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

[GreenKToo]

here are several.it doesnt matter if you or I see them,their still blockbusters.http://www.boxofficeguru.com/intl.htm

Not to me. What big blockbusters have been released this year? I can only name 2 that apply to me.

 

[dark_b]

it makes me sad that MI3 made more money than superman returns. and dont come me with: it is tom cruise and it is the third movie. it doesnt matter. the movie looked to me like a tv serie.

 

[GreenKToo]

ya,but it didnt do much in the U.S....it seems most americans are sick of tom.

it makes me sad that MI3 made more money than superman returns. and dont come me with: it is tom cruise and it is the third movie. it doesnt matter. the movie looked to me like a tv serie.

 

[buggs0268]

True,but their wasnt near as many blockbusters released back then like their are now.It seems we get one every week.Lots of competition these days,but it still should have reached 200 mill before now.

Yes there was. We just didn't make a really big deal about them like we do now. But the fact is that Ghostbusters would have had to sell 3 tiems as many adult seats as SR to make over 200 mill. Armageddon almost double the ammount of adult seats to reach 200 mill. Same with Saving Private Ryan. trust me this 200 mill thing is not such a big deal anymore. It is more like 250 300 mill domestic. The fact that it is taking SR this long to make 200 mill is really sad considering it was touted as one of the top money makers of the summer. X3 made 200 mill domestic way faster.

 

[buggs0268]

I am shocked that Over the Hedge didn't make 200 mill. That movie was one of the best movies I have seen this summer, even if it was animated. That was one of the most creative and fun films to watch this summer.

 

[Lestat74]

Clearly, Warners and Legendary thought SR was gonna gross more than it did, there can be no argument there. And it seems most of the fanboys, be they lovers or haters of the film, also epected it to gross around $250 to $300 million or so. But was this ever really a realistic expectation? Think about it....The original Superman film in '78 made $367 million (adjusted for inflation ) and was a mega blockbuster. Superman II in 1980 also did very well at $249 million adjusted. But coming off those two very succesful movies Superman III only made $121 million, and that was back when Superman was at the height of his popularity and there were no other Super Hero films to choose from, unlike now where there are two or three each year. And I think Superman IV made like $53 million adjusted...an abysmal figure even in 1987 for a Superman film. So this notion of "It's Superman! It's supposed to be the biggest!!" didn't even hold water then, much less now when there is so much competion.

 

[buggs0268]

Clearly, Warners and Legendary thought SR was gonna gross more than it did, there can be no argument there. And it seems most of the fanboys, be they lovers or haters of the film, also epected it to gross around $250 to $300 million or so. But was this ever really a realistic expectation? Think about it....The original Superman film in '78 made $367 million (adjusted for inflation ) and was a mega blockbuster. Superman II in 1980 also did very well at $249 million adjusted. But coming off those two very succesful movies Superman III only made $121 million, and that was back when Superman was at the height of his popularity and there were no other Super Hero films to choose from, unlike now where there are two or three each year. And I think Superman IV made like $53 million adjusted...an abysmal figure even in 1987 for a Superman film. So this notion of "It's Superman! It's supposed to be the biggest!!" didn't even hold water then, much less now when there is so much competion.

If the story had been good and the other things done right, this had the potential to make a lot of money. No one wanted to go to a movie called Superman Returns and see a chick flick that is also a rip off of the bible.

 

[Lestat74]

If the story had been good and the other things done right, this had the potential to make a lot of money. No one wanted to go to a movie called Superman Returns and see a chick flick that is also a rip off of the bible.

Well, in all fairness the biggest "rip off of the Bible" was Superman: The Movie. In that movie it was very explicit...SR just built on that framework. Me personally, I love when Super hero/ Sci-Fi mythology is a metaphor for religion and old myths. Star Wars is oveflowing with it, as is Lord of the Rings. The greatest pop culture myths always have deeper layers. As an adult, that's what really keeps me interested in them far more than big fights and explosions, although I'm sure if you were to ask the 13 year old version of me I'd have a different answer.

 

[buggs0268]

Well, in all fairness the biggest "rip off of the Bible" was Superman: The Movie. In that movie it was very explicit...SR just built on that framework. Me personally, I love when Super hero/ Sci-Fi mythology is a metaphor for religion and old myths. Star Wars is oveflowing with it, as is Lord of the Rings. The greatest pop culture myths always have deeper layers. As an adult, that's what really keeps me interested in them far more than big fights and explosions, although I'm sure if you were to ask the 13 year old version of me I'd have a different answer.

Superman had 2 things that were rip off's. SR had a ton of them. It was even made mention of in the trades and media. Singer even admitted that he did it a lot in the movie.

 

[buggs0268]

Clearly, Warners and Legendary thought SR was gonna gross more than it did, there can be no argument there. And it seems most of the fanboys, be they lovers or haters of the film, also epected it to gross around $250 to $300 million or so. But was this ever really a realistic expectation? Think about it....The original Superman film in '78 made $367 million (adjusted for inflation ) and was a mega blockbuster. Superman II in 1980 also did very well at $249 million adjusted. But coming off those two very succesful movies Superman III only made $121 million, and that was back when Superman was at the height of his popularity and there were no other Super Hero films to choose from, unlike now where there are two or three each year. And I think Superman IV made like $53 million adjusted...an abysmal figure even in 1987 for a Superman film. So this notion of "It's Superman! It's supposed to be the biggest!!" didn't even hold water then, much less now when there is so much competion.

Superman the Movie was in the #1 spot for 13 weeks. So had SR been in the #1 slot till the week of Aug 27th, then it could talk.

 

[superion]

Superman the Movie was in the #1 spot for 13 weeks. So had SR been in the #1 slot till the week of Aug 27th, then it could talk.

Those were different times and you can't compare it to now. Movies acted a lot different back then they have huge openings where they made 40% to 50% of their money within the first several weekends. Movies tended to stay in the theatres a lot longer and make their money gradually over a period overtime.

Also a lot less competition their wasn't another big blockbuster opening every other week or two weeks back then.

 

[Super Kal]

different times or not, SR still did an underwhelming job. You can't get around that.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

No one wanted to go to a movie called Superman Returns and see a chick flick that is also a rip off of the bible.

SR being a "chick flick" and having plenty of Christian allegories was the least of it's worries.

I seem to recall another superhero film that did great business, where the film started off with narration from the protagonist saying how his story, just like any story worth telling, was "all about a girl".

 

[Lestat74]

Superman the Movie was in the #1 spot for 13 weeks. So had SR been in the #1 slot till the week of Aug 27th, then it could talk.

The original Star Wars was in the theaters ( on and off ) for years...and I forget know how many releases it had. same with movies like Jaws, The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and others. They just kept playing and playing and playing, and then getting re-releases. This is in the era just before VHS. Some of you may not be old enough to remember that, but I do ( although just barely lol ) Movies made their money from theatrical dstribution and that's it. You say the original Superman was the #1 movie for 13 weeks. Very impressive for the time, but that's just unheard of today. Even a huge blockbuster like Pirates 2 is unusual as it was #1 for 3 whole weeks...nowadays in the summer it just almost never happens. There simply wasn't the same amount of "event films" to choose from back in the day. Also, there is simply the law of diminishing returns on older franchises...it is inevitable. Look at James Bond. The originals were Huge movie events of their day. Just to make my point clear, Here are the top 007 films grosses ( Worldwide and Adjusted for inflation )

1. THUNDERBALL: $803.7 million
2. GOLDFINGER: $722.4 million
3. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: $599.1 million
4. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: $548.5 million
5. MOONRAKER: $500.6 million
6. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER: $515 million
7. LIVE AND LET DIE: $510.4 million
8. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE: $456.3 million
9. DIE ANOTHER DAY: $424.7 million
10. GOLDENEYE: $412.6 million


The only two modern Bond films in the top 10 are Die Another Day and Goldeneye. The originals were far more profitable. However, Goldeneye is seen as succesful re-launch of the Bond franchise after the previous installments in the 80's failed to catch on in a big way

In a similar fashion, SR ( as well as Batman Begins ) had the same task as Goldeneye back in '95: take an old dead franchise and revive it to respectability. There was no way that any of these franchises were going to reach the dizzying heights of their original outings ( No matter what the fans or even Warners thought ). There are far too many Average Joe movie goers who only want to see what's new and fresh, not what's old and re-vamped. But that doesn't mean you just stop making Bond films, or Batman or even Superman.

I still think that if this movie had cost less, we wouldn't even all be having this conversation. Batman Begins only made like $5 million more, and in everyone's eyes it's considered a successfal re-start, not a flop.

In a seemingly unrelated not, a new book is making all kinds of headlines; The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived. And the characters I was just discussing? Well, here are their rankings:

#51: James Bond
#60: Batman
#64: Superman

For those of you who wanna see the whole list, here's the link:
http://books.aol.com/feature/_a/excerpt-101-most-influential-people/20061020155509990001

( There's no way I would have put The Marlboro Man over Santa Clause though. I mean, c'mon...it's Santa! Plus Spidey is not on the list...he really should be )

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Those were different times and you can't compare it to now. Movies acted a lot different back then they have huge openings where they made 40% to 50% of their money within the first several weekends. Movies tended to stay in the theatres a lot longer and make their money gradually over a period overtime.

Also a lot less competition their wasn't another big blockbuster opening every other week or two weeks back then.

Definitely. The market these days is WAY too saturated with attempted tentpole franchises that are all fighting for a dwindling market share of profits. I remember growing up that there would be maybe only 2 summer blockbusters that were put out. Now, the time between May and August is a jampacked feeding frenzy. Not taking away anything from S:TM (which is still my favorite movie of all time), but if that movie was stacked against the other dominant franchise of its era head-to-head (Star Wars) it would've been slaughtered.

 

[ultimatefan]

Definitely. The market these days is WAY too saturated with attempted tentpole franchises that are all fighting for a dwindling market share of profits. I remember growing up that there would be maybe only 2 summer blockbusters that were put out. Now, the time between May and August is a jampacked feeding frenzy. Not taking away anything from S:TM (which is still my favorite movie of all time), but if that movie was stacked against the other dominant franchise of its era head-to-head (Star Wars) it would've been slaughtered.

Precisely. If released in the current marketplace, it would have been deemed too light on action and without a more menacing villain - which, ironically enough, is one of the main criticisms on SR as a product. The good thing about today is a lot of good movies that don´t impress as much as expected on BO are discovered by a big part of the audience on DVD. It happened to BB and Kong, and I can bet the same will happen to SR.

 

[Showtime]

I am shocked that Over the Hedge didn't make 200 mill. That movie was one of the best movies I have seen this summer, even if it was animated. That was one of the most creative and fun films to watch this summer.

I agree with you there, that was a damn fun movie.

 

[Super Kal]

i haven't seen it yet...

 

[Showtime]

Worth a rental.

 

[Super Kal]

Worth a rental.

i definitely thought about it... but rented Click and Star Trek 3 instead.



maybe next time, when it's not a 2 day rental...

 

[Mr. Socko]

Click pwned. I rented it last weekend and I expected it to be lame, it was way better.

 

[buggs0268]

SR being a "chick flick" and having plenty of Christian allegories was the least of it's worries.

I seem to recall another superhero film that did great business, where the film started off with narration from the protagonist saying how his story, just like any story worth telling, was "all about a girl".

Right. And that movie was mainly about the guy and not the girl as SR seemed to be.

 

[buggs0268]

Those were different times and you can't compare it to now. Movies acted a lot different back then they have huge openings where they made 40% to 50% of their money within the first several weekends. Movies tended to stay in the theatres a lot longer and make their money gradually over a period overtime.

Also a lot less competition their wasn't another big blockbuster opening every other week or two weeks back then.

Actually it was one of the few films that stayed in the number 1 spot that long. I believe only Star Wars and Jaws stayed in the number 1 spot that long before it, and I think Empire was the next film after that. At Superman The movies time there was only two films before it that went over 200 mill, which STM was the third. And we are talking 200 mill in 1978 dollars. After that, STM was still Warner's highest grossing movie till 1989's Batman I believe. So STM had the number 1 spot with Warners for all those years.

 

[buggs0268]

i haven't seen it yet...

Honestly one of the best movies of the summer. And the final act had me laughing so hard soda almost went out my nose. Especially Hammy's big thing. The thing that is really great about it is that it is one tightly written script. And even though you recognize the actros doing the voices, it is the first animated film where you forget the actors doing the voices halfway through the film. They all just embody their characters so well. You even start forgetting that Bruce Willis is voicing RJ and just see him as RJ. I thought it was better than the Shreck movies, and I was not to fond of them.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Precisely. If released in the current marketplace, it would have been deemed too light on action and without a more menacing villain - which, ironically enough, is one of the main criticisms on SR as a product. The good thing about today is a lot of good movies that don´t impress as much as expected on BO are discovered by a big part of the audience on DVD. It happened to BB and Kong, and I can bet the same will happen to SR.

Great points UF, Sr being released next to a couple of other blockbusters was never going to make Spidey numbers, as year upon year the box office is getting cluttered with more then enough huge blockbusters. Just look at May next year, everyone is expecting Spidey 3 to make a killing at the BO, but with Shrek 3 and POTC 3 both opening just after, even if its a good movie, it will struggle to make the numbers its predecessors did IMO.

Also, i do think SR will do very well on DVD, as i think a lot of the GA liked it.