The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Maze!

Nope ,yesterday , i agree more or less on that .. but the thing is when i read the latest results(the Uk results for example) and i add them with what we know i will say for the moment ( awaiting the end of the dvd run)that the people who didn't like the movie are more like 30 prct imo.

Okay so it was only 16 million who hated it then in your opinion. t:

The thing is Uper , i understand you ..I was not in the mood yesterday , and i'm sorry...

Again, no apologies necessary mate - unless you were a part of the Superman Returns creative team.

i understand that you don't like this movie and you would like that Warner has a turd on a Hulk level..just so you will have the movie that YOU wan't one day..

Hulk was not a great movie, but it was moderately entertaining.

The problem with the Hulk movie (IMO) was threefold.

1. Took far too long getting to the action (50 minutes if memory serves correct). A tad unfair given you had to establish the origins, but still pertinent.

2. They really didn't establish the Nick Nolte supervillain in any capacity.

3. The big finale of the movie was just a confusing strobe mess.

But sorry ,it seem , that is just not the case.. more action? so to grab even more people that's a given

If its such a 'given' why did they not do it with Superman Returns?

..that doesn't mean that the movie was so so ..

It was boring. They would have had to kick Supes up a notch to reach ''so-so'.

serisously you can't do a good movie with not a lot of action?

Of course you can, but not every movie has to be of the action/adventure genre - but a movie involving Superman does (or at least it does if you want it to be a success).

i give you a genre Western .. An action genre in general .. Well one of the best in this genre has not a lot action"unforgiven"..

Unforgiven (as well as many other modern westerns) is more akin to a period drama with action, rather than a pure action film. As most westerns were in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

...Alan Horn admitted it himself that there was not a lot of action ?

Of course! Its as clear as daylight where the two main problems were.

you mean the guy who want to save faces in keeping Singer? while we talk about that, that doesn't make any sense .. or Universal would have kept award winning Ang Lee on Hulk. nope he juste admitted , they would have done more money in adding action..

Hulk needed an action scene to establish the Absorbing Man as a threat (I would have loved some scene of him in the city against the cops).

It then needed to clarify what was going on at the end in the fight between Hulk and Absorbing Man.

So Hulk only needed one extra action scene and one revised action scene to make it work.

Superman Returns needed something far better to close Act 2 (better than Lex stabbing him and a few thugs kicking him on the ground) it also needed a stronger finale (than lifting a big rock - for goodness sake).

Had I done that movie I would have added Metallo. We need one scene in act 2 to establish the Metallo threat (against the cops or so forth), a battle between Supes and Metallo at the end of act 2 (where Superman is almost killed due to Kryptonite) and the rematch in act three (whereupon Metallo has grown to gigantic 60 storey dimensions) where Superman defeats him.

not that the movie was not so good..

It was as good if not better than Superman Returns.

And, that's logical that's given this movie was a summer movie Release...you need action when you have a summer release like Superman...you don't need to be brillant to know that...the thing is they took a bet (and an even greater one in facing pirates) they didn't succed as much as they would have liked.. here's what he admitted that's all.

So basically when you say "You don't need to be brilliant to know that" you are making the point that the Superman Returns creative team obviously didn't know that and are therefore less than brilliant!?

At least we agree on one thing.

While we talk about that , Singer said for month well before the release that he wanted to do another kind of sequel..so? that's excactly what he did with X2.that was the plan.

I remember Singer and his Superman "chick-flick" comment. Backfired on him as anyone could have told him.

now when i look back at this summer , given who Superman was facing , given the fact that since for month people was saying that Pirates would be monster , you know what ? Superman really hold on well..

You know I read this argument a lot and it is total and utter crap.

Did anyone here have trouble getting to see Superman Returns at the cinema!?!?

Was there a gang of pirates waiting to rob you at every theatre!? t:

In the days of the multiplex how the heck does the release of the one movie inhibit that of another - NEVER!

The thing is (because personnaly i don't wan't to do one hundreth useless debates) ..i say let's wait the latest dvd sell number ( hoping that if they are good, you are not going to try to spin things again ) to say if yes or not Superman returns is 60/40 .

I don't see the dvd sales having any importance. Superman is not going to be the biggest seller of the year, its going to sell roughly as expected.

They have already greenlit the sequel (with a lower budget), so its a moot point.

And again no that i care .. but i care when people try to pass their own opinion for facts (but tha said i appreciated that today you didn't forget too add that it was only your opinion )

I'll be sure and label all facts in future to avoid confusion.

 

[GL1]

Hey GL1!

Yo.

The marketing budget is almost always determined by the production budget.

ie. the bigger the production budget the bigger the marketing budget.

Naturally... still, picking numbers out of the air? Picking movies with similar budgets or similar marketing campaigns?

Well its 45% domestic and 55% overseas as far as I know.

Who are these people contesting it anyway? Do they think the theatres work or free! t:

Hmmm... Indeed, I have been informed. It typically is 50-50.

If the president of Warner comes out and says he expected $500 million you know he probably expected $600-700 million. Hes just putting a spin on it.

The movie needed to gross $500 million before Warner started turning a profit.

This is a crazy logic-jump. If he expected 500 mil, then he expected 500 mil, there's no 'spin' here, you pulled that out of midair. It's not factual. You're making up numbers...

There's no reason to say it needed to gross anything to make a profit, especially based on an expectation that has nothing to do with it... especially when we have numbers to look at!

That was the bare minimum to keep Singer in a job. Not a goal for any 'job well done' congratulations.

Says who? And wouldn't a bare minimum be a better indicator of breaking even than a hopeful expectation? Furthermore, knowing the budget of Superman Returns (204 Mil after tax returns) and the box office takes, accounting for the "50%" rule, then 200 Mil domestic actually DOES sound like the breaking even point.

They passed 200 million by a few thousand dollars (and by all accounts had to actually pay theatres to keep the movie in cinemas long enough to break the target).

I'd be surprised if they have broke even after the first week of dvd sales.

So, were they trying to boot Singer or not? On one hand, he can't have a job if he doesn't break 200 Mil, on the other hand, they're supposedly paying theatres to keep in in longer? Especially when Theatres always get a lower cut as the movie stays in theatre's longer. This is not an issue unique to Superman Returns.

I never said it would hold it down, only that it was one of a number of contributing negative factors that would hurt the sequel to some degree

And I suppose the only thing we disagree on is how much. From the math I'm doing, Superman broke even and is cleaning up pure profit from DVD sales, though it may have turned up to 100 Mil of pure profit from overseas Box office (depends on the varying takes). Advertising? Well, there was also merchandizing, and who's to say which one involved more money? Again, DVD sales are pure profit if you're doing any real math.

While it's no question Comics fanboys tend to dislike Superman Returns (regardless of how much they like superman... a lot of guys who don't have anything Superman on their pull list just love to gripe about how different SR was from the comics they don't bother reading)... but negative stigma on the comics boards simply doesn't translate directly into the real world... SR not only has a fanbase, and a profit, but it actually has appeal to those who didn't expect a different kind of Superman movie.

Again, it's not the best movie of the year, but it's a lot better, and a lot better recieved in general than we seem to give it credit for around here.

 

[DarkSuperman]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, When I went to go see Superman Returns there was about 10 people in the audience, however when I went to go see pirates just about every seat was FULL. That says something.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, When I went to go see Superman Returns there was about 10 people in the audience, however when I went to go see pirates just about every seat was FULL. That says something.

Yeah, it says that Pirates was the most popular movie of the summer.


Anyone looking at its numbers the first weekend could have told you that. Why the comparisons to Pirates and Superman Returns keep coming up this late in the game, I'll never understand.

 

[GreenKToo]

I'll never understand why pirates 2 did so well.now,I loved the first one,and I liked the second o.k.,it wasnt bad or anything,but a BILLION W.W.???

 

[TheComicbookKid]

^Pirates is something new. When was the last movie featuring pirates?
The first one was really good. The second one rode the wave of it. The CGI was amazing.

^I can't believe Spidey 2 made less than Spidey 1, but people seem to have a low tolerance for superhero movies.

^I knew people that were skeptical about Batman Begins because they'd already seen Batman on screen unlike Spidey. Superman has a high "whatever" mentality because of how powerful he is. I know some people that didn't care about seeing it in theaters but said they'd see it on DVD. They ran to see Pirates though.

 

[GreenKToo]

superman will need an adversary as powerful as he for the sequel..someone that can throw him around.a down and dirty street fight if you will,but instead of useing clubs or 2x4s like normal people,they would be using things like cars,streetlights.I didnt really mind supes being that powerful in S.R.,but I want to see someone as powerful as he in the sequel.

^Pirates is something new. When was the last movie featuring pirates?
The first one was really good. The second one rode the wave of it. The CGI was amazing.

^I can't believe Spidey 2 made less than Spidey 1, but people seem to have a low tolerance for superhero movies.

^I knew people that were skeptical about Batman Begins because they'd already seen Batman on screen unlike Spidey. Superman has a high "whatever" mentality because of how powerful he is. I know some people that didn't care about seeing it in theaters but said they'd see it on DVD. They ran to see Pirates though.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Yo.

Howdy!

Naturally... still, picking numbers out of the air? Picking movies with similar budgets or similar marketing campaigns?

Is that a question or a statement - slightly confusing

Hmmm... Indeed, I have been informed. It typically is 50-50.

That will work for the purposes of our debate. No need going into too much detail.

This is a crazy logic-jump. If he expected 500 mil, then he expected 500 mil, there's no 'spin' here, you pulled that out of midair. It's not factual. You're making up numbers...

Wrong. It needed $500 million to break even.

There's no reason to say it needed to gross anything to make a profit, especially based on an expectation that has nothing to do with it... especially when we have numbers to look at!

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million.

There are two other factors to consider.

Firstly the alleged 10% of the gross Singer was on (on top of his $11 million salary), which was how Warner were able to steal him from Fox. Which is another $39 million out of the net profit. At this point Warner is down about $47 million.

Secondly the reported $50 million (or so) attributed to the the failed attempts. However, I would ignore this money for the purposes of the debate.

So Warner are down a potential $100 million on Superman.

Says who?

Says various industry insiders at Warner.

And wouldn't a bare minimum be a better indicator of breaking even than a hopeful expectation?

No.

Furthermore, knowing the budget of Superman Returns (204 Mil after tax returns) and the box office takes, accounting for the "50%" rule, then 200 Mil domestic actually DOES sound like the breaking even point.

They needed to gross another $10-15 million to break even on the box-office, assuming we ignore Singer's alleged bonuses.

So, were they trying to boot Singer or not? On one hand, he can't have a job if he doesn't break 200 Mil, on the other hand, they're supposedly paying theatres to keep in in longer? Especially when Theatres always get a lower cut as the movie stays in theatre's longer. This is not an issue unique to Superman Returns.

I believe they were trying to keep Singer, but the rumour broke that the Warner president had said $200 million domestic or else, so I think it was a face saving matter.

And I suppose the only thing we disagree on is how much. From the math I'm doing, Superman broke even and is cleaning up pure profit from DVD sales, though it may have turned up to 100 Mil of pure profit from overseas Box office (depends on the varying takes).

I think it was about $10 to 50 million down, from the box office alone, depending on the validity of Singer's deal, which I would believe because he left Fox while X3 was in pre-production with him scheduled to direct and you wouldn't do that unless it was a monster deal.

Advertising? Well, there was also merchandizing, and who's to say which one involved more money? Again, DVD sales are pure profit if you're doing any real math.

We can igore the marketing because that will likely be offset by television deals and so forth.

I think the dvd sales will start turning a profit depending upon certain aspects (Singers deal, failed restarts).

While it's no question Comics fanboys tend to dislike Superman Returns (regardless of how much they like superman... a lot of guys who don't have anything Superman on their pull list just love to gripe about how different SR was from the comics they don't bother reading)... but negative stigma on the comics boards simply doesn't translate directly into the real world... SR not only has a fanbase, and a profit, but it actually has appeal to those who didn't expect a different kind of Superman movie.

But the flipside of that is those who liked Superman returns know they will not be getting the same type of movie in the sequel.

Again, it's not the best movie of the year, but it's a lot better, and a lot better recieved in general than we seem to give it credit for around here.

No it was just terrible.

Its a badly cast, boring, muted, dull-looking, creepy Super-peeper melodrama sprinkled with self indulgence and homage bordering on copying.

That said, I'll go out of my way and tell you what I did like about it.

1. Routh's Kent - I thought his brilliance as Kent was only matched by how bad his Superman was.

2. Jimmy Olson - Okay the bow tie was a bit much, but again I like the humour Huntingdon added to the role.

3. The Plane scene - okay everybody likes that. Of course Lois should have been dead taking all those bumps, but I forgive that, it was the movies one exciting scene.

4. Bullet to Eye - purely for the novelty of it. Although I am wondering who copied who with regards the King Hyperion scene where the exact same thing happens.

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.

 

[GreenKToo]

how much of the internationl take counts toward profit??

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GreenKToo!

how much of the internationl take counts toward profit??

I believe its something like 45% international, 55% domestic.

 

[GL1]

Howdy!

I'm glad you're so happy. Stick with that.

Is that a question or a statement - slightly confusing

I think it was a question... I don't quite remember now.

Wrong. It needed $500 million to break even.

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million. [/quote]

This $500 Million still doesn't sound like the breaking even point... there's no math that leads to it, it's arbitrary.

While some fine math would suggest a number lower than 8 million, I'll run with it for now.

There are two other factors to consider.

Firstly the alleged 10% of the gross Singer was on (on top of his $11 million salary), which was how Warner were able to steal him from Fox. Which is another $39 million out of the net profit. At this point Warner is down about $47 million.

Secondly the reported $50 million (or so) attributed to the the failed attempts. However, I would ignore this money for the purposes of the debate.

So Warner are down a potential $100 million on Superman.

Yes, the are out an additional about anywhere from $0 to $100 Million on Superman Returns.

They needed to gross another $10-15 million to break even on the box-office, assuming we ignore Singer's alleged bonuses.

That sounds like ANOTHER random number that disagrees with the math that you just did for us.

I believe they were trying to keep Singer, but the rumour broke that the Warner president had said $200 million domestic or else, so I think it was a face saving matter.

Yes you do. And I don't. No facts here.

I think it was about $10 to 50 million down, from the box office alone, depending on the validity of Singer's deal, which I would believe because he left Fox while X3 was in pre-production with him scheduled to direct and you wouldn't do that unless it was a monster deal.

And I don't believe it because it's obvious that Singer wanted to do Superman, and he spent a while telling the world about it after he was hired, and then went on to make a movie which homages Superman 1 & 2 to, apparently, no end. Singer's deal is inquestion, and seeing as how his numbers have been blown up before in the media, I just don't buy it.

I think the dvd sales will start turning a profit depending upon certain aspects (Singers deal, failed restarts).

Ah, yes... sweet agreement. I concur.

But the flipside of that is those who liked Superman returns know they will not be getting the same type of movie in the sequel.

Or, they'll think it's the same type of movie but with more action. Depends on how it's marketted.

No it was just terrible.

Its a badly cast, boring, muted, dull-looking, creepy Super-peeper melodrama sprinkled with self indulgence and homage bordering on copying.

That said, I'll go out of my way and tell you what I did like about it.

1. Routh's Kent - I thought his brilliance as Kent was only matched by how bad his Superman was.

2. Jimmy Olson - Okay the bow tie was a bit much, but again I like the humour Huntingdon added to the role.

3. The Plane scene - okay everybody likes that. Of course Lois should have been dead taking all those bumps, but I forgive that, it was the movies one exciting scene.

4. Bullet to Eye - purely for the novelty of it. Although I am wondering who copied who with regards the King Hyperion scene where the exact same thing happens.

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.

I appreciate you going out of your way. You are obviously contributing more to the conversation than I as far as info goes, I simply disagree with the conclusions you've come to with that info.

I won't dispute your opinion on the quality of the movie... really can't look at it and say "This is not a Good Movie" and I can't look at it and say "This is an awesome movie" either... it remains firmly in the B range to me. Of course, I've only seen it twice... and I can't remember 1& 2 so, perhaps if I had seen those three movies together I would have a different opinion.

That said, I think it's clear at this point that a few slight changes will allow the sequel to make money.

 

[Cats]

5. Marsden - easily the best actor in the movie (Spacey was too cheesy and Langella did nothing for me) and probably the hero of the piece, certainly the only non-idiot.

heh, I agree. ^ Personally, I hope Richard kicks Superman's butt in the sequel.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1 dude!

I'm glad you're so happy. Stick with that.

I'm generally a jovial person.

I think it was a question... I don't quite remember now.

I'm sure I would have answered it with aplomb, we can take that on faith.

If we apply the 50-50 approach to the gross that means the movie netted Warner $196 million. But it cost $204+ million to produce. Thats a loss of $8+ million.

This $500 Million still doesn't sound like the breaking even point... there's no math that leads to it, it's arbitrary.

I think its either representative of the $50 million (or thereabouts) spent on failed Superman projects or on Singer's secret deal.

While some fine math would suggest a number lower than 8 million, I'll run with it for now.

Fair enough.

Yes, the are out an additional about anywhere from $0 to $100 Million on Superman Returns.

Well anywhere from 8 to 97, but we are just hypothesisizing the exact figures.

That sounds like ANOTHER random number that disagrees with the math that you just did for us.

Not at all.

They are $8 million down on the box office alone, therefore they needed to make approx. $16 million more to break even. However, given the 55/45% disparity between domestic and international profits it may need to make slightly more or less depending on where the extra money is grossed.

Yes you do. And I don't. No facts here.

That works both ways though.

And I don't believe it because it's obvious that Singer wanted to do Superman, and he spent a while telling the world about it after he was hired, and then went on to make a movie which homages Superman 1 & 2 to, apparently, no end. Singer's deal is inquestion, and seeing as how his numbers have been blown up before in the media, I just don't buy it.

Singer left X-3 during pre-production, its clear Warner offered him a mega deal to jump ship mid-stream. They didn't need to make Superman for 2006, they could have waited an extra year.

Ah, yes... sweet agreement. I concur.

You know it makes sense.

Or, they'll think it's the same type of movie but with more action. Depends on how it's marketted.

There are many on these forums who (erroneously) believe that would be an oxymoron.

The "a movie cannot be exciting and thoughtful" brigade.

I appreciate you going out of your way. You are obviously contributing more to the conversation than I as far as info goes, I simply disagree with the conclusions you've come to with that info.

Thats okay, everyone is entitled to a subjective viewpoint. Its the objective stuff I like debating though.

I also forgot.

6. Christ parallels: I know a few people didn't like this but I did.

I won't dispute your opinion on the quality of the movie... really can't look at it and say "This is not a Good Movie" and I can't look at it and say "This is an awesome movie" either... it remains firmly in the B range to me. Of course, I've only seen it twice... and I can't remember 1& 2 so, perhaps if I had seen those three movies together I would have a different opinion.

I simply think the movie is targeted at the wrong demographic, in fact its difficult to see a demographic the movie does target (gay males?). I don't say that as a cheap slur. At every turn Superman is immasculated.

1. He doesn't get the girl.
2. In the movies only fight (and I use that term loosely) he gets the crap kicked out of him.
3. He ends up in the hospital.
4. He's a bit of a mommy's boy.
5. His best friend is Jimmy Olsen.
6. The costume is a free pass into the Blue Oyster.

That said, I think it's clear at this point that a few slight changes will allow the sequel to make money.

The biggest one being a lower budget for Singer to waste.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think if they can pack a boat load of action into it. Over compensate, I say. Just make action scenes just for the **** of it. Have Superman hit people, toss a truck into the sun from Metropolis. Have him toss a whole building even. Just tons and tons of action, and squeeze in the story they want. But, make it action packed up the mother****ing ass, and I think people will go see it. The trailers would have to obviously showcase the action as well......so, I think to sell tickets that's what they need to do. They can't go for the whole "He's Returned" angle because......well....he's returned already. lol. So, I think that's what they need to try.

 

[JamalYIgle]

Hey GL1 dude!



1. He doesn't get the girl.
[/qoute]
The Hero rarely ever gets the girl,in any story. he redeemed himself in her eyes, setting things up for the next movie.

2. In the movies only fight (and I use that term loosely) he gets the crap kicked out of him.

Yes while being poisoned by the one thing in the world that can kill him. It made the scene incredibly dramatic and dificult to watch.

3. He ends up in the hospital.

After being poisoned, getting the crap kicked out of him, Stabbed in the back, dropped off a cliff into the north Atlantic, lifting a Kryptonite ladden continent into orbit and while effectively powerless, falling from High orbit and crashing into the ground.

4. He's a bit of a mommy's boy.

There's nothing wrong with being close to your mother and he has always been in the comics. I'm close to my Mom, although i don't see her often and I live 2 hours away.

5. His best friend is Jimmy Olsen.

Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen? The best friend he's had since I don't know.. 1938?

6. The costume is a free pass into the Blue Oyster.

Sorry I don't see the difference between This

and This:

 

[X-Maniac]

I simply think the movie is targeted at the wrong demographic, in fact its difficult to see a demographic the movie does target (gay males?). I don't say that as a cheap slur. At every turn Superman is immasculated.

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.' Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Jamal!

The Hero rarely ever gets the girl,in any story. he redeemed himself in her eyes, setting things up for the next movie.

Well if anything its going to be interesting to see how they mess up Richard.

Yes while being poisoned by the one thing in the world that can kill him. It made the scene incredibly dramatic and dificult to watch.

I'll agree with you it was difficult to watch.

After being poisoned, getting the crap kicked out of him, Stabbed in the back, dropped off a cliff into the north Atlantic, lifting a Kryptonite ladden continent into orbit and while effectively powerless, falling from High orbit and crashing into the ground.

The Hulk did all that and he was okay... t:

There's nothing wrong with being close to your mother and he has always been in the comics.

I never said there was anything wrong with it, but onscreen such reliance does tend to immasculate.

I'm close to my Mom, although i don't see her often and I live 2 hours away.

Well you should try to make the effort, I lost my mother when I was very young, so in that respect I envy you.

Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen? The best friend he's had since I don't know.. 1938?

Singer has commented in interviews that his Jimmy may be gay.

Sorry I don't see the difference between This

and This:

I was only messing with you on that point...I thought the costume was fine (if a tad too dark).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi X-Maniac!

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.'

Interesting.

Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

Presumably Singer's idea was that kids and males will go see it just because its Superman, so lets cater to the demographic that a Superman movie normally wouldn't appeal to.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

Routh's Superman came across as a bit of a nancy-boy, but I now see how that in itself would not be appealing to a gay male. Gay males are attracted to the masculine rather than the immasculine...is that a fair statement?

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

I think one thing Singer did was impose a lot of himself in the movie. But thats probably a topic for another thread.

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

Agreed.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.

I think thats why you have to make the movie as original as possible. SInger repeated so many elements of Donner's classic, that Superman returns almost becomes pointless.

 

[DarkSuperman]

Sorry I don't see the difference between This

and This:

Well, the Superman below is Waaaaaaay more toned, not to mention his costume is CORRECT. For example, no "S" on the belt, Bright Colors, Etc. I mean the dude above looks like he's wearing a funky doo-doo brown or something...

 

[dark_b]

Well, the Superman below is Waaaaaaay more toned, not to mention his costume is CORRECT. For example, no "S" on the belt, Bright Colors, Etc. I mean the dude above looks like he's wearing a funky doo-doo brown or something...

the yellow is bright

 

[lexlives]

I doubt a sequel will be able to make much more than SR did. Too much baggage - its the batman and Robin syndrome which hurt BB's box office.

WB should follow what they are doing with the Hulk. Re-starting and doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Hulk from 2003 cause that studio knows an association could be a real killer.

No way do I see an SR sequel being able to overcome the bad buzz - its a very untenable situation to be in and one has to think some of the suits at WB realize this.

 

[Billy Batson]

I doubt a sequel will be able to make much more than SR did. Too much baggage - its the batman and Robin syndrome which hurt BB's box office.

WB should follow what they are doing with the Hulk. Re-starting and doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Hulk from 2003 cause that studio knows an association could be a real killer.

No way do I see an SR sequel being able to overcome the bad buzz - its a very untenable situation to be in and one has to think some of the suits at WB realize this.

t:

 

[lexlives]

t:

Yes Billy - and it seems to be woking for the new Hulk movie which is getting good buzz early on. But they go to great lengths to make clear the new film is not a sequel to or extension of or anyway related to the 2003 Hulk film. You get the whole new excitement as to which actor will be cast as the Hulk and other main roles. Starting fresh gives the new Hulk built-in good will from audiences. Its up to the producers to keep that up of course.

And when they speak of chances of making more money I assume - given that X-Men 2 did better by about 33% at the BO than 1 and 3 did about 17% better than 2 - that WB is expecting something anyways in the 20% or so BO boost.

Taking the number means a SR sequel needs to do at least 235 - 240 million to match X-Men's 3 boost. To me it does not seem possible to do the general antipathy or ambivalence to SR.

 

[lexlives]

I don't think the movie's intended target was gay males. It was women. Singer himself said it was a chick flick - and when i came out of the cinema after seeing it, I heard a conversation between a group of three people. A young woman said 'Well that was quite good, wasn't it?', a young guy said 'No!' very definitely and very loudly and a woman younger than the other one said 'It went on a bit.' Which sort of sums it up. Too slow and laboured for many (especially today's 'I want it yesterday' teenagers), too unexciting and flat for men, and aimed more at the late 20s/early 30s woman who loves Bridget Jones/Sex and the City/The O.C. and such things.

It certainly didn't appeal to me as a gay male. I like male characters to be inspiring, strong, 'sorted' (= no issues!), someone who I would like to be, or someone who is watchably (but not gratuitously) sexy!

The Superman in Returns was such a victim, he behaved questionably if not irresponsibly, he was self-absorbed. There's no harm in showing Superman having turmoils and conflicts but this movie left me feeling that Singer had copied large chunks of the Donner movies, taken the idea of a man in a cape, and simply patched together the rest like a poorly-made quilt. It does often feel like 'Superman in name only.' Some diabolical editing didn't help matters. When my DVD arrives and i can rewatch all the Superman movies, I'm sure I'll have much more to add!

The trouble with a sequel - as i have raised elsewhere in my own thread - is it has to follow on from the various 'wrong' elements in the first movie.

The other major problem with Superman Returns and any subsequent Superman movies is that the public has seen a cherished version of Superman on screen already. To the public, Reeve is Superman and that's the end of it. Remakes of iconic, classic movies seem like needless repetition to the mainstream viewer. Which is partly why Jackson's King Kong didn't do as well as expected - even though FAR superior to the original made 70 years before. (Watch the new version and the old version side by side, and there is no comparison... Jackson's remake is THE version to own and watch). Similarly, a remake of Star Wars or a remake of Lord of the Rings would NOT be well-received.

I disagree that you can't do a Superman remake well. Bond is remade all the time, Batman the best yet in the latest remake, Spiderman now is apparently to go onmto a 4, 5 and 6th film but that will mean a remake of sorts as a new younger actor will have to be brought in to replace Toby probably as soon as Spidey 4 and no later than 5.

The problem with trying to copy/requel S: TM is that you can't go home. it is never as good as you remember it, it is never as perfect as you once thought.

The only proper way to have handled this was, IMO, do a totally new take - does not have to be an origin story.

Singer's problem in casting Routh was that he went for someone who looked like Reeve, but Reeve's greatness was more his persona, charisma, presence. That is what Singer should have looked for in the new actor - a Reeve-like presence as opposed to a physical look.

Singer should have made this his film. He should have become the Donner to today's generation.

 

[kamaldhamal2007]

hey karea07 that is AISHWARYA RAI!!!!

she rocks!! I love her in DHOOM 2.