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

[ShinyBlackSuit]

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



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.



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.



Then lets go over them.



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.



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



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.



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



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

[/B]

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!



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



I'd be skeptical.



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



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



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.

Upper Krust, you need to make better points than the ones you're making currently. Your smear campaign of Superman Returns is reaching an all-time low of laziness. "It took WB a lot of effort to bring Singer into the project, so they can't just let him go." What's that? That doesn't make sense. IF A MOVIE ISN'T MAKING MONEY, YOU FIRE THE DIRECTOR. IF A TEAM ISN'T WINNING GAMES, YOU FIRE THE COACH.

Duh, it's simple logic, you really are reaching right now because you are too ashamed to admit that you're not sitting in board meetings with WB and you have no idea what you're really talking about.

Adieu, adieu.

 

[GreenKToo]

I think W.B. and Singer gets/got the point that alot of fans were disappointed with the over all tone and lack of action in S.R..We can most likely(IMHO) look for a revving up of action in the next film...I just hope they dont make it mindless action ya know..

 

[Showtime]

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.

I am not sure how DVD sales work, I would have to research some other DVDs and their performance, but to say since Mattel posted loses it means Superman toys failed is so ridiculous.

 

[JamalYIgle]

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.

Sorry Echostation but you're so wrong it's hysterical.

Re: Singer confirmed for the sequel
Quote:
Originally Posted by rduce
Well, first of all this article dispells the belief that SR toys have been doing well...


and this one dispels the Variety Article since Mattel is in the Black partly because of SR toys.http://www.marke****ch.com/News/Stor...ktw=blog&dist=

NEW YORK (Marke****ch) -- Mattel Inc. said Monday that it swung to a second-quarter profit from a year-earlier loss, driven by summer-entertainment toy lines based on the movies "Cars" and "Superman Returns" and by its newest American Girl Place in Los Angeles.
as does this article
http://retail.seekingalpha.com/article/13737
Summary: Toy-maker Mattel Inc.'s stock rose 11% yesterday after the company announced Q2 EPS of $0.10 versus a net-loss a year earlier. Sales rose 8% to $957.7 million, up 5% in the US and 12% abroad. Worldwide sales by brand: Barbie down 1%, Girls and Boys up 8%, Fisher-Price up 8%, American Girl up 5%, Hot Wheels down 7%. Sales were boosted by toys based on the movies "Cars" and "Superman Returns". Operating margins rose due to price increases, brand consolidation and supply-chain improvements, despite rising commodity and oil prices.
Comment on related

 

[ultimatefan]

Not only that, but I could bet money on the DVD sales easily exceeding 100 million. Easily.

 

[Showtime]

Where is X3 on DVD sales now?

 

[BatFitz]

Not only that, but I could bet money on the DVD sales easily exceeding 100 million. Easily.

I'm expecting the same. Mainly because I remember seeing countless people over the summer, and I asked them if they had seen it and they told me that they were going to wait until it came out on DVD...people just aren't drawn to the theater as much these days, unfortunately. I think the main reason alot of people didn't see Superman Returns is because as Superman-fans, we are essentially a dying-breed.

 

[dark_b]

i wont say anything. a lot of us were wrong after the BO.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think W.B. and Singer gets/got the point that alot of fans were disappointed with the over all tone and lack of action in S.R..We can most likely(IMHO) look for a revving up of action in the next film...I just hope they dont make it mindless action ya know..

Singer will never, EVER make a mindless action movie, its simply against his nature, he cares about character and heart in a movie above all else and then everything else comes second, which is the way it should be IMO and the reason i like him as a director.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

Yeah thats bound to happen! Ha ha good post and priceless. WB would NOT sign Singer back if SR hadnt made a profit, its that simple and anyone thinking otherwise is just deluded.

 

[ultimatefan]

Where is X3 on DVD sales now?

It sold 5 million copies - which if I´m right is close to 100m, depending on the price of the copy - in the first week, but total sales, we´ll probably find out only around the end of the year.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there!

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.

The profit percentages are fairly standardised for box office and dvds.

The grosses are documented on places like box office mojo.

So its incredibly simple to make fairly accurate predictions.

What we don't know for sure are what Singer is being paid beyond his salary ($11 million). Allegedly 10% of the gross ($39 million) + a percentage of dvd/merchandising.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello,

Hey ultimatefan!

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?

It's the lesser of two evils.

If we scrap the movie, then all the hard work was for nothing, and you will have lost money (depending on what elements of the expenditure we factor in). You will have lost Singer (whom Warner spent millions courting), you will have lost the faith of the stockholders (losing more money) and you will have lost pride.

If we go ahead with the trilogy, then we have the chance of making more money as long as we don't ignore the mistakes of the first movie.

1. Too boring (hence cries of more action from Warner at every opportunity).
2. Lower budget.
3. Wasted Budget. An hour of footage ending up on the cutting room floor.

I´d love to meet stockholders who´d go along with that...

Thats why you learn the art of 'spin'.

Maximise the positives and minimise the negatives.

Firstly, we ignore the money spent on the previous incarnations. Lets sweep those under the carpet. So thats $51 m out of the way.

Secondly, we pay Singer's secret percentages out of Warner's pockets, even though the amount is based on the gross. So thats another $39 million we don't have to tell the shareholders.

Thirdly, we wait until the dust has settled before we start talking about profits. So after the dvd sales (once we sweep the above two factors under the carpet) Superman Returns will have made a tidy profit of the region of $50 million I would venture (based on dvd sales equal to Batman Begins).

So as far as the shareholders are concerned its made $50 million+.

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.

Again, you are not seeing the gravity of the situation. Singer signed on for probably the biggest director deal in history. It wasn't just for one movie, or even three. It was an investment for the future by Warner. If he was smart, Singer probably has a clause in his contract that gets him x more millions in the event he is fired. It simply wan't an option for Warner to fire Singer.

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

Lets break down the Hulk.

Cost to make $137 m
Domestic Gross: $132 m = 72.6 m profit
Overseas Gross: $113 m = 50.8 m profit
Total Net = $123.4 m - $137 m = -$13.6 m

Therefore Hulk lost about $14 million on the box office. Obviously once dvd sales were calculated it still turned a profit, but the studios were not in any rush to make a sequel.

By contrast lets break down Fantastic Four.

Cost to make: $100 m
Domestic Gross: $154.6 m = $85 m profit
Overseas Gross: $175.4 m = $78.9 m profit
Total Net = $163.9 m profit - $100 m (cost) = $63.9 million.

No wonder the studios rushed to make Fantastic Four 2, it made them a fortune, even before calculating the dvd sales!

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.

Please don't insult the intelligence of the people reading this thread.

At every opportunity Warner and Singer have went out of their way to stress how the next movie is going to have lots more action. The president of Warner said that Superman Returns suffered because it didn't do enough to court the action fans. The latest press release (stating the sequel was confirmed) went so far as to stress the fact that they are upping the action twice in the same sentence (it said something like "the sequel will have more action, way more action" or words to that effect).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Shiny mate!

Upper Krust, you need to make better points than the ones you're making currently. Your smear campaign of Superman Returns is reaching an all-time low of laziness. "It took WB a lot of effort to bring Singer into the project, so they can't just let him go." What's that? That doesn't make sense. IF A MOVIE ISN'T MAKING MONEY, YOU FIRE THE DIRECTOR. IF A TEAM ISN'T WINNING GAMES, YOU FIRE THE COACH.

Duh, it's simple logic, you really are reaching right now because you are too ashamed to admit that you're not sitting in board meetings with WB and you have no idea what you're really talking about.

Not at all, my logic is impeccable.

Failure though it was, Superman Returns cannot break a company as massive as Warner Bros. Warner have had a miserable year. In part brought on because they put their faith in remakes and a bit too much directorial hubris.

Poseidon (remake) = flopped.
Wicker Man (remake) = flopped.
Superman Returns (basically a remake) = flopped.

I haven't seen Lady in the Water but by all accounts it didn't capture the public's imagination.

The point is that Warner Bros. can easily take these losses.

Bryan Singer (and M. Night Shyamalan) are talented directors with proven track records. Just because they have one flop doesn't mean you sack them.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Not only that, but I could bet money on the DVD sales easily exceeding 100 million. Easily.

Possibly, but lets remember that only 50-60% (average 55%) of dvd gross is net profit.

So Batman Begins, which grossed $125 million, is a profit of $68 million or thereabouts.

 

[GreenKToo]

cant argue with that...unless someone has a link saying otherwise....

Sorry Echostation but you're so wrong it's hysterical.

Re: Singer confirmed for the sequel
Quote:
Originally Posted by rduce
Well, first of all this article dispells the belief that SR toys have been doing well...


and this one dispels the Variety Article since Mattel is in the Black partly because of SR toys.http://www.marke****ch.com/News/Stor...ktw=blog&dist=

NEW YORK (Marke****ch) -- Mattel Inc. said Monday that it swung to a second-quarter profit from a year-earlier loss, driven by summer-entertainment toy lines based on the movies "Cars" and "Superman Returns" and by its newest American Girl Place in Los Angeles.
as does this article
http://retail.seekingalpha.com/article/13737
Summary: Toy-maker Mattel Inc.'s stock rose 11% yesterday after the company announced Q2 EPS of $0.10 versus a net-loss a year earlier. Sales rose 8% to $957.7 million, up 5% in the US and 12% abroad. Worldwide sales by brand: Barbie down 1%, Girls and Boys up 8%, Fisher-Price up 8%, American Girl up 5%, Hot Wheels down 7%. Sales were boosted by toys based on the movies "Cars" and "Superman Returns". Operating margins rose due to price increases, brand consolidation and supply-chain improvements, despite rising commodity and oil prices.
Comment on related

 

[Maze]

Warner can't sack a talented director with a proven track record?

however that's what they did with Burton on the Batman Franchise.

Looks like Bryan Singer has some biiigg "fans" at Warner t:

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi maze!

Warner can't sack a talented director with a proven track record?

however that's what they did with Burton on the Batman Franchise.

Looks like Bryan Singer has some biiigg "fans" at Warner t:

Who knows what sort of golden handcuffs Warner have Singer tied with.

Clearly it was a monumental deal to steal him away from Fox and X-3.

I'm not saying studios can't sack a talented director. But I don't think they would sign Singer for big money, then sack him after the first movie underperformed.

I mean its not like there is any mystery surrounding why it underperformed. So the main faults should be relatively easy to correct.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello there!

Singer will never, EVER make a mindless action movie, its simply against his nature, he cares about character and heart in a movie above all else and then everything else comes second, which is the way it should be IMO and the reason i like him as a director.

I find it amusing that people always go with 'mindless action'.

You can make an action movie and still maintain great character development, pathos and story. You don't need to sacrifice any of those by adding more action.

Case in point: X-Men 2

That said, I don't think action is Singer's fortee. Even though X-2 had a decent amount of action scenes, (Nightcrawler's opening scene was great for instance) it was rarely 'spectacular'.

 

[Maze]

Hi maze!



Who knows what sort of golden handcuffs Warner have Singer tied with.

Clearly it was a monumental deal to steal him away from Fox and X-3.

I'm not saying studios can't sack a talented director. But I don't think they would sign Singer for big money, then sack him after the first movie underperformed.
.

Yup like you say who knows..that's the problem in your posts about that subject .. you don't know.you have theories at best..

Yup based on your logic they would have shot Superman lives with Burton, because they had invested ton of money on the project. they paid him 10 millions. and Cage got as much money if i remember well.

No your logic is not impeccable.. they are just theories . and they are not really credible imo.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hey ultimatefan!



It's the lesser of two evils.

If we scrap the movie, then all the hard work was for nothing, and you will have lost money (depending on what elements of the expenditure we factor in). You will have lost Singer (whom Warner spent millions courting), you will have lost the faith of the stockholders (losing more money) and you will have lost pride.

If we go ahead with the trilogy, then we have the chance of making more money as long as we don't ignore the mistakes of the first movie.

1. Too boring (hence cries of more action from Warner at every opportunity).
2. Lower budget.
3. Wasted Budget. An hour of footage ending up on the cutting room floor.



Thats why you learn the art of 'spin'.

Maximise the positives and minimise the negatives.

Firstly, we ignore the money spent on the previous incarnations. Lets sweep those under the carpet. So thats $51 m out of the way.

Secondly, we pay Singer's secret percentages out of Warner's pockets, even though the amount is based on the gross. So thats another $39 million we don't have to tell the shareholders.

Thirdly, we wait until the dust has settled before we start talking about profits. So after the dvd sales (once we sweep the above two factors under the carpet) Superman Returns will have made a tidy profit of the region of $50 million I would venture (based on dvd sales equal to Batman Begins).

So as far as the shareholders are concerned its made $50 million+.



Again, you are not seeing the gravity of the situation. Singer signed on for probably the biggest director deal in history. It wasn't just for one movie, or even three. It was an investment for the future by Warner. If he was smart, Singer probably has a clause in his contract that gets him x more millions in the event he is fired. It simply wan't an option for Warner to fire Singer.



Lets break down the Hulk.

Cost to make $137 m
Domestic Gross: $132 m = 72.6 m profit
Overseas Gross: $113 m = 50.8 m profit
Total Net = $123.4 m - $137 m = -$13.6 m

Therefore Hulk lost about $14 million on the box office. Obviously once dvd sales were calculated it still turned a profit, but the studios were not in any rush to make a sequel.

By contrast lets break down Fantastic Four.

Cost to make: $100 m
Domestic Gross: $154.6 m = $85 m profit
Overseas Gross: $175.4 m = $78.9 m profit
Total Net = $163.9 m profit - $100 m (cost) = $63.9 million.

No wonder the studios rushed to make Fantastic Four 2, it made them a fortune, even before calculating the dvd sales!



Please don't insult the intelligence of the people reading this thread.

At every opportunity Warner and Singer have went out of their way to stress how the next movie is going to have lots more action. The president of Warner said that Superman Returns suffered because it didn't do enough to court the action fans. The latest press release (stating the sequel was confirmed) went so far as to stress the fact that they are upping the action twice in the same sentence (it said something like "the sequel will have more action, way more action" or words to that effect).

All this scrap work you´re doing is useless, cuz the truth of the matter, and any expert will tell you that, studios spend much more money on a movie than goes out to the public and they make TONS more money, between all sources of revenue, than goes out to the public. Make all the math you want, you´re not even close to the real numbers. The fact is, if the studio doesn´t make money with a movie, they don´t make a sequel. That´s how capitalism works. How many times has a movie been considered a failure - that is, umprofitable - and has gained a sequel. What you´re talking about simply doesn´t exist.

It always is an option for the studio to fire the director, no matter what a big name he is or how much was invested. Superman I cost TONS of money to the studio at the time, and they got rid of the director when he had shot a lot of the sequel already. If a studio isn´t happy, they fire the director. This argument you´re making just doesn´t hold any water. Singer didn´t have a contract for the sequel, they signed it recently. If they were unhappy, they´d fire him. That´s how it works in Hollywood and none of what you say is any proof otherwise.

Of course they´re saying the movie´s gonna have more action cuz that´s the biggest criticism the movie got, but if they felt the movie was totally hated by the core audience, they wouldn´t make a sequel. Simple as that. Your argument just doesn´t hold. Live with it.

 

[dar-El]

Ok so if warners arnt a little disturbed with the lack of success with returns, then why oh why have they said they want a sequel to cost less (keeping singer on lead) and have far more action? then there's rumors of the writers getting the boot and an option on routh? he did great. its the material that lacked. Looks to me like they want to correct what as wrong with returns which to be honest, was almost everything! But only time will tell.

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Ok so if warners arnt a little disturbed with the lack of success with returns, then why oh why have they said they want a sequel to cost less (keeping singer on lead) and have far more action? then there's rumors of the writers getting the boot and an option on routh? he did great. its the material that lacked. Looks to me like they want to correct what as wrong with returns which to be honest, was almost everything! But only time will tell.

An option on Routh is Hollywood talk, as one of our mods once said. It simply means he can't get out of playing Superman even if he wanted to. And I've heard no rumors about the writers getting the boot. If Singer wants Dougherty and Harris to write this thing, then they're gonna write it.

They want a sequel to cost less for common sense reasons. More proft. Superman Returns will make WB a nice profit but not one as big as they'd hoped. With a smaller (although not much smaller) production cost they'll be able to attain more revenue.

As far as more action goes...duh. Even Singer knew there would need to be more action in the sequel. The second act is where everything goes to hell. The action has to be amped up for this film (and thank God Singer is involved, because it won't simply be mindless action).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya maze!

Yup like you say who knows..that's the problem in your posts about that subject .. you don't know.you have theories at best..

A theory that fits all the information.

Yup based on your logic they would have shot Superman lives with Burton, because they had invested ton of money on the project. they paid him 10 millions. and Cage got as much money if i remember well.

If they were both paid the full amounts up from for doing nothing then I simply laugh at Warner Bros. t:

No your logic is not impeccable.. they are just theories . and they are not really credible imo.

So are you saying that Superman Returns has made a profit based on the box office alone?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi uf!

All this scrap work you´re doing is useless,

Useless to you, because you can't handle the truth.

cuz the truth of the matter, and any expert will tell you that, studios spend much more money on a movie than goes out to the public and they make TONS more money, between all sources of revenue, than goes out to the public.

Quite possibly.

But all things being equal then, they must have LOST far more money than even I have discerned. Therefore your counter point that they are also making more is redundant.

Make all the math you want, you´re not even close to the real numbers.

Its possible I suppose, but if they spend AND make more money, then how am I so wide of the mark?

The fact is, if the studio doesn´t make money with a movie, they don´t make a sequel.

I would probably go along with that to an extent. But the point I have been making is that its not a success based on the box office, noreven after we facotor in the probable dvd sales. Therefore Warner are lying when they say its a success - simple as that.

That´s how capitalism works. How many times has a movie been considered a failure - that is, umprofitable - and has gained a sequel. What you´re talking about simply doesn´t exist.

Superman Returns is a pioneer in its field.

It always is an option for the studio to fire the director, no matter what a big name he is or how much was invested. Superman I cost TONS of money to the studio at the time, and they got rid of the director when he had shot a lot of the sequel already. If a studio isn´t happy, they fire the director. This argument you´re making just doesn´t hold any water. Singer didn´t have a contract for the sequel, they signed it recently. If they were unhappy, they´d fire him. That´s how it works in Hollywood and none of what you say is any proof otherwise.

Just because its possible doesn't make it probably, or even financially viable.

Of course they´re saying the movie´s gonna have more action cuz that´s the biggest criticism the movie got, but if they felt the movie was totally hated by the core audience, they wouldn´t make a sequel. Simple as that.

Warner got burnt. They couldn't wait to shout MORE ACTION! MORE ACTION!

Your argument just doesn´t hold. Live with it.

t: