Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[stargazer]

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.

I know, but now with MOS they want to go all 'angry god' with it (more action-packed) but they still bit** about it!! I don't get it....do you?!

 

[cronosred]

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.

Yeah, X-Men 3 was a success because of Bryan Singer.

 

[bosef982]

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



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.

Really odd for a movie that was such a blinding, disliked, unmitigated failure?

That fact alone trashes most of what people say here, which is why they are so rabidly paying attention to this news.

 

[bosef982]

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.

You know what:

1) Go to film school..

2) Work your way up.

3) Find the creativity to be a director.

4) Discover how to manage, direct, and produce a movie.

5) Make one that people will like.


Then get back to me if you're going to analyze Singer's actions down to that detail.

People can criticize movies, but there's a line you cross where you need to be experienced in the film industry to make such wagers -- and you crossed it. It's the line where you start acting like you were up to direct the film.

 

[Showtime]

Really odd for a movie that was such a blinding, disliked, unmitigated failure?

Well I never said that, so I hope that isn't a passive aggressive swipe at me.

That fact alone trashes most of what people say here, which is why they are so rabidly paying attention to this news.

The sequel is happening, despite some of the issues and despite it falling below WB's pretty realistic projections (IMO).

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Returning In Topic, When do you think that there'll be something more official about the sequel (if it will really happen)?
IMO if we are really lucky for July-Aug (maybe in some interviews to the WB CEO or at ComiCon). If not, they have to announce it at least before Christmas.

 

[bosef982]

Yeah, X-Men 3 was a success because of Bryan Singer.

It's common knowledge that the quality of a preceding sequel will lend to the success of the next.

Why?

Because people expect from a sequel what they got from its predecessor.

Look at the Matrix franchise, perfect example.

Matrix -- unexpected box office hit -- 171 million

Matrix Reloaded -- massive box office hit despite negative reaction 290 mill

Matrix Revolutions -- box office fart 190 mil

What accounted for that fluctuation? It was the bad reaction to Matrix Reloaded.

This is common sense.

I'm willing to bet my career that if X4 came out this year or next, it'd be a box office disappointment due to X3.

Just how things work. It's like why do the ratings of a TV show that's doing well get higher, because each episode creates the word-of-mouth that brings people coming back and coming on.

If you can't process this, well there's some things I just don't have the time to teach.

 

[bosef982]

Well I never said that, so I hope that isn't a passive aggressive swipe at me.



The sequel is happening, despite some of the issues and despite it falling below WB's pretty realistic projections (IMO).

That wasn't a swipe at you, showtime. Don't worry.

 

[stargazer]

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.

.

Well, hi, nice to meet you! I'm just a huge SR fan, and an observer.. I've been reading this and many other forums, reviews, etc, and I noticed the agenda of those people...and they are so loud.

You know what:

1) Go to film school..

2) Work your way up.

3) Find the creativity to be a director.

4) Discover how to manage, direct, and produce a movie.

5) Make one that people will like.


Then get back to me if you're going to analyze Singer's actions down to that detail.

People can criticize movies, but there's a line you cross where you need to be experienced in the film industry to make such wagers -- and you crossed it. It's the line where you start acting like you were up to direct the film.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As if making a blockbuster and good movie was so easy..

 

[cronosred]

It's common knowledge that the quality of a preceding sequel will lend to the success of the next.

Why?

Because people expect from a sequel what they got from its predecessor.

Look at the Matrix franchise, perfect example.

Matrix -- unexpected box office hit -- 171 million

Matrix Reloaded -- massive box office hit despite negative reaction 290 mill

Matrix Revolutions -- box office fart 190 mil

What accounted for that fluctuation? It was the bad reaction to Matrix Reloaded.

This is common sense.

I'm willing to bet my career that if X4 came out this year or next, it'd be a box office disappointment due to X3.

Just how things work. It's like why do the ratings of a TV show that's doing well get higher, because each episode creates the word-of-mouth that brings people coming back and coming on.

If you can't process this, well there's some things I just don't have the time to teach.

Well then by that logic what success Superman Returns had was more because of Donner and Lester than Singer.

 

[BMM]

Yeah, X-Men 3 was a success because of Bryan Singer.

It wasn’t just because of Bryan Singer. He can't receive all the praise in one situation but avoid all the blame in another. That said, X2’s success directly attributes to the success of its sequel. That’s a valid argument. You don’t think a film’s all-important opening weekend performance is related to its predecessor’s success? A well received movie builds an audience and generates interest in a sequel. Why do you think Matrix Reloaded did so well after the Matrix but Matrix Revolutions did so poorly after Matrix Reloaded? Ditto for the Pirates sequels. What do you think is happening to the Batman franchise right now? If for some reason The Dark Knight absolutely sucks, it will have an impact on the interest to a follow up. That’s common sense.

Edit: bosef beat me to my Matrix comparison.

 

[stargazer]

Yeah, X-Men 3 was a success because of Bryan Singer.

Yes. And it's probably the main reason. And it could have been an even better success if Singer had directed it, I think..

 

[The Guard]

I know, but now with MOS they want to go all 'angry god' with it (more action-packed) but they still bit** about it!! I don't get it....do you?!

Oh...they should have put in the dog with the shifty eyes.

 

[bosef982]

Well then by that logic what success Superman Returns had was more because of Donner and Lester than Singer.

That's not entirely false, although you'd have to look at the later versions of Reeve's Superman. Also, poor quality plus time actually engenders a certain anticipation for something new, for redemption.

This is what happened with Batman Begins.

Also, note that we have nearly two decades passing and also a new take on it.

X3 was a continuation of the elements laid in X2 -- and clearly so, not in a vague way.

But to a degree, the fondness surrounding Reeve's Superman can be said to have helped Superman Returns.

 

[cronosred]

It wasn’t just because of Bryan Singer. He can't receive all the praise in one situation but avoid all the blame in another. That said, X2’s success directly attributes to the success of its sequel. That’s a valid argument. You don’t think a film’s all-important opening weekend performance is related to its predecessor’s success? A well received movie builds an audience and generates interest in a sequel. Why do you think Matrix Reloaded did so well after the Matrix but Matrix Revolutions did so poorly after Matrix Reloaded? Ditto for the Pirates sequels. What do you think is happening to the Batman franchise right now? If for some reason The Dark Knight absolutely sucks, it will have an impact on the interest to a follow up. That’s common sense.

Edit: bosef beat me to my Matrix comparison.

And yet X-Men 3 kept making money after the opening, more than X2 and more than Superman Returns. X2 may have got people in the seats when X3 was released but it was not what kept people coming back to it.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

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?

Then what's the reason for BB getting a sequel greenlight so quickly and we still don't officially know the status for a sequel to SR.

 

[batman44]

Speaking of X3, what was the reason for Singer leaving the X-franchise.

 

[cronosred]

That's not entirely false, although you'd have to look at the later versions of Reeve's Superman. Also, poor quality plus time actually engenders a certain anticipation for something new, for redemption.

This is what happened with Batman Begins.

Also, note that we have nearly two decades passing and also a new take on it.

X3 was a continuation of the elements laid in X2 -- and clearly so, not in a vague way.

But to a degree, the fondness surrounding Reeve's Superman can be said to have helped Superman Returns.

I still don't by the vague sequel thing. Vague means not clear,definate, or exact, Superman Returns relation to the Reeve films felt anything but vague.

 

[BMM]

Speaking of X3, what was the reason for Singer leaving the X-franchise.

There hasn't been anything published. I assume they couldn't come to an agreement over the terms of the movie. Would there be an X-Men 3/X-Men 4 filmed back to back? What of the budget, cast? Would Fox continue to micro-manage like they have on all of their superhero films?

 

[GL's Light]

Returning In Topic, When do you think that there'll be something more official about the sequel (if it will really happen)?
IMO if we are really lucky for July-Aug (maybe in some interviews to the WB CEO or at ComiCon). If not, they have to announce it at least before Christmas.

I would expect some kind of official announcement in regards to a screenwriter being hired within the next few months.

 

[Nightwing1977]

It's funny that two words have led to such a commotion. I can't believe that some people took what Tull said to mean that Superman would turn bad and attack Metropolis.

I thought his meaning was quite clear - a supervillain does something terrible; Superman gets mightily pissed off and unleashes his awesome powers to open a can of whoop ass. Simple as that.

Yep. Even I was smart enough to understand what he mean.

you don't HAVE to be a Singer Superman fan to post here. you want that kind of crap, go to BT.net

I wonder why you still post there if you hate those people & the forum there? If I don't like a forum, I don't hang out there. Simple as that.

And I'm sure many at BT.net are Superman's fans, not just of Singer's vision. I know JimJimBinks at CD few years ago & he is cool. And his dad is actor Barry Coben.

 

[batman44]

There hasn't been anything published. I assume they couldn't come to an agreement over the terms of the movie. Would there be an X-Men 3/X-Men 4 filmed back to back? What of the budget, cast? Would Fox continue to micro-manage like they have on all of their superhero films?

Whatever the situation, it's a shame. I would have liked to see Singer's X3.

 

[Super Kal]

I wonder why you still post there if you hate those people & the forum there? If I don't like a forum, I don't hang out there. Simple as that.

because someone was kind enough to ask me if I could come back

 

[BMM]

And yet X-Men 3 kept making money after the opening, more than X2 and more than Superman Returns. X2 may have got people in the seats when X3 was released but it was not what kept people coming back to it.

The Last Stand made less than X2 every single weekend after opening weekend, and that's unadjusted. Hell, it made less than the unadjusted weekend totals for X-Men for almost 3/4 of its run. The same goes for the weekly totals. It's one of the few movies I've ever seen make most of its money in its first four days and be unable to double it during the rest of its entire run in theaters. It didn't have very good legs. Granted, I'll give you that this doesn't excuse the underperformance of Returns, but you've got some bad information regarding how well it held up against its predecessors.

 

[turtlefocker]

"going 'Wrath of Khan' on it"

"an angry god"

_

Sounds like they're going in the right direction...