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

[Lestat74]

I think he has disenchanted the younger audience, disenchanted the action audience and split the comic fans down the middle.

You need to court the action audience for the box office, the younger audience for the merchandising and the comic fans for the dvd sales.

I'm sure that's what the Warners Executives are gonna be telling Bryan Singer come Superman sequel time. However, I for one am glad they allowed him to make an actual film, and not just a carefully marketed product for all key demographics that was screen tested to death to make sure that it appeals to "everyone". I pretty much think the whole test screening process is gonna be the death of actual filmmaking as far as big movies are concerned ( I've seen enough special features on many dvd's where people talk about how certain iconic moments in their films were nearly cut because of some disgruntled 14 year old in the test audience didn't get it. ) I hope Bryan Singer can retain his artistic vision while still trying to please everyone.

 

[Lestat74]

How can anyone in their right mind suggest that movie would have been worse had they added Metallo (for example), and had one or two scenes with Superman duking it out with him?

Well, I can't say whether I'm in my right mind or not, but I'm pretty glad a Metallo fight was not in SR. I think Metallo is pretty one dimensional anyways. In fact, unlike most iconic heroes, Superman has a pretty lame rouge's gallery, most of which would not translate well to film. ( Even Bruce Timm and the producers of the Superman Animated series admit that compared to Batman, Superman's villains are pretty lame, and they had a hell of a time making them cool ) I'm just not one of those people that need some fight scene to complete a Superman movie. As long as people can't fly, lift cars, use heat vision or super breath in real life, Superman will always remain entertaining to me onscreen, with or without a fight scene. Although I admit the 12 year old version of me may have thought differently.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lestat dude!

I'm sure that's what the Warners Executives are gonna be telling Bryan Singer come Superman sequel time.

Obviously.

However, I for one am glad they allowed him to make an actual film, and not just a carefully marketed product for all key demographics that was screen tested to death to make sure that it appeals to "everyone".

As opposed to a film which underutilized the character, hit none of the key demographics and was screen tested by Singer's own close friends and family (way to be objective Bryan).

I pretty much think the whole test screening process is gonna be the death of actual filmmaking as far as big movies are concerned ( I've seen enough special features on many dvd's where people talk about how certain iconic moments in their films were nearly cut because of some disgruntled 14 year old in the test audience didn't get it. ) I hope Bryan Singer can retain his artistic vision while still trying to please everyone.

I agree screen testing is overrated. Whats called for is some common sense.

What is it that makes Superman a 'super' man. Its his powers, not his relationships. What Singer did was make him more ordinary.

Well, I can't say whether I'm in my right mind or not,

You have said you that Superman Returns was a good movie, so the jury is still out on your sanity.

...only joking mate.

but I'm pretty glad a Metallo fight was not in SR.

Okay, you are definately mad! t:

I think Metallo is pretty one dimensional anyways. In fact,

Hes as one dimensional as the writer makes him.

unlike most iconic heroes, Superman has a pretty lame rouge's gallery, most of which would not translate well to film.

Only Batman, Spiderman, Thor and probably the Fantastic Four have truly exceptional rogue's galleries.

Superman is one of those characters with a 'middling' rogues gallery.

Although I do not envy Joss Whedon picking the Wonder Woman movie villain - thats is a tough task.

( Even Bruce Timm and the producers of the Superman Animated series admit that compared to Batman, Superman's villains are pretty lame, and they had a hell of a time making them cool )

Not sure I would agree with that. I mean he probably has about a dozen interesting villains. Although I suppose they wanted more than a dozen episodes of the animated series.

I'm just not one of those people that need some fight scene to complete a Superman movie.

Neither do I, but what I do want to see is something original and something exciting. A battle with a super-villain we had never seen before in the movies would tick both those boxes.

As long as people can't fly, lift cars, use heat vision or super breath in real life, Superman will always remain entertaining to me onscreen, with or without a fight scene.

I think we can find better ways to showcase those powers than against inanimate objects.

Although I admit the 12 year old version of me may have thought differently.

Exactly, because Singer drained all the fun and all the wonder out of Superman.

To quote General Zod: "This...super-man is nothing of the kind."

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Hello again!
You see you have just bought into the tripe and nonsense of Singer's 'Wrath of Kahn' stupidity.

You can make a movie entertaining and action packed while still making it thoughtful.

How can anyone in their right mind suggest that movie would have been worse had they added Metallo (for example), and had one or two scenes with Superman duking it out with him?

I havent bought into anything, you can tell by my top ten in my sig that i like more character driven movies than action ones. I'd rather have an SR than an X3 anyday of the week, i hate movies that are just action, they bore me. IMO you cant make the first movie of a superhero franchise as action packed as you could a superhero sequel. With this movie Singer had to re-introduce the characters and make them interesting, which IMO he did very well. Thats the way i feel and i havent bought into anything buddy. Batman Begins is another brilliant character driven movie with not that much emphasis on action, and it is THE best CB movie out there today.

I just find it incredibly amusing and intriguing that once it reached $200 million the box office totally died. The movie has dropped about 80% from last week. It will be lucky to make $200.1 million at this rate.

There is probably more to the Superman box office than meets the eye.

Its possible we arent getting any updates because people have stopped following the BO of SR. OR it could have just finished its IMAX run. I dont care any more, we are getting a Singer sequel which is what i wanted.

 

[buggs0268]

I just find it incredibly amusing and intriguing that once it reached $200 million the box office totally died. The movie has dropped about 80% from last week. It will be lucky to make $200.1 million at this rate.

There is probably more to the Superman box office than meets the eye.

It is because Warner's desperately, pathetically, needed this to make 200 mill so that they could say one of their tentpole films this summer made 200 mill. They actually spent a lot of money and bargained with theater owners to keep it in theaters. Like I said, there is a post here where a guy states that on another board, a theater manager was aggressivly asked to keep SR in his theater. They even promised him 75% of the take, and he replied "75% of zero is still zero" Don't ask me to find it but it is in one of these threads. This just shows how sad and pathetic Warner's had to get with this film. I guess they can kiss IMAX's ass next contract time for getting them anywhere close to the 200 mill area domestically. In short, the film didn't have legs. I bet Warner's quietly asked their employees to see it in the last few weeks at the theaters to get box office up. I am mostly certain they were paying theater owners to keep it in their theaters. Probably spent more money just to get to the 200 mill mark so they didn't look like total losers this summer. Yeah, way to go Warner's.

And hey, it took almost twice as long as Batman Begins to hit that mark, and almost 6 times as long as X-Men: The last stand to make to 200 mill. Making it the 8th slowest film of all time to reach 200 mill domestic. Someone will bring up the list in response to this. So I say "Oh yeah, those films above it were released when ticket prices were half to 1/4th the price of first run tickets this summer." Making what they did extraordinary and what SR did pathetic. Way to go Bryan.

 

[Tyler23]

Way to go Bryan.

I agree. His film generated 390 million worldwide, and he just inked a deal on a sequel.

Good call.

 

[buggs0268]

No I was being sarcastic. 390 WW. Spderman 2 nearly took that amount domestic. Wow. Yeah Bryan. God you suck

 

[Tyler23]

I know you were being sarcastic, as was I

You seem pretty emotional regarding this announcement. Are you a Superman fan that just didn't like Bryan's vision, or are you just opposed to Superman on film in general?

 

[buggs0268]

Superman fan who has hated Bryans vision since he decided on that lame, "the banned word" suit.

 

[Tyler23]

Gotcha. At least you're a fan.

I don't think Singer's take was 100% perfect either, but are you aware of what the alternatives were? JJ Abrams, McG, Tim Burton, etc...

Thank God we didn't get Superman engaging in some cosmic kryptonian war, fighting Lex kung-fu style in midair all the while sporting a transparent suit where his internal organs were visible.

I cringe at the tripe that nearly made it on screen during all those failed efforts. Singer's version looks like movie-of-the-century material by comparison.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It is because Warner's desperately, pathetically, needed this to make 200 mill so that they could say one of their tentpole films this summer made 200 mill. They actually spent a lot of money and bargained with theater owners to keep it in theaters. Like I said, there is a post here where a guy states that on another board, a theater manager was aggressivly asked to keep SR in his theater. They even promised him 75% of the take, and he replied "75% of zero is still zero" Don't ask me to find it but it is in one of these threads.

Wow, you just love that story, don't you? I think you should put it in your sig.

I know you don't want to be asked for a link or anything, but I'm really interested in where that came from.

This just shows how sad and pathetic Warner's had to get with this film. I guess they can kiss IMAX's ass next contract time for getting them anywhere close to the 200 mill area domestically.

Yes, of course IMAX helped.

And hey, it took almost twice as long as Batman Begins to hit that mark, and almost 6 times as long as X-Men: The last stand to make to 200 mill. Making it the 8th slowest film of all time to reach 200 mill domestic.

Batman Begins was also released in IMAX, and it helped it's domestic box office. A great film with a great icon, too. I guess you never know with box office huh?

Way to go Bryan.

So far so good.

 

[TheVileOne]

One thing is true though, studios urge and convince exhibitors to keep movies in theatres longer by letting them keep more of the BO sales.

So that's probably one reason Superman Returns was able to stay in theatres so long and struggle past the $200 million mark.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Looks like the rumor that everyone said about it having to make 200 mill domestic were true. 200 mill domestic. God this is so dumb. Shoulda gotten a new director Warner's. I guess you guys will only learn on Batman.

In all fairness, buggs, Batman being an example is a pretty poor one. SR beat Bat's in overall box office take and BB is still getting its sequel. I'm well aware of your disdain (putting it mildly) of Singer's project since the suit was made public. If only making a shade over $200 million domestic is grounds for a directorial dismissal, then WB needs to shine up fresh pink slips for Nolan and Goyer. I seriously hope the sequel to SR is more up your alley. It's obvious you're just as passionate as the next Superfanatic about Big Blue, and I can't think of how pissed I'd be if I totally hated SR. I was much the same way as you, but toward's Burton, McG, and Ratner's proposed interpretations of the character. I hope the Donner Cut is to your liking so that at least something out of this year is salvageable for you.

 

[Pickle-El]

In all fairness, buggs, Batman being an example is a pretty poor one. SR beat Bat's in overall box office take and BB is still getting its sequel. I'm well aware of your disdain (putting it mildly) of Singer's project since the suit was made public. If only making a shade over $200 million domestic is grounds for a directorial dismissal, then WB needs to shine up fresh pink slips for Nolan and Goyer. I seriously hope the sequel to SR is more up your alley. It's obvious you're just as passionate as the next Superfanatic about Big Blue, and I can't think of how pissed I'd be if I totally hated SR. I was much the same way as you, but toward's Burton, McG, and Ratner's proposed interpretations of the character. I hope the Donner Cut is to your liking so that at least something out of this year is salvageable for you.

You're such a gentleman compared to me.....

 

[Mr. Socko]

Begins isn't getting a sequel 'cause it did amazing in theaters, but because everyone loved it.

 

[The Riddler]

and uhh, begins actually made profit.

 

[CConn]

BB isn't getting a sequel because of how good it was, and SR isn't getting a sequel because of how good it was.

Both films, in WB's mind, at least, were successful for them (to what extent - in terms of profits and whatnot, I don't know), and that their sequels can be equally or more successful.

One thing in SR's case I think was a very good idea on WB's part, was limiting the budget to 175 million or so. That way, even if the sequel only makes 200 million or so, it will turn a profit, and be as much of a success as, say, BB or something.

The one thing I think everyone needs to realize is, no movie's beating Spider-Man. At least, not any time soon. Hulk couldn't do it, none of the X-Men movies couldn't do it, Batman couldn't do it, and, obviously, Superman couldn't do it. And given the critical and fan-based praise for (most of) those films, Spider-Man obviously has a bit more going for it than simply being damn good.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

...and that's why I like you cconn.

 

[CConn]

And here I thought it was 'cause of my good looks.

 

[matrix_ghost]

BB isn't getting a sequel because of how good it was, and SR isn't getting a sequel because of how good it was.

Both films, in WB's mind, at least, were successful for them (to what extent - in terms of profits and whatnot, I don't know), and that their sequels can be equally or more successful.

One thing in SR's case I think was a very good idea on WB's part, was limiting the budget to 175 million or so. That way, even if the sequel only makes 200 million or so, it will turn a profit, and be as much of a success as, say, BB or something.

The one thing I think everyone needs to realize is, no movie's beating Spider-Man. At least, not any time soon. Hulk couldn't do it, none of the X-Men movies couldn't do it, Batman couldn't do it, and, obviously, Superman couldn't do it. And given the critical and fan-based praise for (most of) those films, Spider-Man obviously has a bit more going for it than simply being damn good.

I dunno. I think spidey's success is largely due to the fact that " it was done right".
Compared to other comic book movies , it has mostly everything done rather good.
Solid comic book action , a proper villain who can act , no MTV music crap , no experimental artsy flick , no homage to earlier incarnations of the previous comic book movies.

Of course i could say the same thing about Batman Begins , but then again i think Batman is largely a far darker character as opposed to Spiderman.

I do think that Superman is the only movie of DC that can really challenge ( and win) spiderman in terms of BO.

 

[Retroman]

^Ha ha fair enough, though the suspense is killing me.

anti up..lol

A little late but i'll post as promised in a few minutes. Didn't have the chance this week.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

i'm looking forward to this.

 

[CConn]

I dunno. I think spidey's success is largely due to the fact that " it was done right".
Compared to other comic book movies , it has mostly everything done rather good.
Solid comic book action , a proper villain who can act , no MTV music crap , no experimental artsy flick , no homage to earlier incarnations of the previous comic book movies.

Of course i could say the same thing about Batman Begins , but then again i think Batman is largely a far darker character as opposed to Spiderman.

I do think that Superman is the only movie of DC that can really challenge ( and win) spiderman in terms of BO.

That's the thing. Everything you're taking about is should'ves, would'ves, and could'ves. It's pointless to be dwelling on it, when it simply isn't going to happen.

And just as an aside, when Batman '89 was released, its box office, and the whole "mania" surrounding it was as big, if not bigger, than Spider-Man 1. So yeah, Batman can do it, but obviously for some reason, can't.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

You're such a gentleman compared to me.....

Not really, man. Buggs and I went rounds before back in the summer, as I did with Nate Gray. I just realized all of the hostility doesn't really help anything. I also tried to step out of my shoes and look at how someone else might feel if they'd waited as long as I have (19 years) since they got to see Superman last on the big screen, but instead of being thrilled and entertained, were disappointed and let down. It's like I told people many times: If this movie sucks, I'll need therapy.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

That's the thing. Everything you're taking about is should'ves, would'ves, and could'ves. It's pointless to be dwelling on it, when it simply isn't going to happen.

And just as an aside, when Batman '89 was released, its box office, and the whole "mania" surrounding it was as big, if not bigger, than Spider-Man 1. So yeah, Batman can do it, but obviously for some reason, can't.

I don't think another superhero movie will ever beat Spidey at this rate. There'll be hits aplenty for sure, but with the current trend of box office rates nosediving since 1990, along with DVD's prominence and piracy, it's not going to get better for ANY movies in the future. I remember how big Batman was when it came out, and no superhero movie has had that kind of fervor upon release, with Spidey being the exception. I didn't even think Spidey was that great, but I saw it four times (two opening weekend) just because of the origin and watching him swing around New York. Those parts I liked.