Looks like Superman Returns will cross $200 Million by Monday...

[Prognosticator]

So SR will finally reach that "pivital" mark that studios covet so much these days...

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/;_ylt=AmSCUAmiPv.HXai4JeRuTgpfVXcA

Does that even matter? It certainly doesn't make SR any better of a movie, b/c we were all let down in one way or another.

So I ask, as it prepares to pass $200 million, is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing? Why?

Discuss:

 

[arty2]

It'll just prove that it wasn't that big of a flop, and will most likely guarantee that we'll be getting a sequel, hopefully a better one. I'm not gonna jump on the "hate" bandwagon that many seem to go on, ignoring their initial reactions to the movie. I thought the movie was good, just borrowed too much from Superman: The Movie, Lois wasn't likeble and boring, and that kid shouldn't be there. I hope they bring on Darkseid or Brainiac in the next one.

 

[ToddIsDead]

...I wasn't let down at all by the movie. In fact, I loved it.

 

[JBElliott]

BoxOffice Mojo has the current haul at $199,783,341. So that mean's SR must make $216,659 to hit $200M. Over the past ten reported days, it averaged $46,964 per day. If it holds to that average, which it won't since box office returns drop exponentially, it should break $200M in 4.6 days. A mere 116 days after it's release. Congratulations Singer et al. Fantastic work!

 

[Prognosticator]

^...like I said, Monday.

 

[Ben Urich]

Box office numbers are not an adequate measure of overall quality.
I thoroughly enjoyed Superman Returns. The fact that X3 and Fantastic Four made (not earned) more money makes me sick.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

I was totally indifferent to the movie as much as I tried to like it. I hope they start again with a better cast, story, and sincerely a new director that isn't so attached to the past.

 

[Ben Urich]

I think the cast for Superman Returns was great. It's the story and action that was weak. Honestly, all Superman did was fly and lift stuff. Let's see him ****ing punch something, like Brainiac

 

[livrule]

An average film that has dragged itself to a poor return considering the production costs.

Biggest let down of the year ... without question.

 

[Ben Urich]

An average film that has dragged itself to a poor return considering the production costs.

Biggest let down of the year ... without question.

Were you impressed with X-Men 3?

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

SR sucked arse as did X3. and this just proves the movie is overhyped fromthe begining, took this long to make 200 mill, hahahahaha. something that POTC2 had no problem making it in 4-5 days.

 

[Dr. Fate]

So SR will finally reach that "pivital" mark that studios covet so much these days...

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/;_ylt=AmSCUAmiPv.HXai4JeRuTgpfVXcA

Does that even matter? It certainly doesn't make SR any better of a movie, b/c we were all let down in one way or another.

So I ask, as it prepares to pass $200 million, is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing? Why?

Discuss:

That sucks. SR making $200 million is definitely a "bad" thing. Anytime a bad movie makes that much money, it's an undeniable bad thing.

 

[Retroman]

Newsflash: A lot of people think its a good/great movie and i for one am glad it will finally reach 200 million. A few months ago it did not look it would.

 

[Octoberist]

Box office numbers are not an adequate measure of overall quality.
I thoroughly enjoyed Superman Returns. The fact that X3 and Fantastic Four made (not earned) more money makes me sick.

It's true. GOOD Box Office does NOT mean that it's a good movie.

However, box office does matter when the amount will determine the fate of the future of the franchise. Truth to be told, I thought Superman was going to destroy X3 via box office. It didnt, which is honestly a little embarressing. But what can you do?

 

[Ben Urich]

It's true. Box Office does mean that it's a good movie.

Would you say then that Titanic was a better movie than Star Wars? Or Meet the Fockers was better than Batman?

http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

Being at the top of that list means the movie made a helluva lot of money. It does not necessarily mean that the movie was any good.

 

[livrule]

Were you impressed with X-Men 3?

No ... It didn't impress me ... but it did entertain me.

Superman nearly sent me to sleep.

 

[superion]

Would you say then that Titanic was a better movie than Star Wars? Or Meet the Fockers was better than Batman?

http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

Being at the top of that list means the movie made a helluva lot of money. It does not necessarily mean that the movie was any good.

So what determines a good movie what a bunch of people say on the internet or what critics say. It's all subjective what someone says is a good movie is crap to someone else.

Your comparsion of Star Wars to Titanic and Batman to Meet the Fockers isn't very good because adjusted for inflation Star Wars and Batman still made more money then the Titanic and Meet the Fockers. Also Star Wars is hardly the Godfather anyway. In terms of acting and dialogue it was worst then the Titanic which had also awful dialogue but good acting. Batman 89 wasn't a great film by any means either other than the unique look

 

[CConn]

So what determines a good movie what a bunch of people say on the internet or what critics say. It's all subjective what someone says is a good movie is crap to someone else.

To an extent it is, but there does come a point (say...a Uwe Boll movie) where crap is just crap.

Personally, I find the best way to judge a film is taking all of their critical and amateur reviews/reception as well a little bit of the box office results, and determine how good it is by that. But generally, people will gravitate to which ever statistic helps their own opinion.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm sorry. DOES NOT. typo

 

[Dr. Fate]

It's true. GOOD Box Office does NOT mean that it's a good movie.

Very true. And SR is definitely NOT a good film.

 

[GL1]

Very true. And SR is definitely NOT a good film.

I think you've learned by now that this "fact" here is argueable. If you need a demonstration of it's arguability, I've just provided it.

I think the 200M mark is an arbitrary peice of political shuffling from WB execs. They realized they didn't get the fan reaction they wanted and tried to give some arbitrary thing to discoruage continuing the franchise a long time ago. Superman Returns turned a notable profit, and did so quite a while ago, the 200M is arbitrary, WB could have easily said 300M or 150M or whatever they wanted to.

I think we all realize that restarting the franchise is not going to happen, especially when Singer promises a more action packed sequel and there are many people who did, on some level, enjoy the movie. Not only that, the things that we like about Superman: good clean action packed fun, can be easily inserted into a second movie without restarting the franchise. A restart seems silly, to me honestly, I don't understand what it is supposed to accomplish that a change in production goals won't.

Reaching the mark is a good thing, as it helps silence naysayers who say there is nothing good that can ever possibly be said about SR, that is was more boring than watching paint dry, and that Singer deserves a nameless grave next to Adolf Hitler.

But beyond that, it has no meaning. Singer won't get the greenlight again unless WB thinks he can give them good press, that he'll stop trying to be deep or try something new with Superman using old situations and instead give us Superman doing the same old same old things in new situations.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Despite what some on here say, SR hasn't made a dime for the WB. I trust variety over overly sensitive fanboys...Anywho I don't think hitting 200 million matters and I never thought that it did. The movie cost about 204mil to make, how can it bearly/not making that back mean anything good? Kong was a huge disappointment too, but it atleast made it's budget back and did huge numbers internationally. Most importantly I just didn't care for the movie and thats the real disappoinment too me.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey everyone!

Personally I think Superman Returns hitting $200 million domestic can only be a bad thing if it means putting Singer back in the saddle.

I was actually a fan of Bryan Singer until he made this movie (I enjoyed his two X-men movies and Ratner's X-3). I agree with the person above who said that while X3 did not impress, it did entertain. Whereas SR was dull, morose and boring.

As far as I am concerned Singer just seemed to get absolutely EVERYTHING wrong in Superman Returns.

I know some people out there liked the movie, but I just can't see what ANYONE could like about it!? (Okay the plane bit was good, I'll give them that)

For me it was the most disappointing movie experience ever.

A large proportion of the SR box office was generated by people who were both disenchanted and disappointed by the movie. If Singer returns (no pun intended) then I can see a lot of those people, myself included, giving the franchise a wide berth next time around.

Singer's comments of going all "Wrath of Khan" have done nothing to assuage me. In fact they only reinforce the notion that he has no original ideas of his own.

 

[Ben Urich]

What's entertaining about seeing two films' worth of character development and plot setup getting shat upon?

So what determines a good movie what a bunch of people say on the internet or what critics say. It's all subjective what someone says is a good movie is crap to someone else.

Your comparsion of Star Wars to Titanic and Batman to Meet the Fockers isn't very good because adjusted for inflation Star Wars and Batman still made more money then the Titanic and Meet the Fockers. Also Star Wars is hardly the Godfather anyway. In terms of acting and dialogue it was worst then the Titanic which had also awful dialogue but good acting. Batman 89 wasn't a great film by any means either other than the unique look

I'd say that reaction - both from film critics and the general public - is far more important than box office gross when it comes to determining overall quality.
Your inability to separate the concepts of financial success and good filmmaking astounds me.
I'm sure you'd see my way if the tables were turned and Superman Returns had beaten X-Men 3 at the box office.

 

[GL1]

Despite what some on here say, SR hasn't made a dime for the WB. I trust variety over overly sensitive fanboys...Anywho I don't think hitting 200 million matters and I never thought that it did. The movie cost about 204mil to make, how can it bearly/not making that back mean anything good? Kong was a huge disappointment too, but it atleast made it's budget back and did huge numbers internationally. Most importantly I just didn't care for the movie and thats the real disappoinment too me.

$200 Million is the American number, it did another $190 Million overseas, to say nothign of merchandising. Superman returns made a huge amount of money for WB (Is $200M still huge?). Superman made it's budget back a long time ago, like I said.

Many people didn't care for the movie, that's fine. Many people were dissappointed with Superman Returns. What miffs me is that no one sits and analyzes the cause and motive behind these things, but simply jumps on brainless hater (or fanboy) bandwagons. No one thinks about what Singer was trying to do and why it didn't work. That's a discussion I wish I could have, but everyone seems to be blind to what actually went on.