Superman Returns SR Sequel: $200 million or else!?

[KaptainKrypton]

Just saying, they spring for a cheaper director.

Once again, sequels do NOT cost less. Especially a bigger one with MORE action that Singer supposedly has planned.

And if the second one if it does get made does similar business, I don't see the new franchise lasting beyond that.

A lot of the cost of SR was ate up by the set construction. The Kent farm, Fortress, Daily Planet, The Gertrude, and New Krypton all had to be designed from scratch or re-designed altogether. This won't be the case in the next one as they can use what they've already designed. Also, they spent extra time (which equals money) doing R & D on the Genesis Camera. This film was pretty experimental by most standards and was destined to cost a lot going out of the gate. As long as Singer is smart and keeps the majority of his crew from the first film, then he shouldn't have a problem doing a sequel that equals more bang for the buck, so to speak.

 

[TheVileOne]

A lot of the cost of SR was ate up by the set construction. The Kent farm, Fortress, Daily Planet, The Gertrude, and New Krypton all had to be designed from scratch or re-designed altogether. This won't be the case in the next one as they can use what they've already designed. Also, they spent extra time (which equals money) doing R & D on the Genesis Camera. This film was pretty experimental by most standards and was destined to cost a lot going out of the gate. As long as Singer is smart and keeps the majority of his crew from the first film, then he shouldn't have a problem doing a sequel that equals more bang for the buck, so to speak.

You guys keep re-iterating things like this.

Once again, you aren't taking things into account. Things such as:

-Actors getting paid more.
-Production crew, writers, directors getting paid more.
-Newer, more complicated set and set pieces being built.
-Bigger, more complicated action scenes.

Dude think about it. Spider-man 2 and 3 re-uses sets from the prior movies. These movies do NOT cost less. They cost more.

X-men 3 re-used sets, still cost about twice as much as X2.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

but arent they upping the use of cgi with each movie..both franchises you have named had larger use of CGI which is what most of the budget goes on..

 

[KaptainKrypton]

but arent they upping the use of cgi with each movie..both franchises you have named had larger use of CGI which is what most of the budget goes on..

Yes, they are. Spider-Man and X-Men are bad examples because each film used progressively more CGI per film. X-Men was the prime one with all of the different powers each mutant displayed. This is why it cost so much to make and only ran 104 minutes in length.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

You guys keep re-iterating things like this.

Once again, you aren't taking things into account. Things such as:

-Actors getting paid more.
-Production crew, writers, directors getting paid more.
-Newer, more complicated set and set pieces being built.
-Bigger, more complicated action scenes.

Dude think about it. Spider-man 2 and 3 re-uses sets from the prior movies. These movies do NOT cost less. They cost more.

X-men 3 re-used sets, still cost about twice as much as X2.

Routh is already locked in a three picture contract for a fixed rate (this is how Warner pads their bankbook in case Routh breaks big). Spacey may not even be in the next one, and casting hasn't been announced for any other roles in the film, so no one knows if the actor payroll will be the same, or if it's increased. The remainder of the cast hasn't set the world afire since SR's release, so I don't think that they'll garner much more money. Some of these people may get paid more, but then again, with the lukewarm success of this film, they still have something to prove box-office wise. Set design depends on which direction they take the film in. Most of the primary designs are already done for the major areas, so unless they go crazy, it SHOULDN'T kick 'em in the teeth like it did the first time around. Bigger, more complicated action scenes cost more, but I don't know how much more larger they are going to get beyond the plane rescue and the New Krypton sequence. We'll probably see the obligatory superhero fight in the next one. Depending on how many overall shots they go for in the next one, there's no telling what the FX shot count will be at production's end.

 

[TheVileOne]

Routh is already locked in a three picture contract for a fixed rate (this is how Warner pads their bankbook in case Routh breaks big). Spacey may not even be in the next one, and casting hasn't been announced for any other roles in the film, so no one knows if the actor payroll will be the same, or if it's increased.

Tobey Maguire signed a 3 picture deal for Spider-man. Guess what? He still got paid more for the second movie.

The remainder of the cast hasn't set the world afire since SR's release, so I don't think that they'll garner much more money. Some of these people may get paid more, but then again, with the lukewarm success of this film, they still have something to prove box-office wise. Set design depends on which direction they take the film in. Most of the primary designs are already done for the major areas, so unless they go crazy, it SHOULDN'T kick 'em in the teeth like it did the first time around.

Well Singer was talking about all sorts of "crazy, sci-fi action ****" for the sequel.

Once again, the whole re-using the set arguments doesn't work.

Sequels of movies like these do NOT COST LESS.

Bigger, more complicated action scenes cost more, but I don't know how much more larger they are going to get beyond the plane rescue and the New Krypton sequence. We'll probably see the obligatory superhero fight in the next one. Depending on how many overall shots they go for in the next one, there's no telling what the FX shot count will be at production's end.

Once again, it's not going to be cheap and easy to do like you say and think it is.

 

[TrailerCues]

Singer was talking about all sorts of "crazy, sci-fi action ****" for the sequel

Singer talked about all sorts of **** for Superman Returns. For the sequel I am not believing anything that comes out of anyone working on the movies mouth. I learned my lesson with Superman Returns. While I enjoyed Superman Returns there was ultimately to many let downs from the **** the cast & crew talked about throughout production but I still kept an open mind however for the sequel I am most definitely not going to be so open minded friendly.

 

[punishermax]

You guys keep re-iterating things like this.

Once again, you aren't taking things into account. Things such as:

-Actors getting paid more.
-Production crew, writers, directors getting paid more.
-Newer, more complicated set and set pieces being built.
-Bigger, more complicated action scenes.

Dude think about it. Spider-man 2 and 3 re-uses sets from the prior movies. These movies do NOT cost less. They cost more.

X-men 3 re-used sets, still cost about twice as much as X2.

I completely agree with you, but the main reason X3 cost so much more than X2 was because of the rushed production.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Singer talked about all sorts of **** for Superman Returns. For the sequel I am not believing anything that comes out of anyone working on the movies mouth. I learned my lesson with Superman Returns. While I enjoyed Superman Returns there was ultimately to many let downs from the **** the cast & crew talked about throughout production but I still kept an open mind however for the sequel I am most definitely not going to be so open minded friendly.

That's what SR was. A big let-down. There are enjoyable parts, yes. But they are cancelled out by the suckiness of the overall picture.


A NOTE ABOUT BUDGETS: If the first one was a success, then more money is given for the sequel than for the first one. That is the case with Spider-Man 1/2 just as Vile stated. So yes: sequels of this magnitude always cost more on behalf of WB.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I personally think the sequel will cost about the same amount as SR. singer has never been one to cast major stars in his movies so any new cast member wont cost that much. Sets and R&D wont cost no were near as much either and i cant see them using more CGI than in the first movie, as they already used plenty in SR.

 

[Ulic Queldroma]

I think it will cost less or about the same. If we're thinking 270 mill. budget, 40million is attributed to the budget and several million dollars just for the stupid genesis cameras. I think it will still be a 220-230 million budget for a sequel, especially if they go for an effects heavy villain in the vein of Brainiac or Doomsday. If they go for Zod or another humanoid style villian, probably less.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I doubt Doomsday will make it into this sequel, and i dont think Brainiac would be that expensive effects wise, maybe they could use a suit for him or a mixture of suit and CGI.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Doomsday is a very possible character for the sequal. I don't see why not.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Tobey Maguire signed a 3 picture deal for Spider-man. Guess what? He still got paid more for the second movie.

That's good for Tobey. I don't know what Routh got paid for this movie, and I have no idea what he's being paid for the next one, but I bet it won't be anywhere near what Maguire makes. Tobey was a moderately successful actor BEFORE his turn as Spidey. Routh, other than for SR, is a complete unknown, so I doubt his money will be anywhere near someone like Tobey's.

Well Singer was talking about all sorts of "crazy, sci-fi action ****" for the sequel.

Serenity was chock-full of that and only cost $40 million to make. Sci-fi action can be done, and done on a budget.

Once again, the whole re-using the set arguments doesn't work.

Maybe not for you. However, when studios hold on to a lot of these things, it saves them money.

Sequels of movies like these do NOT COST LESS.

Once again, it's not going to be cheap and easy to do like you say and think it is.

It depends on who's making it, and what they're trying to do with it. If the idea for each sequel is always, "let's go bigger!" then yes, it could cost more. Until we see if and what is greenlit for a sequel to SR, I'm no more right than you about this project, and vice versa.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Doomsday is a very possible character for the sequal. I don't see why not.

I just dont think Singer would introduce him this early, but for the 3rd movie, either him or Darkseid would be perfect IMO.

 

[Showtime]

I hope there is no Doomsday, that's brainless.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I never even thought of those things Vile One, it seems if you think about it, that will be very difficult for WB to make a supposedly action packed sequel cost less than SR. History shows us, if the budget was 204mil for the first one that second one's should be about 254mil or more. If I was a fan of the movie I wouldn't care, but it sounds like a dumb business decission to spend that amount, when the best case seniro is them making 250mil. They would be in the same boat.

 

[Retroman]

X-men 3 re-used sets, still cost about twice as much as X2.

The cost of X3 also had to do with the fact that Fox was hellbent on having it released in May no matter what. Two months before release they were still hiring staff to get the effects work done.

Also a majority of the principal cast only signed deals for 2 films so contracts needed to be renegotiated with the likes of Jackman, Berry, McKellen and Janssen.

That pushed up the price of budget a lot as well. This won't be the case with SR2 since the principals are already locked.

Routh is already locked in a three picture contract for a fixed rate (this is how Warner pads their bankbook in case Routh breaks big). Spacey may not even be in the next one, and casting hasn't been announced for any other roles in the film, so no one knows if the actor payroll will be the same, or if it's increased.

Bosworth, Spacey and Sam Huntington all signed deals for a 2nd and 3rd film (if they get made).

 

[OzzMosiz]

Of course the people involved will get pay rises. Its called wage inflation.

Most people get pay rises year-on-year. Why shouldn't the actors???

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I hope there is no Doomsday, that's brainless.

I think he'd be great for an epic 3rd movie.

 

[dark_b]

I never eben thought of those things Vile One, it seems if you think about it, that will be very difficult for WB to make a supposedly action packed sequel cost less than SR. History shows us, if the budget was 204mil for the first one that second one's should be about 254mil or more. If I was a fan of the movie I wouldn't care, but it sounds like a dumb business decission to spend that amount, when the best case seniro is them making 250mil. They would be in the same boat.

non onoo on on o. singer spend the money like a 5 yr. he throw away money more then once.

if you use the money smart ....then they can make th esequel for 180 or 190 or 200 milions. superman will always look fake.

 

[Retroman]

I never eben thought of those things Vile One, it seems if you think about it, that will be very difficult for WB to make a supposedly action packed sequel cost less than SR. History shows us, if the budget was 204mil for the first one that second one's should be about 254mil or more. If I was a fan of the movie I wouldn't care, but it sounds like a dumb business decission to spend that amount, when the best case seniro is them making 250mil. They would be in the same boat.

If they want to bring down the price to the same as SR Singer may want to knock on Darren Aronofsky's door.

A couple years ago when Fountain was going to be made with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as the leads the budget was more than 70 million dollars. With Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz he sliced off more than 30 million off of that.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If they want to bring down the price to the same as SR Singer may want to knock on Darren Aronofsky's door.

A couple years ago when Fountain was going to be made with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as the leads the budget was more than 70 million dollars. With Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz he sliced off more than 30 million off of that.

Well I suppose so because it just sounds like a bad idea to spend even more money on a sequel to a movie that wasn't just totally loved acrossed the board.

I hate to bring up Spider-Man again but it is a good comparison. Sony spent 150mil on that movie and it had very spotty special effects which I atribute to Sony Image Works not knowing what to do because it was the first time Spidey was done live action. I'm also sure Maguire got payed more than the Routh and they probably over all, spent more on Spider-Man's cast than they did on Superman Returns. And the budget was still 50 million dollars less. Anywho, the point is the movie opened to 114.8mil and had a great for the summer and good for anytime of the year 3.5 multiplier. Now the then record opening was because of the great marketing and the fact that Spidey had never been done on the big screen before, but the legs were because people liked/loved the movie. I don't understand why SR had too cost much more than that, if anything I would think that Spider-Man would cost more because of the reasons mentioned above. Was it harder to make a man fly than to make a man swing around a huge city? Was it more important to make SR look good or make people fall in love with it? People fell in love with Spider-Man, it's just down right strange that people didn't a Superman movie as much as almost everyone thought that they would. WB marketing and the fact that they released it a week before Dead Mans chest did hurt it, but if the movie was IMHO better and more fun than it was, I think that could have overcome that and made around 250 mil in the U.S and about the same amount world wide. Just look at Fantastic Four, it overcame months of bad net buzz (from myself also) and bad reviews and still opened to 56mil and had a decent for the summer 2.75 multiplier and made nearly 155mil and made 330mil overall. Why could a movie with far better reviews and a huge marketing budget only do 60 million more?

 

[dark_b]

Well I suppose so because it just sounds like a bad idea to spend even more money on a sequel to a movie that wasn't just totally loved acrossed the board.

I hate to bring up Spider-Man again but it is a good comparison. Sony spent 150mil on that movie and it had very spotty special effects which I atribute to Sony Image Works not knowing what to do because it was the first time Spidey was done live action. I'm also sure Maguire got payed more than the Routh and they probably over all, spent more on Spider-Man's cast than they did on Superman Returns. And the budget was still 50 million dollars less. Anywho, the point is the movie opened to 114.8mil and had a great for the summer and good for anytime of the year 3.5 multiplier. Now the then record opening was because of the great marketing and the fact that Spidey had never been done on the big screen before, but the legs were because people liked/loved the movie. I don't understand why SR had too cost much more than that, if anything I would think that Spider-Man would cost more because of the reasons mentioned above. Was it harder to make a man fly than to make a man swing around a huge city? Was it more important to make SR look good or make people fall in love with it? People fell in love with Spider-Man, it's just down right strange that people didn't a Superman movie as much as almost everyone thought that they would. WB marketing and the fact that they released it a week before Dead Mans chest did hurt it, but if the movie was IMHO better and more fun than it was, I think that could have overcome that and made around 250 mil in the U.S and about the same amount world wide. Just look at Fantastic Four, it overcame months of bad net buzz (from myself also) and bad reviews and still opened to 56mil and had a decent for the summer 2.75 multiplier and made nearly 155mil and made 330mil overall. Why could a movie with far better reviews and a huge marketing budget only do 60 million more?

of course it is. both are comicbook movies realesed in summer and have big budgets.

lets not forget how much was the budgt in batman & robin . for christ sake it is WB.

 

[Retroman]

Well I suppose so because it just sounds like a bad idea to spend even more money on a sequel to a movie that wasn't just totally loved acrossed the board.

I don't think they will. And i think less money -or the same will lead to more creativity from Singer and co.

I hate to bring up Spider-Man again but it is a good comparison. Sony spent 150mil on that movie and it had very spotty special effects which I atribute to Sony Image Works not knowing what to do because it was the first time Spidey was done live action. I'm also sure Maguire got payed more than the Routh and they probably over all, spent more on Spider-Man's cast than they did on Superman Returns. And the budget was still 50 million dollars less. Anywho, the point is the movie opened to 114.8mil and had a great for the summer and good for anytime of the year 3.5 multiplier. Now the then record opening was because of the great marketing and the fact that Spidey had never been done on the big screen before, but the legs were because people liked/loved the movie. I don't understand why SR had too cost much more than that, if anything I would think that Spider-Man would cost more because of the reasons mentioned above. Was it harder to make a man fly than to make a man swing around a huge city??

Its not just flight its also Superman's other powers that needed lots of heavy effects work.

I think if you asked people at Imageworks (who worked on both films) which one was easier they'd probably say Spider-Man since Spidey wears a body suit.

Was it more important to make SR look good or make people fall in love with it? People fell in love with Spider-Man, it's just down right strange that people didn't a Superman movie as much as almost everyone thought that they would. WB marketing and the fact that they released it a week before Dead Mans chest did hurt it, but if the movie was IMHO better and more fun than it was, I think that could have overcome that and made around 250 mil in the U.S and about the same amount world wide. Just look at Fantastic Four, it overcame months of bad net buzz (from myself also) and bad reviews and still opened to 56mil and had a decent for the summer 2.75 multiplier and made nearly 155mil and made 330mil overall. Why could a movie with far better reviews and a huge marketing budget only do 60 million more?

I think the Superman has been away too long from the big screen. Basically a whole (new)generation of potential fans has been lost to Spider-Man, X-Men. I'm not saying that this is the only reason for the disappointing Box Office but its a one of the main reasons. 19 years is a long time....