thought it would is just irrelevant. That's common knowledge.

 

[cronosred]

It's not shallow and incorrect in the least?

You can't compare Batman Begins which turned a profit against the domestic, with Superman Returns which did not? This is what studios hold as a standard across the board. It's apples and oranges.

For the record, I never said that Superman Returns was a box office failure. It didn't meet projections or expectations though, and no matter how you spin it, that means something in the movie industry.



Warner Bros projected that Superman Returns would make 500 Million WW, I don't see how that is a unrealistic projection for the movie at all? How is that even close to Spiderman? Well short of the 800 Million + WW that Spiderman made.

I also blame WB for a lot of things with Superman Returns that I don't like, but the original budget for the movie was 184 Million and if that was adhered too they would have turned a profit against the domestic. Food for thought there.

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?

 

[The Guard]

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.

Obviously he did spend the budget wisely. Know why? Because even though he squandered 11 million dollars on a sequence that wasn't even in the movie, the rest of the movie had plenty of money left over, and it pretty much all looked fantastic. It's not like there was a budget shortage in this movie, and he ran out of money or anything on that level.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't understand all the sniping. The movie made a lot of money by the time worldwide box office and DVD sales and merchandising was taken into account. A lot of money. WB holds the option to make a sequel. I mean, that's where we stand. Arguing about how it didn't do as well as they thought it would is just irrelevant. That's common knowledge.

Sure, it did very well on DVD release, that's true. But the issue is why it didn't perform as strongly as expected at the cinema. Even if Pirates drained the life out of it in its later weeks, that doesn't explain the opening weekend. There was obviously not a huge amount of excitement to see the movie. I saw the TV adverts and they didn't look 'exciting' because the movie isn't made to be 'exciting.'

 

[X-Maniac]

Obviously he did spend the budget wisely. Know why? Because even though he squandered 11 million dollars on a sequence that wasn't even in the movie, the rest of the movie had plenty of money left over, and it pretty much all looked fantastic. It's not like there was a budget shortage in this movie, and he ran out of money or anything on that level.

That makes no sense. How can 'spending wisely' and then 'squandering' be in the same sentence as part of the same argument?

 

[Dark_Lord]

No matter how many times I visit the Superman forums, it always seems like 2006.

 

[X-Maniac]

No matter how many times I visit the Superman forums, it always seems like 2006.

Perhaps we should all join hands and dance round and round in circles!

 

[GL's Light]

Singer and his producers should have been able to deliver the film as it stood on screen within the alloted budget. There were some bad decisions, and a production that started to spin a little out of control, leading to a costly shutdown at one point, that caused the overruns.

To be fair, Singer made very good use of his budgets on the X-Men films. But it looks like he needs producers who'll lend a firm, steadying hand, which Fox provided on the X-Men films and Warners didn't on SR.

One can argue that given the tone and storyline Singer and his writers designed for SR that Warners shouldn't have given it such a big budget, nor should they have expected it to gross $500 million or more worldwide, and that argument carries quite a bit of weight. But the fact remains that Warners did commit a lot of money to it and did have an expectation of a certain level of box office return, and SR's box office didn't deliver up to that level.

Having said that, it obviously still made enough money (when you throw in DVD revenue and so forth) for Warners and Legendary to think that it's worth having another crack at it with a sequel.

 

[The Guard]

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.

 

[The Guard]

Sure, it did very well on DVD release, that's true. But the issue is why it didn't perform as strongly as expected at the cinema. Even if Pirates drained the life out of it in its later weeks, that doesn't explain the opening weekend. There was obviously not a huge amount of excitement to see the movie. I saw the TV adverts and they didn't look 'exciting' because the movie isn't made to be 'exciting.'

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.