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

[Pickle-El]

Interesting......

Warners rethinks game plan
After tough summer, studio fine-tunes marketing strategy

By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK

A press preview for musical toon "Happy Feet" in Los Angeles last week was straight out of a Disney playbook. Between the squeals of delight from kids amped up on penguin-shaped cookies, it was hard for Jeff Robinov to get a word in as he introduced a 20-minute clip of the film.

Yet Robinov doesn't work for the Mouse House. He's president of production at Warner Bros. Pictures, which has traditionally avoided such displays. But after turning out its weakest domestic crop of summer films in years, the studio is being overtly aggressive in marketing its upcoming lineup, including moving three pics off the sked to next year.

Warners badly needs a strong fourth quarter at the box office. Studio execs believe they have the goods, pointing in particular to Martin Scorsese's star-packed "The Departed," Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer "Blood Diamond," Thanksgiving release "Happy Feet" and feel-good football drama "We Are Marshall." Now, the studio has to get over its jitters and deliver.

"There's definitely the mood of a group of people who aren't used to getting hit in the face," says one producer who works with Warners.

Publicly, Warners will say that everyone takes a hit sooner or later -- look at Sony last year. Nor have any heads rolled yet, as often happens when a studio stumbles (again, look at Sony, which fired marketing topper Geoff Ammer last year). But Warners is reevaluating its game plan and making changes.

Recognizing that it simply released too many movies this summer -- including two tentpoles, "Poseidon" and "Superman Returns" -- Warners has moved Curtis Hanson's "Lucky You," Hilary Swank-starrer "The Reaping" and Marc Lawrence's comedy-romance "Music and Lyrics By" from the fourth quarter to next year. In particular, the studio wants to make sure tentpoles, such as "Happy Feet," are given a wide berth.

"It's such a competitive environment and there aren't enough windows. Also, we don't want to cannibalize ourselves," one Warners exec says. "Let's protect the movies we have and give them room to run."

One studio insider agrees. "Warners was just drowning in too many movies."

At the same time, Warner Bros. Entertainment prexy-CEO Alan Horn insists the studio isn't cutting back on the number of movies it makes and distributes any time soon.

The studio's domestic marketing arm, headed by Dawn Taubin, is rejiggering where it spends money, shelling out less on newspaper ads in some cases and putting the extra coin into theater materials and outdoor ads.

Warners is looking to redeem itself both at the box office and critically.

Studio's next release, Martin Scorsese's violent mobster-cop drama "The Departed," is already getting strong buzz. Pic, opening Oct. 6, toplines Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg.

No Scorsese film has ever opened at more than $10 million, but they have been slow builders. With hefty awards buzz, Scorsese's "The Aviator" racked up a domestic gross of $102 million. The big question -- can the R-rated "Departed" do the same sort of business?

Warners and Scorsese tested "Departed" as many as three times, each time making cuts or tweaks. Studio didn't have this luxury with Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" and M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water," with both Singer and Shyamalan insisting on no public test screenings.

"Marty sat through two or three previews to get the film to a place where he thought it was the best cut," one production exec says.

Movie should give Warners early awards steam, particularly for performances, including Nicholson's. Scorsese himself is skittish on the subject of kudos, considering he's lost every campaign to nab the Oscar for best director. Scorsese has apparently told the studio not to make a push for "Departed," but that's likely subject to change, depending on box office and critical reaction.

In another shift, Warners' marketing honchos are bowing campaigns sooner, responding in part to criticism that promos should have started earlier for "Superman Returns."

Animated penguin pic "Happy Feet" doesn't open until Nov. 17, but the studio is already working on building buzz. And there are no other WB releases between "Departed" and "Happy Feet."

A final cut of the toon won't be ready until the third week of October, so Warners previewed a 20-minute trailer for the press. In addition to the last week's L.A. event, a similar tete-a-tete unspooled in Gotham.

Haunting Warners is its reputation for never being able to open an animated pic, from "Scooby Doo" to this summer's "The Ant Bully." But the studio says "Happy Feet" will have a unique appeal, considering auds' proven fondness for penguins.

With a prime Thanksgiving holiday opening date, the pic should have access to plenty of young moviegoers, despite competition from the latest Bond installment "Casino Royale," opening the same day.

Things get even more competitive for Warners in December. "Blood Diamond," toplining DiCaprio, opens Dec. 15 against Will Smith-starrer "Happyness," fantasy "Eragon" and Irwin Winkler's Iraq war drama "Home of the Brave."

Of all the fall films, those on the lot glow the most over helmer Ed Zwick's "Blood Diamond," about the ravages of diamond conflicts in Africa.

One week later, Warners bows its Christmas holiday pic "We Are Marshall," directed by McG and starring Matthew McConaughey, Matthew Fox and David Strathairn. Film, based on a true story, revolves around the aftermath of a plane crash that wipes out a West Virginia college football team, along with most of the coaches.

Football movies are scoring big at the box office these days, with "Invincible" and "Gridiron Gang" making a surprisingly strong showing. But Warners wants to concentrate on the human drama aspect of the story.

The competish is fierce the weekend of Dec. 22. "Marshall" will go up against "Charlotte's Web," "Night at the Museum" and "The Good Shepherd."

Studio also sees promise in smaller films like teen pic "Unaccompanied Minors," which opens Dec. 8. One potential weak spot: Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain," which was lambasted by some when preeming at the Venice Film Fest.

Warners is still debating whether to give a qualifying run to Clint Eastwood's Japanese-language "Letters from Iwo Jima," a companion piece to "Flags of Our Fathers," which Paramount opens domestically Oct. 20. DreamWorks and Warners, partners on the maverick project, want to ensure that "Letters" doesn't interfere in any way with the awards campaign for "Flags."

In December, the studio is certain to give a limited, qualifying run to Steven Soderbergh's "The Good German," starring George Clooney and Cate Blanchett and shot in black-and-white, with Blanchett's performance in particular said to wow. Studio is still figuring out the best strategy for releasing the ambitious film.

Having good movies is one thing; opening them to strong numbers is another. Trotting out real-life penguins to plug "Happy Feet" for reporters and their kids is the easy part.

"The mantra is, 'OK, we had a rough summer, but wait until you see our fall and winter,' " one Warners-based producer says. "At the same time, nothing is a slam-dunk."

 

[Pickle-El]

Italy opening propels 'Pirates' back to top
Pic grabbed another $18.3 million over mild weekend

By IAN MOHR

After falling from No. 1 at the charts a couple frames ago, those buccaneers from Buena Vista Intl.'s "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" have returned to pole position at the overseas wickets on their maiden voyage in Italy.

Pic grabbed another $18.3 million over a mild weekend to bring its international cume to $613.2 million.

Italo exhibs had been eagerly awaiting the pic, which played most territories over the summer.

Exhibs there were buoyed by the results of the Johnny Depp starrer, which raked in $12.1 million over a five-day bow. Pic hit a $10,790 per-screen average from 900 engagements.

That number marked the turf's second best opening ever, and torrential rain didn't hurt biz.

Italo bizzers thought the pic worked because of its Depp fanbase, the first pic's success there and its four-quadrant target aud.

Italo exhibs estimate film will add $28 million-$31 million to its chest.

"Dead Man's Chest" has cumed $612.5 million internationally and $1.03 billion worldwide.

During the weekend, it became the sixth film to pass the $600 million mark in foreign grosses, besting "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire's" $602.2 million.

Overseas take for "Chest" should top "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" ($614.7 million). Then only "Titanic" at $1.23 billion, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" at $752 million and "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" at $651 million will stand ahead of "Chest."

But with little new product from Hollywood creeping into overseas cinemas, local productions were able to capitalize.

Germany's "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" did so well that it landed at No. 2 behind "Pirates" and ahead of BVI's "Cars," with a rollout in only one market.

Constantin pic looks set to become this year's most successful German film after garnering $9.7 million in its opening weekend.

Tom Tykwer-helmed project is an adaptation of Patrick Suskind's 1985 bestseller about a young 18th-century Parisian with an extraordinary sense of smell who stops at nothing to create the most wondrous perfume imaginable.

"We've been waiting all year for this film, and it has not let anyone down," said one Teutonic exhib.

Pic's massive marketing campaign and numerous premieres in Germany had drummed up plenty of publicity for the pic, which took 53% of all Teuton box office revenue this weekend.

By comparison, "X-Men 3: The Last Stand" garnered $5.6 million in its first four days in Germany, and "The Da Vinci Code" made $13.4 million in its first weekend.

Pic also topped the charts in Austria.

"Cars" putted well behind "Perfume" to No. 3 to raise its cume to $192.6 million. Pic was originally pegged as underperforming overseas, but it has hung around the top of the charts into the fall.

CGI toon played well in Italy at No. 2, and set records for Pixar openings in Greece with $510,000 at 90 and in Turkey with $450,000 at 80.

"Cars" looks likely to be the seventh pic to top $200 million internationally this year -- joining "Pirates," "Da Vinci," "Ice Age: The Meltdown," "Mission: Impossible III," "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and "X-Men."

Warner Bros.' "Superman Returns," meantime, is struggling to fly past the $200 million mark: Pic's foreign cume is $188.1 million to date.

Rounding out the charts were three more holdovers: "Little Man," "Miami Vice" and "Monster House."

"Little Man" jumped to a second-place launch in Spain, behind local pic "Alatriste," with $2 million at 251 screens. Pic has cumed $21.9 million offshore.

"Vice," meantime, which had disappointed domestically, has cumed $80.5 million internationally. Cop pic has yet to book Italy and China.

In other territories, the U.K. saw a decline in B.O., dropping to its fourth lowest frame in the past year.

Sony's "Talladega Nights" took the top spot in Blighty, but did not meet bookers' expectations.

Comedy pic was down 30% from projections, and bookers felt the pic opened softly because of the distinct lack of interest in NASCAR in the U.K. Others suggest Will Ferrell's appeal in Blighty is limited.

That was after Sony gave the pic a big push, including a high-profile London preem.

Along with its U.S. launch, "The Black Dahlia" also bowed in the U.K., but failed to make any real impact on Brit auds. Pic, from distrib Entertainment, finished third with $1 million.

there, fixed

 

[AgentPat]

WTF?!? He liked it? Oh, man. I don't know how to take this. If you're kidding, Pat, this isn't funny (well, maybe a little).

I was almost certain he'd be crying for Singer's head on a stick *ducks out back to check for flying pigs*. Did he say anything about it?

He said a LOT about it. Made a complete 180. I was as shocked as you.

But I should also say that I've seen people holster their enthusiasm after seeing the pic as well, and I'm putting that lightly.

Point is, I think Superman fans should see the pic, even if it's just to have an educated opinion. What's important to one viewer may be irrelevant to another, so many opinions are going to be subjective. And while you can form subjective opinions about things like plot elements without seeing the film, ya never know if something else might mitigate a particular pet peeve. I think that's what happened with OldGuy. (His review of the film can be read over at BT's.)

 

[KaptainKrypton]

He said a LOT about it. Made a complete 180. I was as shocked as you.

But I should also say that I've seen people holster their enthusiasm after seeing the pic as well, and I'm putting that lightly.

Point is, I think Superman fans should see the pic, even if it's just to have an educated opinion. What's important to one viewer may be irrelevant to another, so many opinions are going to be subjective. And while you can form subjective opinions about things like plot elements without seeing the film, ya never know if something else might mitigate a particular pet peeve. I think that's what happened with OldGuy. (His review of the film can be read over at BT's.)

I'll have to go find it. Maybe it was some kind of prank or something? This has totally changed my outlook on life. I guess you never can be TOO certain of some things.

 

[buggs0268]

Well there we go again with Singer's ego:

Studio didn't have this luxury with Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" and M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water," with both Singer and Shyamalan insisting on no public test screenings.

I can see why Shyamalana-ding-dong didn't want to do a test screening, as his movies always have some twist that is the basis of the movie that he wants to keep public. But everyone knew the kid was Supes. Testint is invaluable to get audience response early enough where you can set up reshoots to add scenes and cut stupid stuff that the GA wont buy, and make changes. Even Dean Devlin has said that had they been able to a few test screenings for Godzilla, they would have been able to rewrite a lot of the scenes, change a lot of the story, especially the scenes shot in LA, and redone a lot of it. Sony never gave them the time to do test screenings or except for a small one where they added the scene of the soldier going down the hallway and seeing nothing,a nd then Godzilla's head moving as he turned around. Movies can be saved a great deal from test screenings.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Hmmm.... why didn't WB issue such a thing. I mean do even did it with their high tentpole blockbuster sequels like Matrix Reloaded , Revolutions and even Harry Potter , complete with unfinished VFX. Remember the early test screenings that popped up at AICN where the reviewers discussed in lenght about Ralph Fiennes performance , pre-CGI Voldemort.

Guess it's really an ego thing

 

[Retroman]

^^Lay off the guy will ya. Theres nothing wrong with not doing test screenings. So movies others dont.Simple.

You people only focus on the negatives.

 

[Retroman]

Updated box office figures....

SUPERMAN RETURNS

Domestic Total as of Sep. 24, 2006:

Domestic: $198,447,055 51.3%
+ Foreign: $188,200,000 48.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $386,647,055

Source:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

 

[Showtime]

Man...ha ha...it looks like its going to hit 199 but miss the 200 mark. Poor SR.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I may have overreacted there , but it does make you wonder retro.

If it were a movie like say Spiderman 3 i could understand them not having screenings.
For starters there's the obvious stuff such as spoiler materials , as well as the fact that people do know that they can survive ( meaning that they can still make money) without showing the movies to the audiences. I mean with Spiderman 1 and 2 becoming such big blockbusters , everyone from the main cast and crew back and fanboy anticipation that everything is bigger and better ,it's not hard to realise that why they don't have screenings for such a movie.

But Superman is a different league.
It's reintroducing the movie for this generation , with better VFX , witn new actors . Especially after the numerous failed projects of Superman , i'd think that Warner would've wanted to make sure that Superman turned out the best way possible. Like i said in my previous post WB is a studio who does screen movies for the public , even their big tentpolemovies.
Matrix Reloaded , Matrix Revolutions, Harry Potter.
I'll go on with the recent ones : 300 , children of men , the prestige . The list goes on and on.
WB has shown both matrix reloaded and the last harry potter movie in their unfinished state to the public. So the excuse that someone would make that only complete movies are shown is something that i can't buy.
With SR , i would think that they would include multiple screenings to the general pulbic to see where improvements could be made.

Screening a movie for family/friends and studio exec. isn't what i would call a proper screening. For starters you have yes men as you're audience ( since when do you invite friends/family who you hate to a screening ) and especially the studio exec. who aren't the ones to give you tips on making a better movie.

 

[buggs0268]

Hmmm.... why didn't WB issue such a thing. I mean do even did it with their high tentpole blockbuster sequels like Matrix Reloaded , Revolutions and even Harry Potter , complete with unfinished VFX. Remember the early test screenings that popped up at AICN where the reviewers discussed in lenght about Ralph Fiennes performance , pre-CGI Voldemort.

Guess it's really an ego thing

It was probably in his contract. WB wanted to get the thing going, and their last director they had on tap flaked on them because he wouldn't get onto a plane, meanwhile Marvel Superhero movies are breaking box office records. And also becuase he did X1 and X2, they probably acquiessed to everything he told his agent that he wanted in the deal. Remember he said that it was the quickest deal signing he had ever seen. So Warner's was desperate to get him.

 

[buggs0268]

I may have overreacted there , but it does make you wonder retro.

If it were a movie like say Spiderman 3 i could understand them not having screenings.
For starters there's the obvious stuff such as spoiler materials , as well as the fact that people do know that they can survive ( meaning that they can still make money) without showing the movies to the audiences. I mean with Spiderman 1 and 2 becoming such big blockbusters , everyone from the main cast and crew back and fanboy anticipation that everything is bigger and better ,it's not hard to realise that why they don't have screenings for such a movie.

But Superman is a different league.
It's reintroducing the movie for this generation , with better VFX , witn new actors . Especially after the numerous failed projects of Superman , i'd think that Warner would've wanted to make sure that Superman turned out the best way possible. Like i said in my previous post WB is a studio who does screen movies for the public , even their big tentpolemovies.
Matrix Reloaded , Matrix Revolutions, Harry Potter.
I'll go on with the recent ones : 300 , children of men , the prestige . The list goes on and on.
WB has shown both matrix reloaded and the last harry potter movie in their unfinished state to the public. So the excuse that someone would make that only complete movies are shown is something that i can't buy.
With SR , i would think that they would include multiple screenings to the general pulbic to see where improvements could be made.

Screening a movie for family/friends and studio exec. isn't what i would call a proper screening. For starters you have yes men as you're audience ( since when do you invite friends/family who you hate to a screening ) and especially the studio exec. who aren't the ones to give you tips on making a better movie.

Yeah. Movies are constantly screened at test screenings in unfinished form. They do it as early as possible to have the time to change as much as possible to have the feedback. Yeah that family test screening was BS.

 

[matrix_ghost]

It was probably in his contract. WB wanted to get the thing going, and their last director they had on tap flaked on them because he wouldn't get onto a plane, meanwhile Marvel Superhero movies are breaking box office records. And also becuase he did X1 and X2, they probably acquiessed to everything he told his agent that he wanted in the deal. Remember he said that it was the quickest deal signing he had ever seen. So Warner's was desperate to get him.

I can understand that WB was very happy with him on board. Despite my complaints about X1 and X2 , i have to admit they are entertaining AND they made lots and lots of money.
Desperation would definately be something that could be true , after all the debacle of McG ( seriously WHAT.....THE...HELL....WAS....WB....THINKING.....McG....Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane......WTF) , and the backlash of Moriarty over the Brett Ratner-Abrams superman movie , they finally got a director that director two succesful comic book movies as well as some good character movies ( usual suspects , apt pupil).
No for WB , it was really a no brainer to sign him.

But i think that every director needs to have a critical eye over his own decisions .From the general public , studio exec. or even himself.
I definately think that WB made a very big mistake here by giving him carte blanche. You'd expect WB to be more way of such things, especially how Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions underperformed following also free reign from the directors ( and this coming from a very very big matrix trilogy fan).

 

[J.Howlett]

There have been plenty of war stories of directors being forced to test screen films to an audience and the additons or substracts have seriously hurt the film...just as the reverse has happened.

Either way, more often than not, test screenings hurt a film. Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind. Just compare the director's cut to the theatrical cut and you have your answer. Another such example is Blade Runner.

And it's not like Singer didn't have anyone view his film. He had people in his circle to view the film and he still made changes to it because of the feedback he got.

Superman Returns is a victim, as much as I love it, of being a 3 hour film cut down to 2 hours and 20 minutes. And why was that? Because WB wanted it in the summer. And Singer knew he had to deliver a shorter film for the summer audience. And even with all that, he delivered a pretty great film that's probably even better in its long form.

I know it's much better, just based on the full script.

 

[matrix_ghost]

There have been plenty of war stories of directors being forced to test screen films to an audience and the additons or substracts have seriously hurt the film...just as the reverse has happened.

Either way, more often than not, test screenings hurt a film. Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind. Just compare the director's cut to the theatrical cut and you have your answer. Another such example is Blade Runner.

And it's not like Singer didn't have anyone view his film. He had people in his circle to view the film and he still made changes to it because of the feedback he got.

Superman Returns is a victim, as much as I love it, of being a 3 hour film cut down to 2 hours and 20 minutes. And why was that? Because WB wanted it in the summer. And Singer knew he had to deliver a shorter film for the summer audience. And even with all that, he delivered a pretty great film that's probably even better in its long form.

I know it's much better, just based on the full script.

So what you're saying is that SR is a movie that shouldn't have been released in the summer .
Cause if that's what you're saying , there is something that i don't understand.
1 Either WB had said to singer that they were going to release SR in the summer ( which i think any director who's making a big budget superhero movie should know) and singer still went knowingly that this was a summer movie and made his film which in it's complete state wasn't suited for the summer
2 Singer didn't really misinterpreted what a summer movie was going to be.

Btw , if you have the script , i'd very much like to read it. Just to see what it's really like in it's complete form

 

[J.Howlett]

matrix,

Just looking at the script, looking at the film, and knowing what "summer audiences want out of their summer films", this film should've been released on Thanksgiving. For me, it has sort of the same vibe as the Harry Potter films. Great entertainment but not really summer films.

Whether you like Singer or not, he doesn't make "summer romps." Even the great X2 isn't a summer romp. It's entertaining. It's exciting. But, it has heart, and alot of meat on the bones. The same can be said for Superman Returns and usually, summer audiences don't have that kind of patience.

If I were WB, after I saw the film finished, I would've moved it. Everyone knew Dead Man's Chest was going to be a juggernaut, mainly because it is a "summer romp." WB should've just dropped it back to November and they would've made more money in the end off the theatrical.

As it stands, they didn't break even on this film but the Superman brand brought in alot of dough for WB this year and it's going to get better on November 28th.

As for the script, it was released to the public after the film came out. You can get it at Borders or Barnes and Nobles. If you've read the novel, then you've basically read the script.

Again, the script is really a three-hour epic story instead of the film we got that was still damn good.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I agree with you that the way SR turned out , it just isn't a summer movie.
Well looking back , it was inevitable that POTC was going to be such a massive success. But remember when SR wasn't released and these parts of the hype were busy. Alot of people here and on other sites had thought that POTC and Superman would slug it out. They didn't fully expect that Superman would be crushed by POTC. HEck even Warner didn't expect that. I sure didn't ..i had expected Superman to hit 300 million at least

What also WB did wrong was releasing this movie 1) during the worldcup season and 2) not releasing this movie in multiple markets at the same time.

Excel had a thread on making the sequel a success and in that thread i had explained the topic of bad Word Of Mouth
What killed supes's BO take was the bad WOM. IF WB had released this movie in multiple markets at the same time , not only would they reduced the time WOM spreads ( if a movie is released a month after it's US release , the WOM build is much stronger then if the movie released on the same day or a couple of days later then it's US release) but it also would've ensured a far better BO take. The fanboy uproar was inevitable but from a financial POV i could've guaranteed that SR would break 200 million easy and 400 WW would be a definite.


The thanksgiving slate would've been far better now that you say it. Not only would've superman not had the competition of POTC , it would've had no competition at all.

 

[LL2K2]

I agree with you that the way SR turned out , it just isn't a summer movie.
Well looking back , it was inevitable that POTC was going to be such a massive success. But remember when SR wasn't released and these parts of the hype were busy. Alot of people here and on other sites had thought that POTC and Superman would slug it out. They didn't fully expect that Superman would be crushed by POTC. HEck even Warner didn't expect that. I sure didn't ..i had expected Superman to hit 300 million at least

As much as I liked the film, I'm inclined to agree as well. These things happen.

What also WB did wrong was releasing this movie 1) during the worldcup season and 2) not releasing this movie in multiple markets at the same time.

Actually, it did open in several markets - US, Philippines, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, to name a few - in the first week.

 

[buggs0268]

matrix,

Just looking at the script, looking at the film, and knowing what "summer audiences want out of their summer films", this film should've been released on Thanksgiving. For me, it has sort of the same vibe as the Harry Potter films. Great entertainment but not really summer films.

Whether you like Singer or not, he doesn't make "summer romps." Even the great X2 isn't a summer romp. It's entertaining. It's exciting. But, it has heart, and alot of meat on the bones. The same can be said for Superman Returns and usually, summer audiences don't have that kind of patience.

If I were WB, after I saw the film finished, I would've moved it. Everyone knew Dead Man's Chest was going to be a juggernaut, mainly because it is a "summer romp." WB should've just dropped it back to November and they would've made more money in the end off the theatrical.

As it stands, they didn't break even on this film but the Superman brand brought in alot of dough for WB this year and it's going to get better on November 28th.

As for the script, it was released to the public after the film came out. You can get it at Borders or Barnes and Nobles. If you've read the novel, then you've basically read the script.

Again, the script is really a three-hour epic story instead of the film we got that was still damn good.

it's a superhero event movie, or it was supposed to be. I would have thought something weird if Warner's released it in the winter. STM was the only one of the big superheroes as a Christmass release, and that was because they knew they were going to miss summer. I heard it was originally slated as a summer release too. It was also right at the time of change where summer movies became summer movies with Jaws in 1975. Jaws started the summer movie thing. Before that studios would releease big pictures all through the year. so STM was to ahve been I believe summer of 1978 release, but became a winter 1978 release as they realized at some point during production, making 2 movies, they weren't going to make summer at all.

 

[Retroman]

Man...ha ha...it looks like its going to hit 199 but miss the 200 mark. Poor SR.

Noooo! Don't say it.

I may have overreacted there , but it does make you wonder retro.

If it were a movie like say Spiderman 3 i could understand them not having screenings.
For starters there's the obvious stuff such as spoiler materials , as well as the fact that people do know that they can survive ( meaning that they can still make money) without showing the movies to the audiences. I mean with Spiderman 1 and 2 becoming such big blockbusters , everyone from the main cast and crew back and fanboy anticipation that everything is bigger and better ,it's not hard to realise that why they don't have screenings for such a movie.

But Superman is a different league.
It's reintroducing the movie for this generation , with better VFX , witn new actors . Especially after the numerous failed projects of Superman , i'd think that Warner would've wanted to make sure that Superman turned out the best way possible. Like i said in my previous post WB is a studio who does screen movies for the public , even their big tentpolemovies.
Matrix Reloaded , Matrix Revolutions, Harry Potter.
I'll go on with the recent ones : 300 , children of men , the prestige . The list goes on and on.
WB has shown both matrix reloaded and the last harry potter movie in their unfinished state to the public. So the excuse that someone would make that only complete movies are shown is something that i can't buy.
With SR , i would think that they would include multiple screenings to the general pulbic to see where improvements could be made.

Screening a movie for family/friends and studio exec. isn't what i would call a proper screening. For starters you have yes men as you're audience ( since when do you invite friends/family who you hate to a screening ) and especially the studio exec. who aren't the ones to give you tips on making a better movie.

You make some very good points MG. In hindsight maybe Bryan and WB were naive about test screening it only to family and friends.But, as has been said earlier, testing in front of regular people might have hurt the film even more. We might of ended up with an end prouct ala Fantastic Four, a movie that was severely butchered during editing.

And in my experience family and friends do normally tell the cold hard truth when push comes to shove so Bryan's thinking is something i could understand in a way.

Though i loved the movie i do feel Singer was wrong and stupid to leave out some of the scenes he left out.Especially the 6/7 minute RTK sequence. I wonder who in their right mind told Bryan to leave that out? Singer was even more foolish to take that advice seriously.

 

[dark_b]

I agree with you that the way SR turned out , it just isn't a summer movie.
Well looking back , it was inevitable that POTC was going to be such a massive success. But remember when SR wasn't released and these parts of the hype were busy. Alot of people here and on other sites had thought that POTC and Superman would slug it out. They didn't fully expect that Superman would be crushed by POTC. HEck even Warner didn't expect that. I sure didn't ..i had expected Superman to hit 300 million at least

What also WB did wrong was releasing this movie 1) during the worldcup season and 2) not releasing this movie in multiple markets at the same time.

Excel had a thread on making the sequel a success and in that thread i had explained the topic of bad Word Of Mouth
What killed supes's BO take was the bad WOM. IF WB had released this movie in multiple markets at the same time , not only would they reduced the time WOM spreads ( if a movie is released a month after it's US release , the WOM build is much stronger then if the movie released on the same day or a couple of days later then it's US release) but it also would've ensured a far better BO take. The fanboy uproar was inevitable but from a financial POV i could've guaranteed that SR would break 200 million easy and 400 WW would be a definite.


The thanksgiving slate would've been far better now that you say it. Not only would've superman not had the competition of POTC , it would've had no competition at all.

with this is agree. i have been telling this from the beginning. batman begins was having good word of mouth but SR was having bad. and i was one of those people. i told the people i know to now watch this movie in the theater. i told them to watch at home but to not watch it in a theater. i know my friends and i know what is best for them. noone wants to watch 2:30 without action in a theater in the summer. noone that i know. but at home i will recomend it to a lot of people.

when you hear superman you think about epic and about action. SR was epic. but it didnt have action. and this is why people who saw the movie told the peopel outside the theater.
when i say action i mean superman action. and for todays audience that kind of action that they saw in SR was not enough. and right so. after two spiderman movies and three matrix movies this was not enough. we have to understand that people will always want to see more. they want to see bigger faster. and this is superman. he is he strongest and fastest.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Noooo! Don't say it.


You make some very good points MG. In hindsight maybe Bryan and WB were naive about test screening it only to family and friends.But, as has been said earlier, testing in front of regular people might have hurt the film even more. We might of ended up with an end prouct ala Fantastic Four, a movie that was severely butchered during editing.

And in my experience family and friends do normally tell the cold hard truth when push comes to shove so Bryan's thinking is something i could understand in a way.

Though i loved the movie i do feel Singer was wrong and stupid to leave out some of the scenes he left out.Especially the 6/7 minute RTK sequence. I wonder who in their right mind told Bryan to leave that out? Singer was even more foolish to take that advice seriously.

Well thats the goddamn truth, most of the time family and close friends are the ones to tell you the cold hard truth when no one else will. So i understand Bryan's thinking here.

 

[matrix_ghost]

As much as I liked the film, I'm inclined to agree as well. These things happen.



Actually, it did open in several markets - US, Philippines, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, to name a few - in the first week.

Well here's the complete list of the release dates ( at IMDB) :

USA 21 June 2006 (premiere) (Los Angeles, California)
Egypt 28 June 2006
Philippines 28 June 2006
South Korea 28 June 2006
USA 28 June 2006
Australia 29 June 2006
Indonesia 29 June 2006
New Zealand 29 June 2006
Puerto Rico 29 June 2006
Singapore 29 June 2006
Thailand 29 June 2006
India 30 June 2006
Belgium 4 July 2006 (Wilkinson American Movie Day)
Hungary 6 July 2006
Mexico 7 July 2006 (limited)
Mexico 7 July 2006 (IMAX version)
South Africa 7 July 2006
China 11 July 2006
Belgium 12 July 2006
France 12 July 2006
Iceland 12 July 2006
Spain 12 July 2006
Switzerland 12 July 2006 (French speaking region)
Argentina 13 July 2006
Chile 13 July 2006
Czech Republic 13 July 2006
Hong Kong 13 July 2006
Serbia 13 July 2006
Slovenia 13 July 2006
Brazil 14 July 2006
Mexico 14 July 2006
Panama 14 July 2006
UK 14 July 2006
Israel 20 July 2006
Croatia 21 July 2006 (Pula Film Festival)
Lithuania 21 July 2006
Turkey 21 July 2006
Kuwait 25 July 2006
United Arab Emirates 26 July 2006
Dominican Republic 27 July 2006 (Santo Domingo)
Russia 27 July 2006
Estonia 28 July 2006
Finland 28 July 2006
Norway 28 July 2006
Sweden 28 July 2006
Netherlands 3 August 2006
Denmark 4 August 2006
Poland 4 August 2006
Portugal 10 August 2006
Slovakia 10 August 2006
Germany 17 August 2006
Switzerland 17 August 2006 (German speaking region)
Austria 18 August 2006
Italy 18 August 2006 (limited)
Japan 19 August 2006
Italy 1 September 2006
Switzerland 1 September 2006 (Italian speaking region)
Greece 7 September 2006

There's still a big gap between the european and statesside debut.
If superman had done something like what Sony is doing with Spiderman 3 , IMO it would've ensured a more healthier BO take :

Belgium 2 May 2007
Egypt 2 May 2007
France 2 May 2007
Argentina 3 May 2007
Germany 3 May 2007
Israel 3 May 2007
Netherlands 3 May 2007
Brazil 4 May 2007
Estonia 4 May 2007
Finland 4 May 2007
Iceland 4 May 2007
Ireland 4 May 2007
Italy 4 May 2007
Poland 4 May 2007
Spain 4 May 2007
Sweden 4 May 2007
UK 4 May 2007
USA 4 May 2007
China 5 May 2007
Japan 5 May 2007
Denmark 7 May 2007
Bulgaria 11 May 2007

See that , almost all movies are released on the same day as the states side debut.

 

[dark_b]

Well thats the goddamn truth, most of the time family and close friends are the ones to tell you the cold hard truth when no one else will. So i understand Bryan's thinking here.

but this is not a fact. you have familys where they will thell you the truth and you will have familys that will not tell you the truth.

but no matter what.....they could still have a test screening.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Noooo! Don't say it.


You make some very good points MG. In hindsight maybe Bryan and WB were naive about test screening it only to family and friends.But, as has been said earlier, testing in front of regular people might have hurt the film even more. We might of ended up with an end prouct ala Fantastic Four, a movie that was severely butchered during editing.

And in my experience family and friends do normally tell the cold hard truth when push comes to shove so Bryan's thinking is something i could understand in a way.

Though i loved the movie i do feel Singer was wrong and stupid to leave out some of the scenes he left out.Especially the 6/7 minute RTK sequence. I wonder who in their right mind told Bryan to leave that out? Singer was even more foolish to take that advice seriously.

Hmmm , you have a point there retro.
True , it could've been worse like FF but i did find FF far more entertaining that SR ( don't shoot me !).
It's just this weird case i guess of just not knowing how the movie is going to turn out. I mean obviously on paper at least , there would be no way to change the movie drastically , by adding a supervillain. It would be too expensive.
Still i wonder just how you can change this movie more ?

I mean if you think about it , what would the general audience want/say :
1 The Kid. Either they would've fleshed him out more or removed him completely ( a complaint often heard here)
2 More scenes with Ma Kent or that guy who played her boyfriend
3 Definately keeping the Krypton scene in ( i mean that's the whole point of his journey , to see what's left of krypton)
4 More or less campy lex
5 Changing the land scheme plot ( this would probably be the biggest thing IMO that the audience might have problems with)
6 Make the movie a tighter , faster cut
7 No Richard or changing his character to just being a on/off boyfriend of Lois, thus making Lois the single mother of Jason and the ending would end on a far happier note of Lois and supes getting back together

AT least , that's what i can think of at the moment.
And i fully agree now that SR is truly a movie that would've suited the november thanksgiving period better.
Heck the Harry Potter movies are doing far better in november and the added benefit is that alot more families watch the movies as opposed to the summer period where it's more for teens and young adults.