The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[skruloos]

but this doesnt sound good. you can not work 2 years and then ut something so big out.

Actually, yes you can. And it's not like it's an easy decision. Believe me, having to cut anything out of your film is like cutting an appendage off one of your babies. But you have to do what you believe is right for the film. It's disappointing but it is a reality.

Ridley Scott chose to cut the gorier parts of Alien because he felt it was better to focus on reactions and the atmosphere instead. That was a lot of footage and hard work done by the Special Effects crew that ended up on the cutting room floor. It happens.

 

[dark_b]

Actually, yes you can. And it's not like it's an easy decision. Believe me, having to cut anything out of your film is like cutting an appendage off one of your babies. But you have to do what you believe is right for the film. It's disappointing but it is a reality.

Ridley Scott chose to cut the gorier parts of Alien because he felt it was better to focus on reactions and the atmosphere instead. That was a lot of footage and hard work done by the Special Effects crew that ended up on the cutting room floor. It happens.

if WB is the reason than singer is taking this really good.

 

[skruloos]

if WB is the reason than singer is taking this really good.

No one ever said it was the WB or not. And even if it was, what do you expect Singer to say? You expect him to burn bridges with a studio he has optioned films with? It's seldom in the business that any director gets Carte Blanche so even if it WAS the studio it wouldn't be a complete surprise.

 

[J.Howlett]

skruloos,

From what it sounds like, it was Singer's decision but again, as you pointed out, he more than likely didn't come to that decision without really, really thinking long and hard on it.

Directors want to keep everything in their films, at the beginning. But once you're in that editing room, trying to FIND the film, sometimes you cut stuff you really don't want too.

Believe me, I seriously doubt Singer wanted to cut a ten million dollar sequence. But, you can rest assure that the Return of Krypton will find its way onto the big screen...either in a extended cut of Returns or in the sequel.

Either way, we'll see it.

 

[Retroman]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.

 

[Dark Knight]

Budget is not the problem when it comes to effects. Like someone said earlier it's all about creativity and talent. The budget for the sequel needs to be at 150 million.....no more and no less.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.

Bingo. I think part of the issue with some of these tentpole films these days is that when money is no object, the focus isn't as tight as when a director is much more fiscally responsible. I loved the CGI in SR, but the one thing I did miss is the live action wire work and the real takeoffs and landings like in the old films. I really wanted to get a gander at what the XYZ flying rig could really do, but alas, we never did. Even if they used some simpler shots and more green screen instead of the full CGI models, then I'd be fine with that. There are going to be some solid FX regardless, but it's not a case like with the original Matrix where they're basically rewriting the boundaries of VFX.

 

[skruloos]

The very first Star Trek feature film had a budget of $35 million dollars but the-widely considerd- better sequel 'Wrath Of Khan' cost a mere $11 million dollars.

Less money is bound to make the creative juices of Singer and co. flow even more than it did on SR. That means cutting back on luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted on big budget movies.

They could start off by cutting down the size of the crew, having people share trailers (less trailers - money saved), try to use the real Brandon as much as possible instead of his CG double, instead of previzing every scene you get storyboard artists to do the smallers scenes.Also they could cut down on the amount of effects houses so instead of over a dozen you could have 5 or 6 splitting the effects work.Just a few ideas to save money.

I agree on your logic behind this post except for a few things:

1. In some cases, a CG double will actually be cheaper than using the live action equivalent as insurance policies don't have to be taken out for complicated action scenes. It is the bane of my particular existence as I abhor CG doubles.

2. Pre-vizing can cut costs in the long run for special effects shots. The effects company can work off the basic model information and the motion controlled cinematography information can be applied during production.

3. The number of effects houses also can be cheaper. The way it usually goes is that scenes are put for bid. This allows you to choose which effects houses to go with at a reasonable cost. Instead of bombarding a few studios with a lot of work and a long contract you go with more companies with less work and thereby shorter contracts.

But on the whole, I do agree. More restriction causes people to be more creative. Case in point, the original Star Wars trilogy compared to the prequels.

 

[04nbod]

george lucas said that ilm are now not focused on making effects better but cheaper. by the time the sequel comes it'll be all right

 

[Retroman]

Bingo. I think part of the issue with some of these tentpole films these days is that when money is no object, the focus isn't as tight as when a director is much more fiscally responsible. I loved the CGI in SR, but the one thing I did miss is the live action wire work and the real takeoffs and landings like in the old films. I really wanted to get a gander at what the XYZ flying rig could really do, but alas, we never did. Even if they used some simpler shots and more green screen instead of the full CGI models, then I'd be fine with that. There are going to be some solid FX regardless, but it's not a case like with the original Matrix where they're basically rewriting the boundaries of VFX.

I agree and its not like they're getting a 'shoestring' budget. The reported 140-175 million budget is still a lot of cash to do magic with.

I agree on your logic behind this post except for a few things:

1. In some cases, a CG double will actually be cheaper than using the live action equivalent as insurance policies don't have to be taken out for complicated action scenes. It is the bane of my particular existence as I abhor CG doubles.

2. Pre-vizing can cut costs in the long run for special effects shots. The effects company can work off the basic model information and the motion controlled cinematography information can be applied during production.

3. The number of effects houses also can be cheaper. The way it usually goes is that scenes are put for bid. This allows you to choose which effects houses to go with at a reasonable cost. Instead of bombarding a few studios with a lot of work and a long contract you go with more companies with less work and thereby shorter contracts.

Good points but i'd still like for them to try and use more of Brandon instead of his CG double. Not for the really complex stuff but shots that easily could have been done with the actor in SR.

 

[Retroman]

george lucas said that ilm are now not focused on making effects better but cheaper. by the time the sequel comes it'll be all right

Imageworks beat out ILM last for the coveted SR fx contract. Wonder how things will go for SR2, post-POTC2?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So true..they have the $10 million Krypton scenes that I'm sure will be used with a little tweaking. I can see it as the opening of the movie, we spend five minutes exploring the ruins of Krypton then Supes gives the "go home" command and his ship leaves but in the back ground we see something glow and get brighter and then starts to fly after Supe's ship - this will be the threat (Braniac?) for the next movie and they already have this almost already to go!

I think that is exactly how the opening will go, then we will cut to modern day with Superman waking up indicating it was a nightmare, or perhaps Superman floating above earth again and the villains ship flies right past him to earth. That would be cool.

 

[FanboyX_Returns]

Opinion .

i think the contrary.And i totally agree with Kevin.

Maybe so but from the box office numbers it brought in that would seem to be the general opinion by fans.

 

[Maze]

Maybe so but from the box office numbers it brought in that would seem to be the general opinion by fans.

Well , the majority doe a lot of of questionable things every days, not really a criteria ..

now , yup the movie did underperform and did not do pirate number , but not a lot of movie does it .and Superman did put a lot of people in theaters (and had especially good legs )

But that said, is that so important to you to be part of the majority?

ps: take a look at the polls , the majority of fans boys liked the movie .

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well , the majority doe a lot of of questionable things every days, not really a criteria ..

now , yup the movie did underperform and did not do pirate number , but not a lot of movie does it .and Superman did put a lot of people in theaters (and had especially good legs )

But that said, is that so important to you to be part of the majority?

ps: take a look at the polls , the majority of fans boys liked the movie .

Yep, Superman Returns is doing very well on polls not just on this web-site but others as well, it seems the majority liked it

 

[Road Warrior]

Seriously! I haven't seen so much hate towards a movie since that Ben Affleck/J.Lo movie! I wonder if this movie will make any money since there's so much hate towards SR.

I guess it will only make money if it has a kickass trailer!

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actually those who like Superman Returns are in the majority. Those who hate it are a very sizeable and very, very, vocal minority.

 

[Catman]

Actually those who like Superman Returns are in the majority.

Those who hate it are a very sizeable and very, very, vocal minority.

VERY vocal indeed. t:

 

[Karea07]

This movie wont make more than the first, but the budget will surely be less than the first films, so it should make a profit.

 

[Motown Marvel]

if you go to anywhere on the internet that has a mass collection of user ratings of the film (imdb, rotten tomatoes, boxofficemojo, even polls on SHH!), the vast majority of people gave SR a positive rating.

 

[Catman]

if you go to anywhere on the internet that has a mass collection of user ratings of the film (imdb, rotten tomatoes, boxofficemojo, even polls on SHH!), the vast majority of people gave SR a positive rating.

 

[Kebab gud]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide.. almost twice what the budget of the movie .. not making any money you say?

 

[Catman]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

i like how people that hate (insert name here) think that it must have bombed. don't matter if its a movie, comic, tv show, or a CD. they fell that because they and the few people that they have talked to hate it, it must have failed.

case in point: the star wars prequles. most fans hated them but they made a lot of money, so that means that a lot of people must have liked them for them to get that much money.

 

[sepharih]

Supes returns has so far (pre DVDsales) grossed 391,120,000 world wide.. almost twice what the budget of the movie .. not making any money you say?

Yes, we’re saying it hasn’t made a single red cent. Theaters take roughly half of the ticket sales first off, and the films budget doesn’t account for the marketing costs to try and get people interested in the movies, among other things.
In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit. At the absolute most, if DVD sales go through the roof, this film has a chance at breaking even. Any “profit” they get will be of no real significance.

And yes, the next film does have a chance to make money, IF: they correct the rather embarrassing marketing mistakes they made with the first one, making a more entertaining and action oriented film, and the WB needs to recognize when it’s out of its league. Honestly, whoever thought the Superman name would be able to stand up to the collective stardom of Depp, Bloom, and Knightly needs to be committed.