The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[Road Warrior]

^ Let's hope you're right.

 

[Excel]

the public liked it. i am a box office analyst....so no offense, but i know a lot more about what im talking about then most of the people here.

superman will have a big increase over returns for multiple reasons

1. NO PIRATES COMING UP THE ASS!
2. SEQUELS MAKE MORE!
3. PHYSICLA VILLAIN=kiddies

lok for 250 million-ish domestic and round 500 million worldwide.

the people who disliked the film will say it wont do good while the people who liked say it will do better.

i liked superman. but i am open midned neough to realize if it would do less. it will not outgross the dark knight, though. least domestically.

 

[Pickle-El]

the original poster was saying the sequel isnt likely to make money since there was so much hate towards superman returns. when in fact, the film was very well recieved by the general audience (see numbers below), and its just a very vocal minority of haters that seem to have congregated here to flame the movie.

imdb average user rating gave superman returns 7/10.
box office mojo average user rating gave it a 'B'.
rotten tomatoes critics: 76% fresh.
rotten tomatoes average user rating: 79%

Reminds me of X1..........can't wait till Bryan X2's the sequel.

 

[dude stannis]

Guilty

It's true. Superman II: TRDC was actually at 4.2 before you did that. t:

 

[buggs0268]

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

Try the other way around. And here we go again with the damn RT and IMDB and Yahoo polls. I'll take the box office as and indicator and the movie according to all industry standards greatly underperformed. It has been reported in many articles from the NY times, LA times and Variety that acording to the industry it under performed and failed to even come close to industry expectations. It also had major drop offs every week and most of the time it was fighting with Devil Wears Prada, and usually failed. It didn't do waht it was expected in the week and a half it had all to itself, and once Pirates came out, it just dropped misarably. The only thing that saved it was IMAX. And most foreign articles also mentioned that it came out the first week big and then just dropped in all the regions it opened in.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

when some so called director comes in and destroys a character i have loved since i can remember SR is not a film about superman but a film about a man with similair powers.

This I do not understand.

I can understand disagreeing with certain decisions - Luthor with a land scheme, no super-powered brawls, giving Supes a kid -

but to say the character of Superman was so off-base that he's not Superman is something I simply cannot see. Such a critique is applicable to Pitof's "Catwoman" - different identity, different origin, different everything - "Catwoman in Name Only."

Meanwhile, Singer's Superman, like his comic counterpart -

...is Kal-El, son of Jor-El.
...was sent to Earth to escape Krypton's destruction.
...was found and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent of Smallville.
...is named Clark Kent.
...works in Metropolis, at The Daily Planet, under the guise of a
mild-mannered reporter.
...loves fellow reporter Lois Lane.
...is close with "Superman's Pal", photographer Jimmy Olsen.
...arch-nemesis is Lex Luthor, a maniacal bald man.
...wears a suit of blue tights, red briefs, red boots, red cape, and
S- shield.
...possesses the power of flight, superstrength, super speed,
invulnerability, heat vision, super breath, super hearing and x-ray vision.
...has one weakness - Kryptonite.
...has a personal sanctuary, the Fortress of Solitude.
...draws his power from the yellow sun of Earth.
...protects the citizens of Metropolis (and the world) from the dangers of
earthquakes, fires, falling off buildings, airplane crashes, petty thieves,
psychotic gattling-gunning bankrobbers, and maniacal bald men.
...is sometimes confused with a bird or a plane.

Seemed pretty close to me. Just about as close as Nolan's Batman or Raimi's Spider-Man, two other fine adaptations.

 

[dude stannis]

Try the other way around. And here we go again with the damn RT and IMDB and Yahoo polls. I'll take the box office as and indicator and the movie according to all industry standards greatly underperformed. It has been reported in many articles from the NY times, LA times and Variety that acording to the industry it under performed and failed to even come close to industry expectations. It also had major drop offs every week and most of the time it was fighting with Devil Wears Prada, and usually failed. It didn't do waht it was expected in the week and a half it had all to itself, and once Pirates came out, it just dropped misarably. The only thing that saved it was IMAX. And most foreign articles also mentioned that it came out the first week big and then just dropped in all the regions it opened in.

So by your logic Titanic is the greatest film of all time?

$391 Million worldwide is hardly underperforming. Especially when you open up next the second biggest money maker of all time. Besides all those polls actually represent peoples opinions, unlike the Box office. Batman Forever did much more than Batman Returns but those polls suggest that Returns was the better movie. General consensus: Returns was a better movie.

 

[superdupersuper]

The movie WAS a huge failure in box office terms

it only made 200 million domestic and thats after many months and probably WB themselves bought the last few tickets in the last days it was available on cinema.

But internationally, the movie bombed even worse.

191 million from the rest of the world is a pathetic amount.

Given that the da vinci code made more than 500 million, and pirates of the caribean made more than 600.

And dont forget, superman is a globally known character.

out of the whole world, it only made 191 million.

Talk about anticlimax. It was like a failed orgasm.

Even King Kong made more money internationally.

For a movie about superman to only made 191 million internationally shows that audiences around the world throught the movie was rubbish.

Had the movie been better scripted and some proper action, it would have easily made more than 400 just from international.

as it stands, it got raped at the box office, and very badly too.

i dont see the sequel making more, in fact i think it will be more or less the same, probably less given the directors track record.

 

[GreenKToo]

but what does that say for B.B.'s 166 mill international take??

 

[Excel]

The movie WAS a huge failure in box office terms

it only made 200 million domestic and thats after many months and probably WB themselves bought the last few tickets in the last days it was available on cinema.

But internationally, the movie bombed even worse.

191 million from the rest of the world is a pathetic amount.

Given that the da vinci code made more than 500 million, and pirates of the caribean made more than 600.

And dont forget, superman is a globally known character.

out of the whole world, it only made 191 million.

Talk about anticlimax. It was like a failed orgasm.

Even King Kong made more money internationally.

For a movie about superman to only made 191 million internationally shows that audiences around the world throught the movie was rubbish.

Had the movie been better scripted and some proper action, it would have easily made more than 400 just from international.

as it stands, it got raped at the box office, and very badly too.

i dont see the sequel making more, in fact i think it will be more or less the same, probably less given the directors track record.

look. i understand your a very unintelligent person

but i wont bother explaining it out. this will sum up your argument against mine.

"probably less given the director track record"

well, singers track record with sequels the box offce was x2's 36% increase over the original. So going by Singers track record, that would have superman 2 at 272 million domestically.


so what da **** are you talking about?????????????????????????????????????

 

[dude stannis]

Not only that, Begins had a longer theatrical run than Returns. I can't imagine how badly it would've done if it had opened up next to POTC 2.

 

[Excel]

thats act. very true. batman woulda been crushed no matter how good it was

 

[dude stannis]

Yep, Begins was the best movie of 2005, but Star Wars and King Kong both did bigger numbers.

 

[DvilDog]

Im sorry but I havent seen any middle ground anywhere. Evidently SR is a movie you hate or you love. I loved it. I have complete faith in Singer and look for the sequel to please even the biggest nit pickers. Some of you will never be pleased. You cant look past the kid. But SR was about some guy with similar powers and not superman? Please. That is the most ******ed thing i have ever heard. And im in the military?

 

[FanboyX_Returns]

Yep, Begins was the best movie of 2005, but Star Wars and King Kong both did bigger numbers.

I agree Batman Begins was the best BATMAN movie EVER, and the best movie of 2005! HANDS DOWN!

I still watch it once a week! I cant ever get tired of it, and that says alot because I get tired of movies fast.
But they so nailed BATMAN and his world in BATMAN BEGINS.

Nolan is a brilliant Director, and I know alot of people are hatin cause they got one of the lovers from Brokeback but after watching Begins, and Memento Nolan can cast WHO EVER he wants!
Im with him 100%! Nolan/Bale is the best thing that ever happened to the Batman movie franchise!

Oh, and Episode 3 was F'in AWSOME 2!
its also on my 2nd place for 2005 movies..
BATMAN BEGINS
Episode 3
2005 was a good year for fanboy movies! lol

the theaters make little money off the ticket sales. its made off the consessions. thats why they want shorter movies so that they can sell more pop and popcorn.

"In today’s market, most films need to make roughly 3 times their budget in order to even start seeing a profit."

so what your saying is that if a movie costs $100 to make and it takes in $103 then it didn't make any money.

Yea most of the time outside the USA theaters pay the movie company only a very small portion of the box office cash it brings in.
Mostly because these theaters are real poor compared to the ones here in the United States..
For Superman Returns to turn a profit it had to be a hit a bit bigger or about where Spiderman ended up in its boxoffice totals.
Thats what the WB was shooting for but the bad buzz, and all that foolish, and stupid gay stuff started to give the film another black eye.
The movie just failed to connect with the major part of the fans who saw it, and even tho it had positive reviews everyone has their own views on movies, and for the most part the majority of the people who saw it didnt go see it again, and were left let down by the film overall.
Singer had a great chance to make a real Epic Superman Story ripped right from the comics, and with a budget of almost 300million.
Now the sequel is being greenlite but the franchise is on very shaky grounds.
The studio is cutting the budget, and taking away screen time, and moving away from drama, and adding more action.
Sounds like X-MEN 3 to me... (Which by the way was a much better picture then Superman Returns!) Singer's big budget film making career is on the line with the next movie cause if he lets the fans down again I dont think any studio will ever trust a big project like Superman again.
He will be taken back to do smaller movies like Usual Suspects, and Apt Pupil.
Which by the way is where I think his real talent as a film maker lays.. He just isnt right for Superman.. His directing style is all wrong.
He's more of an indi or low budget film maker.... Thats why those were his best work.

Anyway I hope "The Man of Steel" Corrects the ship, and with as bad as the cast was in the first it's sadly to late to recast so they all better step it up to another level.

If not alot of them will have these big dissapointments following them for years like how BATMAN & ROBINS followed Joel Schumacher, and George Clooney.

Clooney made a nice come back but it took him ALOT of hard work....

He's a real talented person, and the SR cast had maybe 1 person who would be able to move on like Clooney, and thats Spacey.

But he's not a big box office draw anyway so it doesnt matter.

Oh, and while im talkin about badguys I hope they do end up getting Jude Law as either ZOD or Braniac!
He is an awsome, and very underrated actor!

Well ill be gone on biz for a few weeks so peace to you all, and if I don't get to post til January Happy holidays, and happy new Years to all.

 

[GreenKToo]

I agree with that..all they'll have to do to increase the B.O. is add a supervillian,plus a couple more big action scenes.Singer's X-2 is a good example of what he can do with a sequel.

look. i understand your a very unintelligent person

but i wont bother explaining it out. this will sum up your argument against mine.

"probably less given the director track record"

well, singers track record with sequels the box offce was x2's 36% increase over the original. So going by Singers track record, that would have superman 2 at 272 million domestically.


so what da **** are you talking about?????????????????????????????????????

 

[dude stannis]

Yeah, the trailer needs to show Superman and the bad guy going at it hard.

 

[GreenKToo]

yup.get it out earlier, show the public that it will have more action.

Yeah, the trailer needs to show Superman and the bad guy going at it hard.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.

Positives:

1. It can't possibly be as bad as the first.
2. Its bound to have more action.
3. We have been promised an alien threat (lets just hope its something original to the big screen, and not Zod).

Negatives:

1. Its got the same creative people behind it.
2. Its got the same cast (for the record I really like Routh's Clark, just not his Superman - in fact is it just me or did Clark Kent seem WAY cooler than Superman in that movie?).
3. Its got the same (excess) baggage.
4. Almost certainly the same dull look (Was there some sort of 50% Sky Captain soft focus 'look' in effect or what?), feel and costume.
5. Almost certainly the same 'stupid' Lex, instead of the smart 'LexCorp' Lex.
6. The first movie may put people off a sequel.
7. Its got a far lower budget (probably 2/3rds or thereabouts).
8. More screen time for the kid promised.

Can anyone think of anything else?

If it grosses as much money as the first from a lower production (and marketing) budget, then I would say its a done well.

Anything more than that will take one HELL of a turn around, in terms of marketing, teasers and trailers.

I mean they just totally ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience with the first one. Those are the demographics they need to win back to make a sequel successful.

 

[LadyVader]

Those are also the demographics that require you to "dumb" down the movie. Not that Superman Returns was particularly smart mind you.

 

[Maze]

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.

LOL that's why it just did one, of the best first week in rentals of the year

There is something called Wom ..and the ultimate proof of that is the Dvd market (and the numbers in sell from what we hear are rather good too...) but feel free to invent new things because you didn't like the movie

 

[dark_b]

Hey all!

I think part of the problem for Man of Steel is that the negative reception to Returns could make the average cinema goer steer clear from the sequel.

Positives:

1. It can't possibly be as bad as the first.
2. Its bound to have more action.
3. We have been promised an alien threat (lets just hope its something original to the big screen, and not Zod).

Negatives:

1. Its got the same creative people behind it.
2. Its got the same cast (for the record I really like Routh's Clark, just not his Superman - in fact is it just me or did Clark Kent seem WAY cooler than Superman in that movie?).
3. Its got the same (excess) baggage.
4. Almost certainly the same dull look (Was there some sort of 50% Sky Captain soft focus 'look' in effect or what?), feel and costume.
5. Almost certainly the same 'stupid' Lex, instead of the smart 'LexCorp' Lex.
6. The first movie may put people off a sequel.
7. Its got a far lower budget (probably 2/3rds or thereabouts).
8. More screen time for the kid promised.

Can anyone think of anything else?

If it grosses as much money as the first from a lower production (and marketing) budget, then I would say its a done well.

Anything more than that will take one HELL of a turn around, in terms of marketing, teasers and trailers.

I mean they just totally ignored the younger audience and the action/adventure audience with the first one. Those are the demographics they need to win back to make a sequel successful.

if the movie is good people will watch it. and if not in the theater thanon dvd. look at batman begins.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi LadyVader!

Those are also the demographics that require you to "dumb" down the movie. Not that Superman Returns was particularly smart mind you.

I'm just curious why people make this sort of statement? Are the likes of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man dumbed down? No, they are not. Yet they still appeal to the demographics I mentioned.

The notion that Bryan Singer has to dumb anything down to make the sequel exciting is nonsensical. Its an excuse often touted by Singer apologists to justify why Superman Returns was boring.

 

[LadyVader]

The prequels were kind of dumb. Lots of people (me included) outside of the dedicated fanbase found the LOTR movies to be boring. Great movies, but boring, and to be honest I don't think I could sit through them again.
Spiderman has played it safe so far, for the kids' benefit (I truely hated Aunt May's speech in Spiderman 2), but Spiderman 3 is likely to change that.
X-men 3 is another perfect example of a dumbed down movie, for the sake of the non-fans.

It's why they are called popular movies. In order for them appeal to the masses, they have to be as simple to grasp as possible. It's not good, or bad, it's just the way things are. it's when you add emotion to the mix that you can have success, and deserve it. That's why I would have no problem with Singer making a truely popular, action-packed Superman movie, as long as emotion isn't pushed to the side.

 

[Maze]

Hi LadyVader!



I'm just curious why people make this sort of statement? Are the likes of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Spider-Man dumbed down? No, they are not. Yet they still appeal to the demographics I mentioned.

The notion that Bryan Singer has to dumb anything down to make the sequel exciting is nonsensical. Its an excuse often touted by Singer apologists to justify why Superman Returns was boring.

Hi Upper_Krust !

No no no , it was boring to you and some others people make no mistake.. it's becoming more clear everyday that a good majority liked this movie.