Superman Returns Time Warner says SR "performed strongly"...

[lazur]

Seems Time Warner doesn't consider SR a financial "disappointment" the way many fans do.

Time Warner Shows Mostly Solid Results

Time Warner had a mixed bag of financial results to report on Wednesday. On the one hand, profits at its cable-TV company soared as a result of its acquisition of some of the cable systems previously owned by Adelphia. At AOL, advertising revenue jumped 46 percent. On the other hand, its film division registered a 10-percent drop, as most of its features showed lukewarm results at best. The sole exception: Superman Returns, which performed strongly, especially overseas. However, Time Warner COO Jeff Bewkes said in a conference call with investors Wednesday, "I am highly confident that we will grow the earnings on the film side next year." Time Warner stock appears to have found favor among investors once again, rising 20 percent since August. At midday trading in New York today (Thursday), it stood at $19.94, off slightly from its 52-week high of $20.08 set on Oct. 26.

 

[Dan33977]

"Oh, it's just 'spin.'"

No, but seriously, anyone with half a brain understands that SUPERMAN RETURNS performed strongly at the box office; it just didn't perform as expected. And there is a difference!

And don't expect anyone who enjoys criticizing SUPERMAN RETURNS just for the sake of criticizing it to reply to your post as it includes facts, numbers, and mathematics to back all of it up—it's too much for them to handle. Besides, they're too busy giggling like schoolboys over the fact that Bryan Singer is a homosexual.

Your signature basically sums it up...

 

[echostation]

based on the budget itself it's barely going to make any sort of profit at all... 270 million spent in total, WB and Legendary each put in 50% of the costs on their own... split 390 million into half (and i'm even excluding theater keeps) and you get a losing battle

This "strong performer" of a film will only make any sort of single bit of profit from dvd... Superman is not meant to be a profit earner on DVD alone. it's pathetic

 

[echostation]

oh, how could I forget Alan Horn's expection for a clear $500 million world wide box office? Oh, WB was only 110 million off their expectations... not so bad for such a "strong performer".. 20-30 million i can understand... to be off by over 100 million in terms of expectations does NOT reflect a strong performer... try to understand this

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Dan!

"Oh, it's just 'spin.'"

On that we are in agreement. The movie underperformed big time!

No, but seriously, anyone with half a brain understands that SUPERMAN RETURNS performed strongly at the box office;

Whereas anyone with a full brain, as opposed to just half of one, will understand that the movie still has not made a single cent of profit.

Cost to make Superman returns = $209 million.

Domestic Gross $200 million of which 55% goes to the studios (the rest goes to the theatres) = $110 million

Overseas Gross $190 million of which 45% goes to the studios = $85 million

Total loss: -$209 million
Total gain: +$195 million

Therefore Warner is at least $14 million dollars in the red.

But we forgot 2 things.

1. The money that was spent on the previous incarnations = $51 million or so.

2. Singers alleged 10% of the gross = $39 million

Which means that Warner Bros. are almost certainly $104 million dollars in the red.

it just didn't perform as expected. And there is a difference!

You are right about that. t:

I think they needed to do something like $680 million worldwide to actually turn a profit (assuming Singers deal is accurate)

And don't expect anyone who enjoys criticizing SUPERMAN RETURNS just for the sake of criticizing it to reply to your post as it includes facts, numbers, and mathematics to back all of it up—it's too much for them to handle.

Well I guess where I come from the dials just go up to 11.

Besides, they're too busy giggling like schoolboys over the fact that Bryan Singer is a homosexual.

Smokescreen to cloud the real issues.

 

[J.Howlett]

Upper,

DVD and merchandising sales of the Superman brand this year. The Superman brand has made money for WB this year. Superman Returns is a large part of that but not the whole.

If we're speaking specifically about Superman Returns, after DVD sales along with merchandising, it'll get WB back into the black with a pretty good profit.

Again, not what they were expecting, but a good profit nonetheless.

 

[bunk]

Whats the point of this thread? They're making another and Singer is directing. Who cares how much money anyone is making. It's not like its any of us.

 

[echostation]

again... hardly any big profit... the DVD sales will top out... TOP OUT at 70 million, I cannot see this going beyond or even reaching 100 million at all.... no real chances of that happening.

Mattel has posted losses and they made all the Superman toys this year... This is a gigantic losing venture.

 

[J.Howlett]

echo,

Batman Begins made well over 100 million in DVD sales. As a matter of fact, I think it was 160 million in DVD sales (Rentals may also be included in that as well).

Superman Returns might not reach 160 million but it'll get 100 million in DVD sales.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Time Warner had a mixed bag of financial results to report on Wednesday.

*lol* Here we go again.

Question: Does anyone believe that Time Warner will make any kind of negative statement about SR after they just released that there'll be a sequel in 2009 AND also to make such statement in an official report about their stock???

However, Time Warner COO Jeff Bewkes said in a conference call with investors Wednesday, "I am highly confident that we will grow the earnings on the film side next year."
SURPRISE! Never thought to ever read something like that, after this year was medicore at best and Warner surely needs investors ...

But, remember, that's all just "spinning" and "stuff from naysayers without a live", of course!

 

[ShinyBlackSuit]

again... hardly any big profit... the DVD sales will top out... TOP OUT at 70 million, I cannot see this going beyond or even reaching 100 million at all.... no real chances of that happening.

Mattel has posted losses and they made all the Superman toys this year... This is a gigantic losing venture.

Is this like, some sick attachment you seem to have over Superman Returns sales figures? Will you die if Superman Returns doesn't perform strongly, is that why you're so obsessed about how well Superman Returns performs financially? Is this like, some sick psychological game from "SAW", where if Superman Returns doesn't make $500 Million dollars worldwide, you have to hack off your left foot?

You are a clown for worrying about Superman Returns box office numbers as if your life depended on it. If the president of Warner Brothers, the guy whose livelihood actually concerns how well the movie performed, believes that the movie did well, why should you care so much to contradict him?

ANSWER ME!!!!!!

Adieu.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

There's also the pay-per-view, cable broadcast, and network TV rights to the movie, which can also bring in millions.

 

[ShinyBlackSuit]

There's also the pay-per-view, cable broadcast, and network TV rights to the movie, which can also bring in millions.

I agree.

Ignorants are quick to state their worthless opinions about a film's financial state, when they have NEXT TO NO IDEA how the industry really works. There are so many ways to make money off a picture, but again, the IGNORANTS, the LOWLIFES, the SCUM have an idiotic, brainless one-track mind. That is why, my friends, they are broke and homeless.

Adieu.

 

[rdh007]

The important thing is that it re-established Big Blue in peoples' minds. Now Singer can make the same move he did from X1 to X2 and we'll get the best comic book movie yet. Simple.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

WB wouldnt say they made a profit from SR if they didnt, i trust WB's facts and figures over anyone's here. Anyway were getting a Singer sequel, which i am hugely pleased about.

 

[AgentPat]

WB wouldnt say they made a profit from SR if they didnt...

LOL. You ever hear of Enron?

Just sayin'.

 

[dark_b]

WB wouldnt say they made a profit from SR if they didnt, i trust WB's facts and figures over anyone's here. Anyway were getting a Singer sequel, which i am hugely pleased about.

you need to explain me why they wouldnt say something that is nto true.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper,

Hiya J.Howlett!

DVD and merchandising sales of the Superman brand this year.

I am sure they sell Superman dvds and merchandising every year. Thats nothing to do with Superman Returns.

Superman Returns did nothing to court younger audiences, it wasn't a 'fun' movie for kids. Therefore you can't really say there will be a massive upswing in merchandise because of the movie. It just isn't going to happen.

The Superman brand has made money for WB this year. Superman Returns is a large part of that but not the whole.

Thats not the point. The point is Superman Returns has not made a profit.

If we're speaking specifically about Superman Returns, after DVD sales along with merchandising, it'll get WB back into the black with a pretty good profit.

Wishful thinking on your part. I worked it out in one of the other threads. Superman Returns has to sell Batman Begins dvd numbers to make a profit of $10 million dollars...and thats without counting the $51 million debt from the previous incarnations.

So to be brutally honest, it still won't be out of the red from box office profits + dvd profits.

Again, not what they were expecting, but a good profit nonetheless.

I'm sorry but you are just deluding yourself. The movie underperformed massively.

Given the fact that it needed to gross $680 million to make a profit (or $520 million if we remove the spending on the previous failed attempt), the nonsense that Warner Bros. are saying it performed well with $390 million should be clear for all to see.

 

[dark_b]

Hiya J.Howlett!



I am sure they sell Superman dvds and merchandising every year. Thats nothing to do with Superman Returns.

Superman Returns did nothing to court younger audiences, it wasn't a 'fun' movie for kids. Therefore you can't really say there will be a massive upswing in merchandise because of the movie. It just isn't going to happen.



Thats not the point. The point is Superman Returns has not made a profit.



Wishful thinking on your part. I worked it out in one of the other threads. Superman Returns has to sell Batman Begins dvd numbers to make a profit of $10 million dollars...and thats without counting the $51 million debt from the previous incarnations.

So to be brutally honest, it still won't be out of the red from box office profits + dvd profits.



I'm sorry but you are just deluding yourself. The movie underperformed massively.

Given the fact that it needed to gross $680 million to make a profit (or $520 million if we remove the spending on the previous failed attempt), the nonsense that Warner Bros. are saying it performed well with $390 million should be clear for all to see.

ok i know tha tthis movie didnt make a lot of money. but if its true what you are saying than why make a sequel?

 

[Bad Superman]

If you focus your attention long enough you will begin to believe WB. . . .

 

[ultimatefan]

Hello Dan!



On that we are in agreement. The movie underperformed big time!



Whereas anyone with a full brain, as opposed to just half of one, will understand that the movie still has not made a single cent of profit.

Cost to make Superman returns = $209 million.

Domestic Gross $200 million of which 55% goes to the studios (the rest goes to the theatres) = $110 million

Overseas Gross $190 million of which 45% goes to the studios = $85 million

Total loss: -$209 million
Total gain: +$195 million

Therefore Warner is at least $14 million dollars in the red.

But we forgot 2 things.

1. The money that was spent on the previous incarnations = $51 million or so.

2. Singers alleged 10% of the gross = $39 million

Which means that Warner Bros. are almost certainly $104 million dollars in the red.



You are right about that. t:

I think they needed to do something like $680 million worldwide to actually turn a profit (assuming Singers deal is accurate)



Well I guess where I come from the dials just go up to 11.



Smokescreen to cloud the real issues.

Anyone with one tenth of a brain and minimal knowledge of the modern movie industry knows that WB will make tons of money out of SR when all is said and done - DVDs, merchandise, TV deals, etc. Box office represents about 20% of a movie´s total revenue. Of course the studio wanted a quicker profit, but they know the product has been successful and approved by the moviegoing audience - not geeks bitsching and moaning on the Internet - enough to justify a sequel. If WB wasn´t going to make money with SR, trust me, they wouldn´t have signed a sequel deal.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Anyone with one tenth of a brain and minimal knowledge of the modern movie industry knows that WB will make tons of money out of SR when all is said and done - DVDs, merchandise, TV deals, etc. Box office represents about 20% of a movie´s total revenue. Of course the studio wanted a quicker profit, but they know the product has been successful and approved by the moviegoing audience - not geeks bitsching and moaning on the Internet - enough to justify a sequel. If WB wasn´t going to make money with SR, trust me, they wouldn´t have signed a sequel deal.

Exactly, does anyone know of a movie that got a sequel that didnt make a profit? No me neither.

 

[dar-El]

Batman forever which led to horrible Batman and Robin! Hence Warners rebooted with Batman Begins. Singerman is going the same way.

 

[Maze]

Batman forever which led to horrible Batman and Robin! Hence Warners rebooted with Batman Begins. Singerman is going the same way.

Nope Forever made a profit, already in Cinema : $336,531,112 worldwide for a budget of $100 million..

That said ,i find that Superman Returns is by far a superior film.

 

[lazur]

They've okayed a sequel and the studio says they're making a profit.

Sorry, Echo, but I'll take the word of the studio, and their actions in following up with a sequel, over your doom and gloom outlook any day. Besides ... unless you're an insider with first hand knowledge of what they're making in profit from the movie and from merchandising, then you quite frankly don't know what you're talking about.