The Official Start/Release Date & Location Thread

[J.Howlett]

I don't care if it makes a profit, 258 million dollar budget for a film is stupid...plain and simple. That's just not good business, no matter how successful the franchise is.

You're telling me that they couldn't have made Spider-Man 3 for 160 million? And let's really state what we all pretty much assume....alot of that budget is paid to Tobey, Kirsten, and Sam.

I'm betting between them, without points, they raked in about 30 million, which is insane...maybe more.

 

[J.Howlett]

For 258 million, it better have the best action and best visual effects I've ever seen and based on the trailers, it's pretty clear that we won't get the best visual effects ever.

I think we can give Transformers, no matter how you feel about, that mantle. ILM is killing Sony Picture Imageworks, just based on trailers for Spider-Man 3, Transformers, and At Worlds End....

 

[Ita-KalEl]

This is the main reason why I'm for a SR sequel and not fot a reboot. If they think that a reboot they can do the Spider-man numbers (so they can greenlit a +200m budget), they need a doctor.

I loved Batman Begins and 300. But BB did only 371m ww, and 300, wich is not a sh movie, will be lucky to do 500m ww (the same ww gross of the terrible Troy). 300 is considered more successful than Troy only because its budget. We can say the same thing about BB and SR.

Spider-man 3 cost $258m, if we consider the marketing campaign, it probably cost more than $330m. It will generate a great profit (toys, merchandising etc.), but it will be far less profitable than the first movie.

At SONY they say that they want to do Spiderman 4 (with or without Raimi), but will they greenlit a +$300m budget?

If at Hollywood they still want to generate profit using the sh franchises, they have to limit the budgets of the movies: not more than $160-170m for a triple-A franchise (Superman, X-Men or Batman); for an "average" franchise (Fantastic Four, Iron Man) 100m should be a good budget.

 

[Excel]

This hurts me to say, BUT-

A reboot for 2009 with the right ****-cast, crew, marketing, and release date-has a better shot at 300 million than a Superman Returns sequel, which basically doesnt have a chance.

 

[Showtime]

This hurts me to say, BUT-

A reboot for 2009 with the right ****-cast, crew, marketing, and release date-has a better shot at 300 million than a Superman Returns sequel, which basically doesnt have a chance.

Whether that is the case or not, it is almost impossible to get that done by 2009. A reboot and a delay go hand in hand. You're talking 2012 at the earliest.

 

[Excel]

If they wanted a reboot in 2009, it could be done.

They hired Christopher Nolan to make any new batman movie he wanted in late january, 2003. he put batman begins into theaters 2 1/2 years later.

A good Superman script is fairly easy to create as long they dont go out of their way to complicate the story. If they started within say, a month of now, its no stretch to say they could have a couple of drafts by the end of august, with casting in september-january, and filming in 2008.

They would just have to start soon.

 

[Showtime]

If they wanted a reboot in 2009, it could be done.

They hired Christopher Nolan to make any new batman movie he wanted in late january, 2003. he put batman begins into theaters 2 1/2 years later.

A good Superman script is fairly easy to create as long they dont go out of their way to complicate the story. If they started within say, a month of now, its no stretch to say they could have a couple of drafts by the end of august, with casting in september-january, and filming in 2008.

They would just have to start soon.

It's a little more complicated than that, if you refer to the history of Superman projects that never came to fruition as evidence. If they are starting a new Superman project they have no director, no writers, no cast, no sets, no locations, and so on and so forth. There is no way it could be made for a 2009 release.

It has already been noted by several sources if there is a reboot it would come at a later date and the project would be delayed.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

IMO it's impossible a reboot for the 2009. Just imagine the failure of the Hulk reboot in the 2008, and for failure I mean the same box office numbers of the 2003 movie...It would be a disaster for a greenlited Superman reboot with a +$210m budget.

By now there isn't any reason to think that a reboot would be more successful than a good SR2 sequel. Batman Begins did worse than Superman Returns, and Burton's Batman was more successful than Superman: The Movie. If you compare the franchises, Batman did far better numbers:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=superman.htm

The worst Batman (B&R) movie did far better than the worst Superman movie (SIV).

Another point is that BB did worse than Batman Forever (adjusted for inflation), while Superman Returns did far better than Superman III.
According to the numbers Superman Returns has to be considered a better relaunch.

I don't understand what do you expect from a Superman reboot, if Batman Begins (the reboot of the greatest franchise of the '90ties) wasn't able to cross the 371m mark ww.

 

[Excel]

Oh I agree-Id bet a bundle itll be delayed to winter 09 or summer 10'(hope not! spidey^& shrek 4s). The fact that casting seems to be such a challenge is what maks it hard.

but if you had a guy who wasnt so focused on making huge epic, and wanted to make say, a huge blockbuster, it would be possible. At that point, the actors wouldnt have to be perfect.

 

[Excel]

IMO it's impossible a reboot for the 2009. Just imagine the failure of the Hulk reboot in the 2008, and for failure I mean the same box office numbers of the 2003 movie...It would be a disaster for a greenlited Superman reboot with a +$210m budget.

By now there isn't any reason to think that a reboot would be more successful than a good SR2 sequel. Batman Begins did worse than Superman Returns, and Burton's Batman was more successful than Superman: The Movie. If you compare the franchises, Batman did far better numbers:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=batman.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=superman.htm

The worst Batman (B&R) movie did far better than the worst Superman movie (SIV).

Another point is that BB did worse than Batman Forever (adjusted for inflation), while Superman Returns did far better than Superman III.
According to the numbers Superman Returns has to be considered a better relaunch.

I don't understand what do you expect from a Superman reboot, if Batman Begins (the reboot of the greatest franchise of the '90ties) wasn't able to cross the 371m mark ww.

Like i said, it all depends. If its a retro take, and its biggest star is kevin spacey, itd be a collosal dud unless it great.

But if it was modern, stylized and had big stars like say, Johnny Depp or Tom Hanks in the roles of the villain and or jor-el, then lots of fighting a lot of action, more than drama....itd be a big hit.

My superman restart thread...while a lot here may not like it...it would make a lot of money, i.e. 250 milion+. Its kind of the thing audiences dig.

 

[Showtime]

Oh I agree-Id bet a bundle itll be delayed to winter 09 or summer 10'(hope not! spidey^& shrek 4s). The fact that casting seems to be such a challenge is what maks it hard.

but if you had a guy who wasnt so focused on making huge epic, and wanted to make say, a huge blockbuster, it would be possible. At that point, the actors wouldnt have to be perfect.

According to what I was told it would be delayed until 2011-2012.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

But if it was modern, stylized and had big stars like say, Johnny Depp or Tom Hanks in the roles of the villain and or jor-el, then lots of fighting a lot of action, more than drama....itd be a big hit.

Wow, Tom Hanks as a Superman villain. Such a great idea.
Which one? Doomsday or the Parasite?

 

[Maze]

Any update on that matter showtime?

 

[Maze]

i sincerely feel that not a lot of people would accept a reboot so soon without feeling insulted.

that has marked " this time we will find a way the you gave us more cash all the way"

 

[Ita-KalEl]

A agree with your vision Excel, but I think that it's too late. And I think that it was the same opinion of the WB execs when they discussed the "reboot option".

SR was not a disaster like Batman&Robin. It was a weak movie, but it was not terrible...It was a good superhero movie.: the cast was good, the SFXs were good, the real problem was the script (too similar to the Mario Puzo's one). IMO you cant do a reboot in 3 years, it's totally insane. Nevertheless I don't think that it would be a good idea, if they destroyed a +$391m franchise for a risky reboot in 4-5 years.

The most logical idea is to do the SR2 sequel. If the sequel disappoints, there will be always enough time to restart the franchise in few years. Even because you know very well that SR2 can disappoints, but can't be a disaster like B&R. So they will not have the problem to relaunch a franchise after the crappiest movie ever made (BB case).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There is no possible way Spidey 3 will make less than 258mil, so I think sony are in the clear on that one. I'm not hugely surprised by the budget on the movie, Raimi has made sony tons of money, rather they should or not, he is going to get exactly what he wants for the most part. Good for him If the movie has a good response and makes over 340mil in the U.S I think Sony are going to be knocking on his door to direct a 4th one. Sony doesn't seem to be worried about less profit so why is everyone else? Less profit doesn't mean that they are gonna make a s**tload of money.

 

[Excel]

Wow, Tom Hanks as jor-el?

 

[Showtime]

Any update on that matter showtime?

Nothing new. There are two different forces at work within the high structure.

 

[superbaby]

There is no possible way Spidey 3 will make less than 258mil, so I think sony are in the clear on that one. I'm not hugely surprised by the budget on the movie, Raimi has made sony tons of money, rather they should or not, he is going to get exactly what he wants for the most part. Good for him If the movie has a good response and makes over 340mil in the U.S I think Sony are going to be knocking on his door to direct a 4th one. Sony doesn't seem to be worried about less profit so why is everyone else? Less profit doesn't mean that they are gonna make a s**tload of money.

the hype is getting bigger and bigger. it's the first "big movie" coming out in 2007 and people are just waiting for it.
i believe in two week it can almost make back its budget.

 

[superbaby]

The budget of SM3 is simply insane: $258m! And we are talking of a REAL budget, not the fake SR budget ($270m) reported by boxofficemojo.com.
I'm 100% sure that Spiderman 3 will generate a great profit, but it will be far less profitable than the first spider-man movie.

IMO the studios have to stop this trend. They have to limit the budgets of their movies: 300 was considered an incredible hit only because its $65m budget...

For the first time a spider-man movie will struggle to break even basing on the box office numbers.

i thought 300 was considered incredible hit only because it makes more than SR. (and it still in the top ten after so many weeks. SR was out of the top ten after the 4th week.)

 

[GreenKToo]

I have a feeling spidey is going have a hard time against the other big two. It will have a good two weeks to itself before shrek 3 comes out, then pirates will be out. If the 2nd pirates was any indication, then the 3rd should be the B.O. champ again this year. who knows though, shrek may surprise us and beat both spidey and pirates.

 

[Showtime]

I think the movies are so seperated from each other in regards to being the last one in their respective trilogy arcs, that they aren't going to have that much of an affect on one another as people believe. Everybody is going to want to see what Jack Sparrow does just as much as they want to see what happens to Spiderman.

 

[Grinder]

i thought 300 was considered incredible hit only because it makes more than SR. (and it still in the top ten after so many weeks. SR was out of the top ten after the 4th week.)

Let's not forget that 300 is an R rated movie! To make so much money at the BO is extraordinary.
SR had a much bigger crowd to gain money from.
And 300 isn't even at the end of it's run yet!

 

[Ita-KalEl]

But 300 is not a franchise. You can do another movie about the ancient wars, but you can be sure of its success. Rember Troy. Alexander or King Arthur.
Superman is a franchise, and with the right budget the sequel can guarantee a good profit.

 

[Showtime]

I think after the success of 300 WB is taking note of this and trying to implement some of that production philosophy into a sequel.