The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[matthooper]

DVD rental numbers for BB are the same of SR and in the end the DVD sales numbers will equal too. And SR made more money worldwide at the BO.
Both underperformed, as at WB they were expecting Spider-man numbers, and both will have sequels that will make more money. They served their purpose, to restart the franchise.
So let's cut the crap that Superman will never be as successful as Batman or the X-men.

BB performed slightly below it's expectations and it's DVD numbers were much better than expected, X-3 made $34 million more than SR and it was not expected to do those numbers. By the way, I hated both BB and X-3, so my personal feelings are irrelevant. $100 -$200 million less than expected for SR is not even in the ballpark of the others.

It's not just the figures it's the figures vs. budget. SR budget was more than the others. However, if things are done right for the sequel, it CAN be a success. Things don't look good though.

 

[Brainiac 2009]

You cite X-Men 1 in your arguement but X-2 and X-3 were huge hits and higher viewership.

No kidding.

Don't you think that fact is encouraging for the success of the Superman sequel.

Theres a good chance it can do what X2 did, considering whos behind it.

If Xmen can go from $157,299,717 (X1) to $214,949,694 for X2 (the more action packed sequel).....

It is plausable that Superman can go from $200,081,192 (SR) to a higher figure for the sequel...

 

[matthooper]

No kidding.

Don't you think that fact is encouraging for the success of the Superman sequel.

Theres a good chance it can do what X2 did, considering whos behind it.

Anything is possible. Here's the thing. The success or failure of SR or it's sequels ultimately means nothing to me. I didn't get a dime for it nor the sequels. I was dissapointed in every aspect of the film Superman Returns and I hold out little hope for it's sequel. You can add all the action you want but you can't unring a bell. Singer opened up a pandora's box and can't close it. He has to deal with all the stuff I hated about SR in a sequel. It's success or failure doesn't matter one bit to me. I just want a good film. It seems the defenders take some sort of personal gain out of the films success. I talk about it, simply because it's still interesting to discuss.

One more thing, X-Men wasn't considered a failure by the public. You can't get away from the perception of Superman Returns dissapointing numbers. Even if BB and FF performed less than expected, the average person doesn't know that. SR has the perception of failure.

I was talking with a group of co-workers who know nothing about box office, but they still spoke of SR money failures simply by what they had heard. Right or wrong it has been branded a failure by most.

 

[dpm07]

Anything is possible. Here's the thing. The success or failure of SR or it's sequels ultimately means nothing to me. I didn't get a dime for it nor the sequels. I was dissapointed in every aspect of the film Superman Returns and I hold out little hope for it's sequel. You can add all the action you want but you can't unring a bell. Singer opened up a pandora's box and can't close it. He has to deal with all the stuff I hated about SR in a sequel. It's success or failure doesn't matter one bit to me. I just want a good film. It seems the defenders take some sort of personal gain out of the films success. I talk about it, simply because it's still interesting to discuss.

One more thing, X-Men wasn't considered a failure by the public. You can't get away from the perception of Superman Returns dissapointing numbers. Even if BB and FF performed less than expected, the average person doesn't know that. SR has the perception of failure.

I was talking with a group of co-workers who know nothing about box office, but they still spoke of SR money failures simply by what they had heard. Right or wrong it has been branded a failure by most.

Very good post, and very true.

 

[WormyT]

You can't get away from the perception of Superman Returns dissapointing numbers. Even if BB and FF performed less than expected, the average person doesn't know that. SR has the perception of failure.

I was talking with a group of co-workers who know nothing about box office, but they still spoke of SR money failures simply by what they had heard. Right or wrong it has been branded a failure by most.

SO True!

 

[Zen Ith]

All SR needed to be a box-office success was a narrative aimed towards younger viewers in similar vein to POTC2 and Pixar movies. No story changes or anything.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

The SR budget was roughly $200M.

SR made roughly $200M domestically.

Therefore, SR roughly gained nothing domestically in theaters.

And $200 was just the budget for SR. That's not counting how much went into trying to get it off the ground and paying for the small amount of Superman Lives. So getting Superman back to the silver screen actually cost them roughly $270M.

Edit: I doubt anyone thought SR would be in line with BB numbers, more like Spidey numbers.

But WB has said again and again that they wrote off the previous attempts, so the actual budget was in fact $204 million. The previous attempts really don't factor into SR's budget.

From an international standpoint, SR pretty much made back it's production costs at the B.O. WB most certainly would have liked it to have made $400 million domestic, for sure. But sadly it wasn't in the cards. However, the film did well enough for them to feel like they had reestablished the franchise.

However, if things are done right for the sequel, it CAN be a success. Things don't look good though.

In my personal opinion, I feel that if the marketing is greatly improved for the sequel, and they can get the general audience excited for it then the sequel's chances of success is greater. People didn't know what to feel about SR prior to its release and weren't exactly thrilled with the teaser or the trailers (in general).

It kind of reminds me of Batman Returns (not Begins...Returns ). The fanbase was split right down the middle on the quality of the film, as was the general public. A lot of people thought it to be too dark, too gloomy and overall not a very fun movie. Then Batman Forever comes out, it's a lot brighter, supposedly more fun and it grosses more than Returns did.

Now, I'm not saying I hope the next Superman film is like Batman Forever (God no, dear Lord no, please!), but I think they're going to aim for something that'll please the general audience more (i.e. more action).

 

[Mr. Socko]

And your point is?
How does this concern the fact that according to lexlives Superman will never be a successful franchise?

Tell me when the f*** I said my post was suppose to concern lexlives?

 

[lexlives]

Tell me when the f*** I said my post was suppose to concern lexlives?

And to add Antonello Blueberry, where did I say Superman will never be a succesful franchise? I asked, even independent of SR, can it compete with the big boys like Spidey, X-Men, Batamn and FF - I did not say it could not but, I did say I have my doubts - and above and beyond SR/Singer. Read my post.

 

[El Payaso]

NEVER? I could see if you said doesn't always. But NEVER?

James Cameron would bit-ch slap you to no tomorrow if he heard that.

If you got what I meant, I'm sure he would too.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The point so many in this thread are making and that several of you simply aren't grasping is this-

Forget about the $200 Million + budget. The budgets of films are ludicrously high, I think we can all agree on that. With these numbers, you have to nail every potential viewer in the country to make a decent profit. But does this uneveness of profit really reflect quality and public interest? Should people be more motivated to see a higher budget movie than a lower?

If I remember correctly, I think The Blair Witch Project is one of (if not the) most successful movie ever made, as far as budget to box office ratio is concerned, because it was so dirt cheap and took in over $100 mil.

In 2004 and 2005, Saw I and II (if I recall correctly) were the most successful films of the year, for the same reason.

So, let's say Saw III and Superman Returns both took in $200 million. Problem is, Saw cost only $10 mil to make, while Superman cost $200 mil.

So Superman makes no profit, but Saw makes an enormous profit. But the fact is, the same amount of people saw both movies.

So what does it prove? Nothing about the quality or popularity of either movie, really. A ton of people saw both. The only difference is it only costs $10 mil to build death traps, and it costs $200 mil to make, well..Superman. Apparently.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The point so many in this thread are making and that several of you simply aren't grasping is this-

Forget about the $200 Million + budget. The budgets of films are ludicrously high, I think we can all agree on that. With these numbers, you have to nail every potential viewer in the country to make a decent profit. But does this uneveness of profit really reflect quality and public interest? Should people be more motivated to see a higher budget movie than a lower?

If I remember correctly, I think The Blair Witch Project is one of (if not the) most successful movie ever made, as far as budget to box office ratio is concerned, because it was so dirt cheap and took in over $100 mil.

In 2004 and 2005, Saw I and II (if I recall correctly) were the most successful films of the year, for the same reason.

So, let's say Saw III and Superman Returns both took in $200 million. Problem is, Saw cost only $10 mil to make, while Superman cost $200 mil.

So Superman makes no profit, but Saw makes an enormous profit. But the fact is, the same amount of people saw both movies.

So what does it prove? Nothing about the quality or popularity of either movie, really. A ton of people saw both. The only difference is it only costs $10 mil to build death traps, and it costs $200 mil to make, well..Superman. Apparently.

 

[dark_b]

The point so many in this thread are making and that several of you simply aren't grasping is this-

Forget about the $200 Million + budget. The budgets of films are ludicrously high, I think we can all agree on that. With these numbers, you have to nail every potential viewer in the country to make a decent profit. But does this uneveness of profit really reflect quality and public interest? Should people be more motivated to see a higher budget movie than a lower?

If I remember correctly, I think The Blair Witch Project is one of (if not the) most successful movie ever made, as far as budget to box office ratio is concerned, because it was so dirt cheap and took in over $100 mil.

In 2004 and 2005, Saw I and II (if I recall correctly) were the most successful films of the year, for the same reason.

So, let's say Saw III and Superman Returns both took in $200 million. Problem is, Saw cost only $10 mil to make, while Superman cost $200 mil.

So Superman makes no profit, but Saw makes an enormous profit. But the fact is, the same amount of people saw both movies.

So what does it prove? Nothing about the quality or popularity of either movie, really. A ton of people saw both. The only difference is it only costs $10 mil to build death traps, and it costs $200 mil to make, well..Superman. Apparently.

interesting post.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Then I'll go to the fact that S:TM drew in double as many people than SR.

 

[matthooper]

Then I'll go to the fact that S:TM drew in double as many people than SR.

The sad thing is that films like Signs, Armageddon, Meet the Fockers, Rush Hour 2, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding all drew more people than Superman Returns. That in and of itself brands Supeman Returns a failure.

 

[true316]

The sad thing is that films like Signs, Armageddon, Meet the Fockers, Rush Hour 2, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding all drew more people than Superman Returns. That in and of itself brands Supeman Returns a failure.

By that logic, Batman Begins is a failure too.

 

[true316]

Then I'll go to the fact that S:TM drew in double as many people than SR.

Again using BB as an illustration:

Accounting for inflation, Batman (1989) made $414,241,400.

Batman Begins made $205,343,774.

That's more than double just so you know.

 

[matthooper]

By that logic, Batman Begins is a failure too.

No, Batman Begins had a much smaller budget and the projections for the gross were about where they ended up. It's final gross was just under it's projections.

Superman Returns was supposed to make $300-$400 million.

What's your point anyway. All I meant was that more people saw those other films, that's a fact. I could care less about BB.

 

[true316]

No, Batman Begins had a much smaller budget and the projections for the gross were about where they ended up. Batman Begins had an indy film feel. It's final gross was just under it's projections.

Superman Returns was supposed to make $300-$400 million.

So you're saying Batman Begins had a much smaller budget than My Big Fat Greek Wedding?

The point is, Batman Begins is a great movie. Being great doesn't always equate to having large box office success. Being a poor or average movie doesn't always mean failure at the box office either.

 

[matthooper]

So you're saying Batman Begins had a much smaller budget than My Big Fat Greek Wedding?

I said MORE people saw those other movies. I'll leave it at that.

 

[matthooper]

In a rare case, the public was smart. They didn't care about Supeman Returns because for once they saw through the hype (what little hype there was).

They were confused by the continuity, dissapointed by the lack of action, and simply didn't care. Word of mouth spread and it made half of what it was projected.

 

[dark_b]

The sad thing is that films like Signs, Armageddon, Meet the Fockers, Rush Hour 2, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding all drew more people than Superman Returns. That in and of itself brands Supeman Returns a failure.

whait whait whait whait.
why is this a said thing? is it written somewhere that superman must be the biggest movie?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

By that logic, Batman Begins is a failure too.

And the Fantastic Four and the first X-Men movie.

 

[true316]

I said MORE people saw those other movies. I'll leave it at that.

Except, you didn't leave it at that. You said because more people saw those movies it meant SR was a failure. But if you are consistent with that logic you have to count other movies like BB as failures as well. But then again, maybe you're rules apply to SR only?

 

[true316]

And the Fantastic Four and the first X-Men movie.

Heck, most of the movies he mentioned did better than X2 as well.