• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Superman Returns Superman is not a box office faliure/bomb...future is bright comic movies!!CBR News!!

boywonder13

Sidekick
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,567
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I hate how people keep on saying that Superman Returns is doing bad in the box office or that the end of the DC movies is up on us. Read this article by Comic Book resources:
---------------
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=7735

SUPERMAN RETURNS" BREAKS $100 MILLION MARK
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]by Arune Singh, Staff Writer[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Posted: July 5, 2006[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Superman's faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive, but does that power translate to the box office? After "Superman Returns'" solid, if not a bit under-whelming, weekend opening, eyes were fixed on the box office returns from Monday and Tuesday here in the U.S, as families came together to celebrate Independence Day in the United States. While there are no hard numbers in yet, industry estimates put Monday's returns at $13 million and Tuesday's returns at $8.5 million, bringing the film's estimated gross to $106 million after just seven days in release (though some would argue eight, since some do count the Tuesday early screening revenue as occurring on Tuesday and not part of Wednesday's tally). Still, director Bryan Singer has to be happy with "Superman Returns" continuing to trend above blockbusters "Batman Begins" and "Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring."
Dan Gellman, Warner Bros' head of distribution, told the Associated Press that, "Bryan is just such a bright and creative individual. He had his own vision, and he was right and did a great job."
Added Bruce Synder, WB's head of distribution, "I don't know what to say. This is beyond my expectations."
The numbers also tell a positive story. Last year's big WB superhero release, "Batman Begins" didn't cross the $100 million mark until day ten, making "Superman Returns" an equally well-reviewed and more profitable film. This upward trend bodes well for WB's next superhero flick, "Wonder Woman," and will no doubt encourage fast tracking of the oft-discussed "Green Lantern" and "Flash" films. 2001's big franchise starter, "Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring," took eight days to hit the $100 million mark, and as is well known, that film did just fine thanks to word of mouth and the resulting strong legs at the box office. When comparing Big Blue to Tom Cruise, the numbers are less forgiving, as last year's "War Of The Worlds" was already at $121 million at this same time. It's not the same kind of genre flick as "Superman Returns," but considering that both were Fourth Of July weekend blockbuster releases, the comparison is certainly apt.
The big challenge for "Superman Returns" will be retaining legs at the box office as the summer continues. The new "Pirates Of The Caribbean" film debuts in theatres this week and will definitely open strong, benefiting from the popularity of the last film. There's also the debut of "Miami Vice" later this month, which will draw in a broad audience, and then "Snakes On A Plane" later this summer, which appeals to much of the same market as "Superman Returns." If Superman can continue to soar at the box office and draw in viewers for repeat viewings, especially likely given the popularity of the IMAX 3D version of the film, there's no reason that "Superman Returns" can't continue to be a top ten box office staple this summer. CBR News will keep you updated on the film and inevitable sequel, "Superman Ain't Goin Anywhere," but for now, you can check out our extensive coverage of the film.
[/FONT]
 
People are just hating...100+ mil in a week IS NO FAILURE.
 
Umm...it bombed, because it stunk. Accept it, and move on.
 
LostSon88 said:
People are just hating...100+ mil in a week IS NO FAILURE.

The movie has made most of it's money already, including a dissapointing July 4th.

This cost $260 million to make. It's a failure.
 
boywonder13 said:
I hate how people keep on saying that Superman Returns is doing bad in the box office or that the end of the DC movies is up on us. Read this article by Comic Book resources:
---------------
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=7735

SUPERMAN RETURNS" BREAKS $100 MILLION MARK
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]by Arune Singh, Staff Writer[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Posted: July 5, 2006[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Superman's faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive, but does that power translate to the box office? After "Superman Returns'" solid, if not a bit under-whelming, weekend opening, eyes were fixed on the box office returns from Monday and Tuesday here in the U.S, as families came together to celebrate Independence Day in the United States. While there are no hard numbers in yet, industry estimates put Monday's returns at $13 million and Tuesday's returns at $8.5 million, bringing the film's estimated gross to $106 million after just seven days in release (though some would argue eight, since some do count the Tuesday early screening revenue as occurring on Tuesday and not part of Wednesday's tally). Still, director Bryan Singer has to be happy with "Superman Returns" continuing to trend above blockbusters "Batman Begins" and "Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring."
Dan Gellman, Warner Bros' head of distribution, told the Associated Press that, "Bryan is just such a bright and creative individual. He had his own vision, and he was right and did a great job."
Added Bruce Synder, WB's head of distribution, "I don't know what to say. This is beyond my expectations."
The numbers also tell a positive story. Last year's big WB superhero release, "Batman Begins" didn't cross the $100 million mark until day ten, making "Superman Returns" an equally well-reviewed and more profitable film. This upward trend bodes well for WB's next superhero flick, "Wonder Woman," and will no doubt encourage fast tracking of the oft-discussed "Green Lantern" and "Flash" films. 2001's big franchise starter, "Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring," took eight days to hit the $100 million mark, and as is well known, that film did just fine thanks to word of mouth and the resulting strong legs at the box office. When comparing Big Blue to Tom Cruise, the numbers are less forgiving, as last year's "War Of The Worlds" was already at $121 million at this same time. It's not the same kind of genre flick as "Superman Returns," but considering that both were Fourth Of July weekend blockbuster releases, the comparison is certainly apt.
The big challenge for "Superman Returns" will be retaining legs at the box office as the summer continues. The new "Pirates Of The Caribbean" film debuts in theatres this week and will definitely open strong, benefiting from the popularity of the last film. There's also the debut of "Miami Vice" later this month, which will draw in a broad audience, and then "Snakes On A Plane" later this summer, which appeals to much of the same market as "Superman Returns." If Superman can continue to soar at the box office and draw in viewers for repeat viewings, especially likely given the popularity of the IMAX 3D version of the film, there's no reason that "Superman Returns" can't continue to be a top ten box office staple this summer. CBR News will keep you updated on the film and inevitable sequel, "Superman Ain't Goin Anywhere," but for now, you can check out our extensive coverage of the film.
[/FONT]

That my friend is GRADE A DAMAGE CONTROL!
After the movie only pulls in a total of 25-27million this weekend it will keep dropping, and be done around 175million... NOWAY this is a hit!
Like I said... Damage Control!
 
Superman1978 said:
Umm...it bombed, because it stunk. Accept it, and move on.
Or accept the fact that people actually liked it and move on.
 
Superman1978 said:
The movie has made most of it's money already, including a dissapointing July 4th.

This cost $260 million to make. It's a failure.

In 7 days genius. Talk to me when the movie ends its box office run. :o
 
skruloos said:
Or accept the fact that people actually liked it and move on.

When the movie fails to bring in 200million domestically it will show that more people hated the movie then liked it.. So now please! Move on!
 
Apparently fanboys can predict the future! Wow. :down
 
I don't it's so much the money that Superman Returns is making, but the money that they spent on it and if they're going to get it back.

Batman had a modest suces, but it was a smaller budget movie all together. It's critical success overshadow on what Batman Begins actually did at the box office.

Superman, to me, is getting a Hulk like backlash. It's not a bad film. I liked it. But the reception isn't as warm as it should be (In my opinion) and along with the budget, it's getting bashed because of those two elements.
 
It wasn't a bomb but it was also a disappointment because the WB was expecting Spider-Man like numbers yet only to get numbers that are slightly better than Batman Begins. Now it's all up to international numbers and eventually DVD sales.
 
WB came out and said that they were expecting something along the lines of the 110 range...it made 108...they're happy.

By comparison, BB at this point was around the 84 mil range...108 vs. 84 is more than "slight" if you ask me.

Oh, and all this talk about them expecting Spider-Man numbers is just speculation...
 
Basic said:
It wasn't a bomb but it was also a disappointment because the WB was expecting Spider-Man like numbers yet only to get numbers that are slightly better than Batman Begins. Now it's all up to international numbers and eventually DVD sales.

And we know already that its doing pretty good internationally. Also expect a big box office for the sequel because of DVD sales on so forth.
 
Octoberist said:
I don't it's so much the money that Superman Returns is making, but the money that they spent on it and if they're going to get it back.

Batman had a modest suces, but it was a smaller budget movie all together. It's critical success overshadow on what Batman Begins actually did at the box office.

Superman, to me, is getting a Hulk like backlash. It's not a bad film. I liked it. But the reception isn't as warm as it should be (In my opinion) and along with the budget, it's getting bashed because of those two elements.
Your pretty much one of my favorite posters here. And what your saying makes a lot of sense.

For some reason, there is a backlash. A lot of people are talking negative about this movie, and I can't seem to understand why. Now, this isn't calling for another person to post below this and say 'cause it sucked'. Cause honestly, no it didnt. I mean sure it might not of been a great flick to a lot of people, or even good. But to say it was below 'ok', I think is wrong. Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions, but even if the movie is rated as just an 'ok' movie... it doesnt deserve the backlash this flick has gotten. Hulk I can understand, but... this is Superman.

And the movie made 100+ million in 7 days. Sorry folks, but thats not bad. Compared to how much they spent, sure. But who's business is that anyways? Records being made and broken at the box office really doesnt have much to do with how much profit a film makes. If a film costs 600 mill to make, and makes 500 mill... why would that be labeled as a failure if its the number 2 movie of all time? I think many people need to stop looking at what was spent on this flick and just enjoy it for what it is. I'm pretty happy with what its made, and quite honestly, I'm pretty sure WB wasn't 100% certain they would get all their money back. And lets keep in mind about 40 mill of that is due to false starts.
 
Cold2daToucH004 said:
Your pretty much one of my favorite posters here. And what your saying makes a lot of sense.

For some reason, there is a backlash. A lot of people are talking negative about this movie, and I can't seem to understand why. Now, this isn't calling for another person to post below this and say 'cause it sucked'. Cause honestly, no it didnt. I mean sure it might not of been a great flick to a lot of people, or even good. But to say it was below 'ok', I think is wrong. Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions, but even if the movie is rated as just an 'ok' movie... it doesnt deserve the backlash this flick has gotten. Hulk I can understand, but... this is Superman.

And the movie made 100+ million in 7 days. Sorry folks, but thats not bad. Compared to how much they spent, sure. But who's business is that anyways? Records being made and broken at the box office really doesnt have much to do with how much profit a film makes. If a film costs 600 mill to make, and makes 500 mill... why would that be labeled as a failure if its the number 2 movie of all time? I think many people need to stop looking at what was spent on this flick and just enjoy it for what it is. I'm pretty happy with what its made, and quite honestly, I'm pretty sure WB wasn't 100% certain they would get all their money back. And lets keep in mind about 40 mill of that is due to false starts.

Darn Good Post!!! :supes: :up:

But the 40 million plus spent on the proiduction of Superman 5 has been payed back by The Matrix Films and Harry Potter, im sure it has been payed over.
 
Cold2daToucH004 said:
Your pretty much one of my favorite posters here. And what your saying makes a lot of sense.

For some reason, there is a backlash. A lot of people are talking negative about this movie, and I can't seem to understand why. Now, this isn't calling for another person to post below this and say 'cause it sucked'. Cause honestly, no it didnt. I mean sure it might not of been a great flick to a lot of people, or even good. But to say it was below 'ok', I think is wrong. Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions, but even if the movie is rated as just an 'ok' movie... it doesnt deserve the backlash this flick has gotten. Hulk I can understand, but... this is Superman.

And the movie made 100+ million in 7 days. Sorry folks, but thats not bad. Compared to how much they spent, sure. But who's business is that anyways? Records being made and broken at the box office really doesnt have much to do with how much profit a film makes. If a film costs 600 mill to make, and makes 500 mill... why would that be labeled as a failure if its the number 2 movie of all time? I think many people need to stop looking at what was spent on this flick and just enjoy it for what it is. I'm pretty happy with what its made, and quite honestly, I'm pretty sure WB wasn't 100% certain they would get all their money back. And lets keep in mind about 40 mill of that is due to false starts.


ohh ohh im first!!!

Cause it SUCKED!

But no seriously... It did... :)
 
BareKnucklez said:
ohh ohh im first!!!

Cause it SUCKED!

But no seriously... It did... :)
Your very mature. And the 100 mill in 7 days would agree that your a minority. And a very respectable 75% rating at rotten tomatoes will prove that.

But another thing I'd like to point out. Box office doesn't always determine if a movie sucks or not. If your a very thick headed, narrow minded person, then yes. But true box office followers and movie watchers will know that box office doesnt determine a movies quality. Million Dollar baby didn't do great at the box office, yet it received oscars and incredible reviews. Movie theaters now a-days aren't what they used to be. Much less people are going to the movies than in the early '90s. DVD sales helping studio's more then any thing else.

Point being, there are more positive reviews then negative. That doesn't mean you cant have your own opinion. It just means that for the most part, your opinion is wrong.
 
LostSon88 said:
WB came out and said that they were expecting something along the lines of the 110 range...it made 108...they're happy.

By comparison, BB at this point was around the 84 mil range...108 vs. 84 is more than "slight" if you ask me.

Oh, and all this talk about them expecting Spider-Man numbers is just speculation...

110 million was their REVISED GOAL. And they couldnt even make that. Pathetic.
 
Cold2daToucH004 said:
Your very mature. And the 100 mill in 7 days would agree that your a minority. And a very respectable 75% rating at rotten tomatoes will prove that.

But another thing I'd like to point out. Box office doesn't always determine if a movie sucks or not. If your a very thick headed, narrow minded person, then yes. But true box office followers and movie watchers will know that box office doesnt determine a movies quality. Million Dollar baby didn't do great at the box office, yet it received oscars and incredible reviews. Movie theaters now a-days aren't what they used to be. Much less people are going to the movies than in the early '90s. DVD sales helping studio's more then any thing else.

Point being, there are more positive reviews then negative. That doesn't mean you cant have your own opinion. It just means that for the most part, your opinion is wrong.

There will be no sequels.

REBOOT!
 
Superman1978 said:
The movie has made most of it's money already, including a dissapointing July 4th.

This cost $260 million to make. It's a failure.

Superman Returns budget is not 260 Million. :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns

According to The Numbers.com, Bryan Singer was quoted as saying the budget for Superman Returns was $250 million in late 2004.[3] He later denied that figure.[4] Pamela McClintock wrote in Variety in February 2006 that Warner Bros. had unofficially put the budget at $184 million, "factoring in tax breaks offered in Australia."[5] In a July 2006 interview with Newsweek, Bryan Singer quotes the final production budget as $204 million.[1]
 
BareKnucklez said:
When the movie fails to bring in 200million domestically it will show that more people hated the movie then liked it.. So now please! Move on!
Superman's box office has nothing to do with quality. Batman Begins didn't smash box office records either. For that matter, neither did The Shawshank Redemption. It has nothing to do with quality. Sure, it affects word of mouth but that's about it. It is not reflection on whether people liked it or not. It would be a reflection of people not seeing the movie. But people not seeing a movie does not equate to not liking it. How would you know you didn't like a movie unless you saw it? Unless of course you like having your opinion made for you by your friends and critics.
 
Superman1978 said:
110 million was their REVISED GOAL. And they couldnt even make that. Pathetic.
Actually, they said about 110 million. They made 108. Thats pretty damn close to their estimation.
 
Superman1978 said:
There will be no sequels.

REBOOT!

Your Joking right. First of all they have already started working on sequels and people are signed on. (it was even said awhile back Routh signed on for four movies, though I don't know much about that, it was posted on Superman-V.com, pretty credible)

Second of all WB is happy with this movie's box office. Did you not read the aritcle at the top of this thread.

Finally critics like Superman Returns overall, they didnt all HATE it.

-------

Expect filming of Superman Returns' sequel to happen in late 07 and in 2008.
 
Cold2daToucH004 said:
Actually, they said about 110 million. They made 108. Thats pretty damn close to their estimation.

Yah exactly!!!:supes: :up:

It's not like they made less than 100 million.... or 90 or 80 million.

THey made 108 million, round that up it equals 110 million. :) :up: :supes:
 
boywonder13 said:
Darn Good Post!!! :supes: :up:

But the 40 million plus spent on the proiduction of Superman 5 has been payed back by The Matrix Films and Harry Potter, im sure it has been payed over.

so IF SR fails to break even as a gross figure, let alone net, do you think that WB will say:

1) heyyy no problem, the losses have been covered by harry Potter and the matrix.Here you are Mr Singer, 250 Million, same again please
or
2)Heyy no problem, the losses have been covered by Harry Potter and the matrix. Here you are Mr Singer, 150 Miillion, sequel please.
or
3) who? Singer? Sequel?

as for the WB being happy, do you think they actually wanted and expected:

a)110 million after 7 days, including a holiday weekend
or
b) Spiderman-esque numbers

do you think they moved its opening forward a day to allow for POTC2 because they
a)Thought that POTC2 would cause big problems for SR's Box Office
or
b)for the sake of it
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"