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

[Maze]

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.

Exactly .

and they have okayed the movie with the same director.

if they didn't find something that interest them , if the situation was not so good , they could also wait a few year a la Hulk to do a new movie with an all different creative team.

The facts are there , Warner support Singer .And ,i wholeheartedly agree with them.

 

[dar-El]

Im telling you its batman and robin all over again. This sequel will be bad and in 10 or so years time they'll reboot the franchise. Warners wrongly support singer. He's a fool. If he'd been right for superman we wouldnt have so many fans/non fans liking/hating returns in the first place.

 

[Maze]

Im telling you its batman and robin all over again. This sequel will be bad and in 10 or so years time they'll reboot the franchise. Warners wrongly support singer. He's a fool. If he'd been right for superman we wouldnt have so many fans/non fans liking/hating returns in the first place.

Uh uh batman returns split fans even nowdays .. And it is not considered in majority ( critics and general public included) like a poor movie..a little like Sr.

Yep,a movie ,so poor ,that is so hated don't have those sort of reviews, don't make 200 millions dollars ,don't have thoses legs.(yup the opening was not so great compared to other blockbusters.it just climbed.)

So yes Sr is not consensual ,but it has its public .

ps: Between you and me , i'm sincerely sorry that you don't like it.

I do.

To each his own

 

[mego joe]

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.

Except a large portion of the audience isn't coming back for a sequel b/c they feel SInger has no idea how to make a SUperman movie. The audience is divided on Singer's vision of he character and you can't expect them to view a sequel or buy the DVD. SOnds like it's doomed for a smaller box office already. Also simple.

The only chance it has to turn it around is if there is a major story change for the sequel.

 

[mego joe]

Uh uh batman returns split fans even nowdays .. And it is not considered in majority ( critics and general public included) like a poor movie..a little like Sr.

Yep,a movie ,so poor ,that is so hated don't have those sort of reviews, don't make 200 millions dollars ,don't have thoses legs.(yup the opening was not so great compared to other blockbusters.it just climbed.)

So yes Sr is not consensual ,but it has its public .

ps: Between you and me , i'm sincerely sorry that you don't like it.

I do.

To each his own

SOunds like we need a poll to figure out the BB thing. I am not aware of such a great split on BB as on SR. No one says BB portrayed Batman out of character. IF people didn't like the film it has more to do with the actual story than the approach to the character. How can a poll be worded to get some data on this?

 

[dar-El]

ps: Between you and me , i'm sincerely sorry that you don't like it.

I do.

To each his own [/quote]

You got my on that respect dude.

 

[dar-El]

Damn im typing like yoda!

 

[Upper_Krust]

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?

Three very simple reasons.

1. The Money.

Superman movies should be successful. All they have to do is have the movie target the two biggest demographics for these types of movies, the younger audience (which also gets the parents in), and the action audience, and its bound to be a success.

You either have to be an idiot or ridiculously naive not to target a Superman movie at these demographics.

It was just monumental hubris on the part of Bryan Singer to create a Superman based melodrama and still think it was going to be a success. I think Warner probably gave him too much control and too much budget for the first movie. I mean can you see $1.35 million per minute onscreen!? Maybe during the few minutes of the plane scene but thats it. The movie looks like about $75 million if even that.

Superman can be successful and make money, you just need to have someone with a bit of common sense in control of things.

2. Bryan Singer.

Warner Bros. poached Bryan for big money. This wasn't a one shot or even a trilogy deal. They expect Bryan to be making movies for them for years. They have invested so much money into him, that to pull the plug at this point would be stupid.

3. Pride.

When you have shareholders, you always put a positive spin on things, because if you don't its going to cost you money.

If Warner had announced Singer was fired and the sequel was not going to happen, their shares would have taken a hit. Costing the company even more money.

Also the studio would have lost face after investing so much time, money and effort into Superman Returns

 

[ultimatefan]

Three very simple reasons.

1. The Money.

Superman movies should be successful. All they have to do is have the movie target the two biggest demographics for these types of movies, the younger audience (which also gets the parents in), and the action audience, and its bound to be a success.

You either have to be an idiot or ridiculously naive not to target a Superman movie at these demographics.

It was just monumental hubris on the part of Bryan Singer to create a Superman based melodrama and still think it was going to be a success. I think Warner probably gave him too much control and too much budget for the first movie. I mean can you see $1.35 million per minute onscreen!? Maybe during the few minutes of the plane scene but thats it. The movie looks like about $75 million if even that.

Superman can be successful and make money, you just need to have someone with a bit of common sense in control of things.

2. Bryan Singer.

Warner Bros. poached Bryan for big money. This wasn't a one shot or even a trilogy deal. They expect Bryan to be making movies for them for years. They have invested so much money into him, that to pull the plug at this point would be stupid.

3. Pride.

When you have shareholders, you always put a positive spin on things, because if you don't its going to cost you money.

If Warner had announced Singer was fired and the sequel was not going to happen, their shares would have taken a hit. Costing the company even more money.

Also the studio would have lost face after investing so much time, money and effort into Superman Returns

Nice bit of typing, but if WB couldn´t make money with Superman Returns and/or they thought Singer put the wrong take on the franchise, they either wouldn´t have signed a sequel deal and the project would be hanging on development hell again, or they would have simply let go of Singer. Look at what happened to Hulk. Second, making successful movies in practice is always much harder than in theory. One can argue that both Superman III and IV were clearly targeted at the young male audience, and they were what they were.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello ultimatefan!

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.

Well I have to contradict you because you are just deluding yourself with comments like that.

TV deals and Tax Incentives are offset by the marketing costs.

Secondly the merchandising won't be a major factor for two reasons. One, that there is always Superman merchandise on the shelves, two, that Superman Returns was not a movie that a younger audience will be drawn to.

That leaves you box office and dvd sales.

Box office represents about 20% of a movie´s total revenue.

For a typically successful movie perhaps. But this is far from a typical case, so that model is totally misleading.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation with regards Superman Returns.

Its potentially $114 million in the red, from the box office.

Batman Begins made profits of about $65 million on dvd.

Even if Supes does that it still won't have made a profit.

Here is the profits for Batman Begins:

Domestic Gross: $205 million = $112.75 m profit
Overseas Gross: $166 million = $74.7 m profit

Cost to make Batman Begins = $150 m
Worldwide Net = $187.45 m

Box office profit = $37.45 m

DVD sales profit = $65 m

Combined Box Office/DVD profits for Batman Begins = $102.45 m

Even assuming Superman Returns sells as many dvds as Batman Begins (a big ask in my opinion) it still will not have made one cent of profit. In fact they will still be $50 million in the red!

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.

No offence, but you really are living in a dream world mate.

Its one thing to say you liked the movie, and I didn't, thats fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. But you can't argue with the facts that this was an horrendously unsuccessful movie.

To paraphrase 'Scotty' "Ye cannae change the laws of economics!" t:

 

[ultimatefan]

Hello ultimatefan!



Well I have to contradict you because you are just deluding yourself with comments like that.

TV deals and Tax Incentives are offset by the marketing costs.

Secondly the merchandising won't be a major factor for two reasons. One, that there is always Superman merchandise on the shelves, two, that Superman Returns was not a movie that a younger audience will be drawn to.

That leaves you box office and dvd sales.



For a typically successful movie perhaps. But this is far from a typical case, so that model is totally misleading.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation with regards Superman Returns.

Its potentially $114 million in the red, from the box office.

Batman Begins made profits of about $65 million on dvd.

Even if Supes does that it still won't have made a profit.

Here is the profits for Batman Begins:

Domestic Gross: $205 million = $112.75 m profit
Overseas Gross: $166 million = $74.7 m profit

Cost to make Batman Begins = $150 m
Worldwide Net = $187.45 m

Box office profit = $37.45 m

DVD sales profit = $65 m

Combined Box Office/DVD profits for Batman Begins = $102.45 m

Even assuming Superman Returns sells as many dvds as Batman Begins (a big ask in my opinion) it still will not have made one cent of profit. In fact they will still be $50 million in the red!



No offence, but you really are living in a dream world mate.

Its one thing to say you liked the movie, and I didn't, thats fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. But you can't argue with the facts that this was an horrendously unsuccessful movie.

To paraphrase 'Scotty' "Ye cannae change the laws of economics!" t:

If you think the studio would sign a sequel deal with the director of the first movie if they weren´t going to make money with it, it´s you who live in a dream world. Like I said, box office today represents only about 20% of a movie´s total revenue, so do the math. All these factors you want so bad to dimiss are gold to the studio. Sales of movie-based toys are a huge factor in getting movies made these days.

 

[Sarcasm]

Do any of y'all just watch movies for fun anymore?

 

[Maze]

SOunds like we need a poll to figure out the BB thing. I am not aware of such a great split on BB as on SR. No one says BB portrayed Batman out of character. IF people didn't like the film it has more to do with the actual story than the approach to the character. How can a poll be worded to get some data on this?

I was talking about Batman Returns not begins

 

[Maze]

edit double post

 

[Sarcasm]

SOunds like we need a poll to figure out the BB thing. I am not aware of such a great split on BB as on SR. No one says BB portrayed Batman out of character. IF people didn't like the film it has more to do with the actual story than the approach to the character. How can a poll be worded to get some data on this?

Does this topic or this board really need another poll?

 

[Maze]

You got my on that respect dude.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again!

Nice bit of typing, but if WB couldn´t make money with Superman Returns and/or they thought Singer put the wrong take on the franchise, they either wouldn´t have signed a sequel deal and the project would be hanging on development hell again,

Wrong. Superman Returns won't make any money, but the sequels might make money (thats what Warner are banking on). Especially if they cater better to the appropriate demographics and have a lower budget.

or they would have simply let go of Singer.

Not an option for Warner. Far too much money invested in getting Singer to Warner to throw that all away.

Look at what happened to Hulk.

Hulk had a number of problem issues, hence its poor showing at the box office. But the fact of the matter is they made a profit on the Hulk.

Second, making successful movies in practice is always much harder than in theory.

Thats why you hire talented people. No one said it was easy, but you have to use some common sense and target your demographics right, otherwise it doesn't matter whether you make a good movie or not, because you won't bring in the numbers.

One can argue that both Superman III and IV were clearly targeted at the young male audience, and they were what they were.

Superman 3 is an interesting parallel with Superman Returns in that, they didn't make a Superman movie as much as they made a comedy featuring Superman. In the same way that Superman Returns was a melodrama featuring Superman.

Both movies had their high points Clark Kent vs. Superman in III and the plane rescue in Returns. But were ultimately unsatisfying.

What makes Superman 'super' is not comedy and its not melodrama, so you have to be foolish to make those aspects the focus of the movie.

Superman 4 was a really bad movie, simple as that.

 

[Tyler23]

If Superman Returns was set to leave Warners deep in the red, they would not be progressing on with a sequel behind the same creative team. Bottomline.

There is no such thing as "saving face" when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. Pride, eye contact and a strong handshake might work when you're trying to recover from a $10 million dollar arthouse flick that didn't return much of a profit, but it's laughable in a boardroom with that much at stake and the sheer volume of shareholders to please.

In all these "breakdowns" (and I use the term lightly) of the Superman Returns project, I'm still seeing too many flaws to take any of them seriously.

1). For the love of God, how many times does it have to be said/written/sung from the mountaintop that development costs from previous projects were written off by WB Studios years ago. These are, in no way, shape or form, tied to Bryan Singer's effort. The budget was not 270 million, 260 million or any other ridiculously astronomical figure. It was in the 204 range, as stated by the people directly involved themselves.

2). All these heady financial analysts roaming the internet are quick to identify bloated P & A costs, studio --> theatre percentages, unsubstantiated director percentages, etc., but somehow seem to be lost on the common profit streams that always accommodate movies of this genre.

- Cable rights generate millions. This film will go to the sci-fi network, hbo, tbs, etc., and they'll each pay a handsome sum for the licensing fees.

- Product placement within the film always generates profit that helps to offset a good portion of initial marketing costs. SR is laden with them, if you'll pay attention, you'll spot them.

- Merchandising, while in a separate department than the movie itself, is directly dependant on the film to generate/rekindle brand interest.

- DVD sales, by far the largest revenue stream nowdays, will vault them easily into overall profit margins. Batman Begins made over 100 million, and SR will either approach or exceed that figure.

Nobody outside of Alan Horn and a few key executives know the exact & complete financial picture of Superman Returns, and even they won't fully know until we're a few months into dvd sales. But trust me, they wouldn't be proceeding ahead with the sequel if their projections still had them in the red, or even just barely over, on the first film.

That's not how the real world operates.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

Do any of y'all just watch movies for fun anymore?

Watched X-3 last night and quite enjoyed it.

 

[newmexneon]

I find it amusing that some people seem to think they know for a fact what kind of budget percentages and profit percentages went where and to who and all that kind of stuff.

 

[Upper_Krust]

If Superman Returns was set to leave Warners deep in the red, they would not be progressing on with a sequel behind the same creative team. Bottomline.

Yes they would, if they thought they could make money with the sequels.

There is no such thing as "saving face" when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.

But thats my point, haven't you been paying attention, they have invested so much money in the franchise/Singer that to scrap it all now would be disastrous. The only way to make the money back is to go ahead with the sequels.

Give Singer a lower budget to work with and make it more of an action orientated movie, thats also fun for a younger audience.

Pride, eye contact and a strong handshake might work when you're trying to recover from a $10 million dollar arthouse flick that didn't return much of a profit, but it's laughable in a boardroom with that much at stake and the sheer volume of shareholders to please.

Which was why it was #3 on my list, the top reason was the money. But if you don't reply point by point I guess you can overlook details like that.

In all these "breakdowns" (and I use the term lightly) of the Superman Returns project, I'm still seeing too many flaws to take any of them seriously.

Then lets go over them.

1). For the love of God, how many times does it have to be said/written/sung from the mountaintop that development costs from previous projects were written off by WB Studios years ago. These are, in no way, shape or form, tied to Bryan Singer's effort. The budget was not 270 million, 260 million or any other ridiculously astronomical figure. It was in the 204 range, as stated by the people directly involved themselves.

Which was why I generally give two sets of figures. I certainly don't hold Bryan accountable for that money. However, even discounting that, it still had to gross $520 million to break even.

2). All these heady financial analysts roaming the internet are quick to identify bloated P & A costs, studio --> theatre percentages, unsubstantiated director percentages, etc.,

Whereas, quelle suprise, someone wanting to make light of the situation will ignore and/or gloss over those elements.

but somehow seem to be lost on the common profit streams that always accommodate movies of this genre.

I'm well aware of the profit streams, but in this case they don't take into account the massive deficit that needs to be made up.

- Cable rights always generate millions. This film will go to the sci-fi network, the hbo, tbs, etc., and they'll each pay plenty of $$$ for the licensing fees.

- Product placement within the film always generate profit that helps to offset a good portion of initial marketing costs. SR is laden with them, if you'll pay attention, you'll spot them.

All of which goes to offset the huge marketing costs which I never factored into my totals.

- Merchandising, while in a separate department than the movie itself, is directly dependant on the film to generate/rekindle brand interest.

Well the merchandising department must be crying into their pillows as well then.

- DVD sales, by far the largest revenue stream nowdays, will vault them easily into overall profit margins.

You see this is where you start to make giant leaps of faith.

IF we remove the previous $51 million expenditure

AND SR sells as well as Batman Begins on dvd, the movie will just about start to turn a profit.

If thats a success to Warner, then thank my stars and garters I'm not a shareholder!

Batman Begins made over 100 million,

It grossed $125 million in dvd sales of which approx. 55% is profit = $68 million.

and SR will either approach or exceed that figure.

I'd be skeptical.

Nobody outside of Alan Horn and a few key executives know the exact & complete financial picture of Superman Returns,

I think we can make an educated guess that won't be far off.

and even they won't fully know until we're a few months into dvd sales.

You can easily estimate the dvd sales using the Batman Begoins model of performance.

But trust me, they wouldn't be proceeding ahead with the sequel if their projections still had them in the red, or even just barely over, on the first film.

That's not how the real world operates.

I totally disagree.

The only logical course of action was to continue the trilogy, as that was the only way they can make their money back from the financial fiasco that was the first movie.

Added to which they had the whole Singer problem to deal with and they couldn't really sack him.

Then you factor in aspects like shareholders, pride and so forth.

 

[Tyler23]

I find it amusing that some people seem to think they know for a fact what kind of budget percentages and profit percentages went where and to who and all that kind of stuff.

As do I.

Some of these people act like they sit in on the executive board meetings between Legendary and Warner Studios on a regular basis.

It all comes down to action. It's the only concrete piece of evidence we have, and the fact that they've reached agreement with Singer on the sequel indicates they're reasonably pleased with the revenue Returns will ultimately bring, before it's all said and done.

If they were staring down a 30-100 million deficit, we'd have heard no such news.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hello again!



Wrong. Superman Returns won't make any money, but the sequels might make money (thats what Warner are banking on). Especially if they cater better to the appropriate demographics and have a lower budget.



Not an option for Warner. Far too much money invested in getting Singer to Warner to throw that all away.



Hulk had a number of problem issues, hence its poor showing at the box office. But the fact of the matter is they made a profit on the Hulk.



Thats why you hire talented people. No one said it was easy, but you have to use some common sense and target your demographics right, otherwise it doesn't matter whether you make a good movie or not, because you won't bring in the numbers.



Superman 3 is an interesting parallel with Superman Returns in that, they didn't make a Superman movie as much as they made a comedy featuring Superman. In the same way that Superman Returns was a melodrama featuring Superman.

Both movies had their high points Clark Kent vs. Superman in III and the plane rescue in Returns. But were ultimately unsatisfying.

What makes Superman 'super' is not comedy and its not melodrama, so you have to be foolish to make those aspects the focus of the movie.

Superman 4 was a really bad movie, simple as that.

Hello,

You talk about WB pleasing stockholders, yet you think a studio will make a sequel deal to a movie "that didn´t make money" because they´re sure that a sequel with the same cast and crew will make? I´d love to meet stockholders who´d go along with that...

Studios have no problem replacing directors for sequels, even when they invested quite a bit in the previous movies - case in point, Singer and the X-Men movies.

If Hulk made a profit with its very underperforming BO, no reason why SR shouldn´t.

SR gets high rates from users of sites like Yahoo Movies, Rottentomatoes and Box Office Mojo, which have a high presence of young males, so SR wasn´t completely far off its demographic.

 

[Tyler23]

I totally disagree.

The only logical course of action was to continue the trilogy, as that was the only way they can make their money back from the financial fiasco that was the first movie.

Added to which they had the whole Singer problem to deal with and they couldn't really sack him.

Then you factor in aspects like shareholders, pride and so forth.

What you're essentially alluding to is this:

WB: Well, Alan, the first picture was a disaster. We're coming in at over 150 million beneath expectations, and it'll take a monstrous effort from dvd sales just to put some lipstick on this pig.

What do you want to do?

Horn: Sign Singer to the sequel, you fools! Don't worry about those pesky shareholders. I'll just smile, tell a few jokes and let them know how well the picture is doing. As for Legendary Pictures, we can fudge the numbers. They might not catch on, and make it plausible, because we'll need them to co-finance again.

Lets schedule a dinner with Bryan next week to celebrate, and hammer out the details. Make sure to have plenty of his favorite champaigne.

 

[Tyler23]

...And of course they could get rid of Singer. This happens all the time, they aren't bound to him for life just because he signed a one-picture deal to direct Superman Returns.

Keeping some of the same cast (like Brandon Routh), and going with a different director and/or set of writers wouldn't be hard to accomplish.