Sequels Legendary Pictures & Thomas Tull Think Superman Sequel

[GL's Light]

SR had a mediocre, disappointing return relative to its budget and relative to what Warners hoped and expected it would make. Given the design of the film's tone and storyline, Warners overspent on it. It ended up playing to much the same demographic as Batman Begins, rather than reaching the wider demographic that Warners was hoping for.

If there's a sequel it's obviously going to be designed to try to reach out to the demographic groups that didn't turn out in big enough numbers for SR - especially teenage boys. Whether that would be successful or not is hard to say given that it can be difficult to draw a particular segment of the audience to a sequel after they've already established a view as to the first film.

 

[Prefix]

I think it's safe to say that the general audience has very little knowledge of how movies are produced. They don't know the budget of a movie, and they pay little attention to the box office gross. Basically all they do is watch the movie and decide if they liked it or not.

With that in mind, theoretically Batman Begins and Superman Returns are just two movies, right? So that means the general audience just go watch them and don't take into account how much they were made for. Numbers show that both films made similar amounts of money. Money generated from viewers from the general audience.

Yeah, 400 Million WW isn't enough for the studios, but remember, the GA don't know that. It's not like they didn't like the movie and decided to make the BO lackluster. So without that in mind, as far as they are concerned they watched SR just as much as they did BB. Which means they found them to be similar in quality.

Does that mean the studios should consider it a success? Hell no. But it DOES show you can't judge a movies quality by if it was a success or not.

 

[dark_b]

I think it's safe to say that the general audience has very little knowledge of how movies are produced. They don't know the budget of a movie, and they pay little attention to the box office gross. Basically all they do is watch the movie and decide if they liked it or not.

With that in mind, theoretically Batman Begins and Superman Returns are just two movies, right? So that means the general audience just go watch them and don't take into account how much they were made for. Numbers show that both films made similar amounts of money. Money generated from viewers from the general audience.

Yeah, 400 Million WW isn't enough for the studios, but remember, the GA don't know that. It's not like they didn't like the movie and decided to make the BO lackluster. So without that in mind, as far as they are concerned they watched SR just as much as they did BB. Which means they found them to be similar in quality.

Does that mean the studios should consider it a success? Hell no. But it DOES show you can't judge a movies quality by if it was a success or not.

for example 10 people go watch a movie in the theater. that doesnt mean that 10 people liked it. i bet that a lot of people went in the theater because they expacted ''superman''action. and when they went out they were not so happy because when you go watch a superman movie i dont htink that you are expecting only a love story.
but lets compare BB and SR. IMO BB had good word of mouth. which means that first people were sceptic because they had the bad taste of schumachers batman movies in hteir mouth. then people who saw the movie were saying that its a good movie and they said ''dude you need to watch this''.
SR on the ther hand was having IMO bad word of mouth. at the beginning people were running in the theater because tehy exacted something. then they said that it was not good enough and that it didnt have enough action.

so both have similar 400 milions. but lets also not forget that BB made 50 milions more. profit since it was cheaper.

whats also my point? BB making 400 milions after batman & robin is 100000 times better then superman making 400 after 20 years. BB is a darker movie also. superman not.

 

[GL's Light]

SR showed pretty good legs to reach $200 million. If the word of mouth was bad that wouldn't have happened. I'd say of those who turned out to see the film the response was mostly positive - not overwhelmingly so, and not that it ranged into the realm of being extremely positive for most, but generally positive (a median of, say, 3 stars out of 5 - a little below the average response from professional critics).

The problem was that certain demographic groups who the studio thought would turn out in big numbers, especially teenage boys, didn't turn out in those numbers, and most likely there tended to be negative word of mouth amongst those teens who did see it.

 

[Matt]

Neither movie was aimed at kids, the demographic was the same. Whether SR was supposed to have universal appeal or not is irrelevant at the end of the day since that's clearly not the movie they greenlit.

But SR should've never had the same demographic as BB. Singer missed his target demographic.

 

[Matt]

SR showed pretty good legs to reach $200 million. If the word of mouth was bad that wouldn't have happened. I'd say of those who turned out to see the film the response was mostly positive - not overwhelmingly so, and not that it ranged into the realm of being extremely positive for most, but generally positive (a median of, say, 3 stars out of 5 - a little below the average response from professional critics).

Towards the end, granted. But that could be simply because Warners dragged out its run as long as humanly possible. Look at the drop between weekend one and weekend two, weekend two and weekend three, and weekend three and weekend four. Pretty brutal, especially considering its opening weekend wasn't THAT big.

The problem was that certain demographic groups who the studio thought would turn out in big numbers, especially teenage boys, didn't turn out in those numbers, and most likely there tended to be negative word of mouth amongst those teens who did see it.

But isn't it Singer's job as a director to hit his target demographic? Not the art-house demographic he chose to appeal to?

 

[GL's Light]

SR ended up reaching about the same demographic as BB. Yes, it was supposed to reach a wider demographic, and Singer mostly missed a key demographic that he was supposed to reach. In hindsight, Singer and Warners should have realized that the design of SR wouldn't appeal strongly to teenage boys, and they should have either made a fairly dark Superman character drama on a much lower budget or they should have come up with a lighter, more action-packed film at the higher budget level.

 

[GL's Light]

Towards the end, granted. But that could be simply because Warners dragged out its run as long as humanly possible. Look at the drop between weekend one and weekend two, weekend two and weekend three, and weekend three and weekend four. Pretty brutal, especially considering its opening weekend wasn't THAT big.

The second weekend drop was steep, but not as bad as it could have been considering it was in the face of the release of one of the most highly anticipated films of all time, which scored what was at the time the biggest opening weekend of all time. Third weekend held pretty well. Fourth weekend drop was bigger, but not too bad. After that it mostly held up well. The whole level of the opening and subsequent gross was lower than expected. Again, this was primarily because teen boys didn't turn out in the numbers hoped for.

SR didn't have an especially long run. That's a fallacy that's built up. It had the standard run that most summer blockbusters have. It's run was only a few days longer than X3, and shorter than Fantastic Four.

But isn't it Singer's job as a director to hit his target demographic? Not the art-house demographic he chose to appeal to?

At that budget level, yes. See my post above.

 

[Matt]

SR ended up reaching about the same demographic as BB. Yes, it was supposed to reach a wider demographic, and Singer mostly missed a key demographic that he was supposed to reach. In hindsight, Singer and Warners should have realized that the design of SR wouldn't appeal strongly to teenage boys, and they should have either made a fairly dark Superman character drama on a much lower budget or they should have come up with a lighter, more action-packed film at the higher budget level.

Still, you've got to wonder, how responsible is Warner? When they were sold this project, were they under the impression that General Zod was going to be in the movie (hence much more action)? I mean, the rumors that Singer planned on Zod right up until the end (and finally scrapped the idea after numerous rejections from Law) were pretty solid and from numerous sources. I wonder if Zod was in the pitch that Warners signed off on?

 

[Matt]

The second weekend drop was steep, but not as bad as it could have been considering it was in the face of the release of one of the most highly anticipated films of all time, which scored what was at the time the biggest opening weekend of all time. Third weekend held pretty well. Fourth weekend drop was bigger, but not too bad. After that it mostly held up well. The whole level of the opening and subsequent gross was lower than expected. Again, this was primarily because teen boys didn't turn out in the numbers hoped for.

I dunno, I'd say 40-60 % drops every week for the first 4 weeks isn't especially good. I'd say it implies rather neutral word of mouth where most people were simply, as I said before, apathetic. I'd say a majority of viewers did not hate the movie, but at the same time, they weren't really running around giving shining reviews to friends, family, and co-workers either. At the end of the day, I think a good majority of viewers simply shrugged it off.

SR didn't have an especially long run. That's a fallacy that's built up. It had the standard run that most summer blockbusters have. It's run was only a few days longer than X3, and shorter than Fantastic Four.


At that budget level, yes. See my post above.

It was in theaters from June 30 through October 29th. While not that much longer than most, it should be noted that towards the end (I believe in Sept.) Warners ADDED theaters playing the movie in an attempt to save face and get it past 200 mil. Without that move, it seems very unlikely that it would have.

 

[GL's Light]

Warners would have signed off on the original pitch and every change made to it before giving the green light. That's the way it works.

A drop of 40% or just over 40%, is a decent hold in the heat of summer competition. Only the second weekend (58% drop against Pirates 2) and the fifth weekend (48%) were on the steep side. And even they weren't too bad (given the context of the second weekend). I'd say word of mouth from those who saw it was decent - not great, not poor, just decent.

 

[Matt]

Warners would have signed off on the original pitch and every change made to it before giving the green light. That's the way it works.

Maybe, but they seemed desperate. After hearing the initial pitch, it seemed like Singer had an unprecedented ammount of control. It does paint this in a new light if you consider that their original pitch had Zod, and therefore, in all likelihood a whole new level of action.

 

[GL's Light]

Well, the Zod angle is speculation. We don't know whether that rumor was true or not. In any event, Warners gave the green light to film a story that was substantially what we saw on screen (the Krypton sequence being the one major cut).

 

[Showtime]

Maybe, but they seemed desperate. After hearing the initial pitch, it seemed like Singer had an unprecedented ammount of control. It does paint this in a new light if you consider that their original pitch had Zod, and therefore, in all likelihood a whole new level of action.

Still, you've got to wonder, how responsible is Warner? When they were sold this project, were they under the impression that General Zod was going to be in the movie (hence much more action)? I mean, the rumors that Singer planned on Zod right up until the end (and finally scrapped the idea after numerous rejections from Law) were pretty solid and from numerous sources. I wonder if Zod was in the pitch that Warners signed off on?

If you want to blame Bryan Singer for the "failure" of Returns, which many people do and that is fine, you also have to look at WB. Although Singer had full control, do you think WB had no idea what they were doing and were completely suprised when they received the cut?

:Roll Credits:

Alan Horn: I can't wait to see Zod.
Jeff Robinov: That is the only reason why we greenlit this movie.
Dan Lin: I still say we go with a JL flick.

:Superman Flies By The Camera & Smirks:

Alan Horn: When did they cut Zod?
Jeff Robinov: Why was the suit so dirty?
Dan Lin: Superman has a kid?
Geoge Miller: Hey guys, I got this idea...
Jon Peters: I told you it needed a giant spider.

 

[Matt]

If you want to blame Bryan Singer for the "failure" of Returns, which many people do and that is fine, you also have to look at WB. Although Singer had full control, do you think WB had no idea what they were doing and were completely suprised when they received the cut?

:Roll Credits:

Alan Horn: I can't wait to see Zod.
Jeff Robinov: That is the only reason why we greenlit this movie.
Dan Lin: I still say we go with a JL flick.

:Superman Flies By The Camera & Smirks:

Alan Horn: When did they cut Zod?
Jeff Robinov: Why was the suit so dirty?
Dan Lin: Superman has a kid?
Geoge Miller: Hey guys, I got this idea...
Jon Peters: I told you it needed a giant spider.

I'm aware that they were not in the dark. I'm simply saying that by the time Zod was removed, contracts were already signed, casting was already done, etc and it may have been too late.

 

[GL's Light]

I'm aware that they were not in the dark. I'm simply saying that by the time Zod was removed, contracts were already signed, casting was already done, etc and it may have been too late.

Not the way it works.

 

[Matt]

Sure it is. If you dump millions of dollars into making a movie, sign various pay or play contracts, begin set design, etc (all of which happens prior to and during the casting process) and then are told by your director "well, I can't get the actor I want for Zod, so his role is cut," you're not going to pull the plug and waste the investments you've already made.

 

[GreenKToo]

Well, they pulled the plug on burton's Superman, and look at how far along it was.

 

[GL's Light]

No, every major change (and even a lot of the minor ones) are chewed over between the director, the producers, and studio execs. Any substantial change would have to be approved by the studio. If Zod was in the original pitch and the studio wanted him to stay in, then he'd stay in - they'd simply go to another actor if the director's first choice turned it down.

 

[Matt]

But Warners was desperate. We know for a fact, basically, while Warners was not in the dark, they did pretty much just give Singer control and sign off on basically anything he did. And why shouldn't they have? He proved he could be successful with X-Men and X2. They gave a knee jerk reaction which allowed Singer to gain an unprecedented ammount of control over a huge budget studio picture.

 

[GL's Light]

They gave Singer a lot of running room and a lot of money, but they didn't give him everything he wanted. He didn't have total carte blanche on the project. The studio cut a bunch of things Singer wanted to cut costs.

The bottom line is that whatever flaws SR had, and the blame for its disappointing box office, rests on the shoulders of Singer, the producers, and the studio.

 

[bunk]

But SR should've never had the same demographic as BB. Singer missed his target demographic.

His target was probably similar to what it was for X-Men. I agree it should be much wider than that, but I'm not going to assume that's the understanding Singer had with WB. Based on his track record and the script, I don't see how WB could be expecting Pirates of the Caribbean level enthusiasm.

 

[mojo-x]

SR had a mediocre, disappointing return relative to its budget and relative to what Warners hoped and expected it would make. Given the design of the film's tone and storyline, Warners overspent on it. It ended up playing to much the same demographic as Batman Begins, rather than reaching the wider demographic that Warners was hoping for.

If there's a sequel it's obviously going to be designed to try to reach out to the demographic groups that didn't turn out in big enough numbers for SR - especially teenage boys. Whether that would be successful or not is hard to say given that it can be difficult to draw a particular segment of the audience to a sequel after they've already established a view as to the first film.

If they were trying to reach teenage boys then why did they make it a sequel to a film that was almost 30 years old?

 

[GL's Light]

If they were trying to reach teenage boys then why did they make it a sequel to a film that was almost 30 years old?

The reasons why SR didn't appeal to most teenage boys seem clear in hindsight, including the fact that it was conceptualized as a quasi-sequel to what Donner did, but those things obviously weren't clear to all involved contemporaneously.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Sure it is. If you dump millions of dollars into making a movie, sign various pay or play contracts, begin set design, etc (all of which happens prior to and during the casting process) and then are told by your director "well, I can't get the actor I want for Zod, so his role is cut," you're not going to pull the plug and waste the investments you've already made.

Your basing your whole argument on a false rumor from IMDB. Zod was never intended to be in SR and the role was never cut or offered to Law.

Dougherty and Harris confirmed this:

Q. Rumor control: According to the IMDb, Singer had General Zod removed from the script —

MD: No. Not true.

DH: Not in this movie. I mean, we love Zod. Zod is very cool. But there’s no time.

Q. We only saw him fall into some sort of dry-ice chasm. He could still be around.

DH: He could be.

http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/06june/supermanuncut.htm