Superman Returns Was superman returns released at the wrong time?

[money]

They released superman the movie at christmas, not summer. maybe they should have done that with returns. Superman is kind of a xmas style magical character, and people might have been more in the mood in the holiday season.

 

[DanSupKP37]

I think that it was. Releasing it in the Summer was fine but so close to Pirates hurt it. I think WB overestimated SR appeal and underestimated Pirates at the same time. WB seemed to bank too much on the big July 4th opening and that SR was going to be a heavily frontloaded film. I don't think SR though was going to make the kind of money WB wanted it too nomatter when they put it out. They seemed to see it as the next Spiderman with the money they spent on it and maybe it could have made say 230 mil domestic but not much more than that. Maybe 230 mil would have been enough to get WB more excited about the sequel than they are though, so who knows.

 

[Matt]

In a word, no.

It didn't matter when they released it. The results would've been the same. At most Pirates took 10 million away. People didn't care about SR. It got bad word of mouth from people who wanted a movie akkin to Spider-Man with more action and excitment and a lighter tone. The problem is, people don't go to a Superman movie to see him fly around moping.

 

[DanSupKP37]

In a word, no.

It didn't matter when they released it. The results would've been the same. At most Pirates took 10 million away. People didn't care about SR. It got bad word of mouth from people who wanted a movie akkin to Spider-Man with more action and excitment and a lighter tone. The problem is, people don't go to a Superman movie to see him fly around moping.

No they would not have been the same that is not accurate from a business and marketing sense. When a film is released it's competition is always a factor that can not be ignored but it would not have pulled in what WB wanted from it. Superman as a character had obstacles to overcome that had nothing to do with SR. The loss of Chris Reeve and the oversaturation of the genre being 2 big ones. I thought SR was good not great. I think a lighter more action oriented one could have done better but still not what WB wanted from it. BTW i don't agree with you saying people did not care about SR. It made over 200 mil at the BO for any other film with a lesser budget that would be seen as a HIT.

 

[Matt]

No they would not have been the same that is not accurate from a business and marketing sense. When a film is released it's competition is always a factor that can not be ignored but it would not have pulled in what WB wanted from it. Superman as a character had obstacles to overcome that had nothing to do with SR. The loss of Chris Reeve and the oversaturation of the genre being 2 big ones. I thought SR was good not great. I think a lighter more action oriented one could have done better but still not what WB wanted from it. BTW i don't agree with you saying people did not care about SR. It made over 200 mil at the BO for any other film with a lesser budget that would be seen as a HIT.

Yes, for a romantic comedy it would've been a hit. for an epic summer block buster, it is pathetic.

 

[DanSupKP37]

Yes, for a romantic comedy it would've been a hit. for an epic summer block buster, it is pathetic.

I guess i mean if SR had a budget of 150 mil is 200 mil all that bad? It made more money than Batman Begins and that had pretty high expectations. Not nearly as high as SR was i get that but SR BO really was good just not what WB and many thought it was going to be. I mean lets face it comic movies not named Spiderman really are not smash hits at the BO.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Being released 8 days before Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest definitely hurt it, but SR still had problems that went well beyond just that.

 

[DanSupKP37]

Being released 8 days before Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest definitely hurt it, but SR still had problems that went well beyond just that.

I really don't know if i see this JL movie being much different. I mean if it is light and action packed it could do better than SR but will it be a massive hit at the BO that will justify it's sure to be huge budget? I am not so sure about that one.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It is not a summer blockbuster type of movie. Had the budget been kept at $184 million the box office would not be seen as such a disapointment. SR cost more than it should have. It was never gonna make all that much money.

 

[DanSupKP37]

It is not a summer blockbuster type of movie. Had the budget been kept at $184 million the box office would not be seen as such a disapointment. SR cost more than it should have. It was never gonna make all that much money.

Yes but there was also the unfair stigma of so many people putting the past failed attempts on Singer and SR shoulder's. As if any of that 60 mil or whatever was spent went into the making of SR. The film cost about 204 mil and probably should have cost about 150-170 mil really. Singer did a bad job with the budget. I am not a huge fan of Transformers but that had crazy amounts of action and CGI and was done for 150 mil. How SR cost 204 mil is beyond me.

 

[El Payaso]

I've always said the only true mistake was the ridiculously high budget.

 

[Matt]

I've always said the only true mistake was the ridiculously high budget.

One could argue, however, wasteful management of the budget was the real problem. Was 5 million dollars on an effect sequence of a bullet bouncing off Superman's eye really necessary? Was a trip to Krypton that had so little effect on the plot that it was easily cut and yet cost 12 million dollars really necessary? Even going with the highest budget reported (since there still isn't a solid report on SR's budget) of 250 million, that alone is 17 million dollars whacked right off. Lets assume it really was only 200 million (which is doubtful). Suddenly it is 183 million and SR's box office is seen in a whole new light.

 

[AgentPat]

Please read this article folks:
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/briody/competition.asp

 

[DanSupKP37]

Lets assume it really was only 200 million (which is doubtful). Suddenly it is 183 million and SR's box office is seen in a whole new light.

It is highly unlikely that it cost more than the 204 mil we have heard, maybe 210 tops but i doubt it. I admit i am confused as to how something like TF can cost 150 mil and have that much action and SR cost 200 plus with very little action. I have heard that Bay has a very fast way of filming which saves a lot of money and gets the most out of budgets but it is not like Singer was inexperienced working on big films before. As if he was not prepared for a movie this size or something. There is a number of things that do not add up as to why SR cost so much and given how secretive studios are about those matters we may never know the whole truth.

 

[Matt]

It is highly unlikely that it cost more than the 204 mil we have heard, maybe 210 tops but i doubt it.

210 is probably a fair PRODUCTION budget, but then take into account post-production with advertisment. 250 is probably the actual budget when you consider marketing.

I admit i am confused as to how something like TF can cost 150 mil and have that much action and SR cost 200 plus with very little action.

1) Bay is experienced with CGI usage. Singer is not. He knows how to streamline his resources and use them efficently. Singer does not.

2) Bay has contacts with certain people that no one in Hollywood does. GM, the US military, etc give him unprecedented (and usually cheap or free) access to prop vehicles and supplies. Hell, in GM's case they paid him.

 

[DanSupKP37]

210 is probably a fair PRODUCTION budget, but then take into account post-production with advertisment. 250 is probably the actual budget when you consider marketing.

Marketing is not factored into the actual budget of the film. That only accounts for what is cost to make the film. Same thing as saying that Batman Begins had a budget of 250 mil because they spent 100 mil in marketing. Did it cost that much to get into theatres? Yes, but they don't count the marketing along with the budget.

 

[DanSupKP37]

1) Bay is experienced with CGI usage. Singer is not. He knows how to streamline his resources and use them efficently. Singer does not.

You are laying too much of the effects work at the feet of Singer. He knows what he wants and it's up to the effects houses to make it happen. There have been plenty of directors that have made heavy CGI movies that were not heavily schooled in making such films.

 

[Matt]

Marketing is not factored into the actual budget of the film. That only accounts for what is cost to make the film. Same thing as saying that Batman Begins had a budget of 250 mil because they spent 100 mil in marketing. Did it cost that much to get into theatres? Yes, but they don't count the marketing along with the budget.

No, officially they aren't, but that money just doesn't grow on trees. The studio DOES want it back and DOES take it into consideration with profits.

 

[Matt]

You are laying too much of the effects work at the feet of Singer. He knows what he wants and it's up to the effects houses to make it happen. There have been plenty of directors that have made heavy CGI movies that were not heavily schooled in making such films.

I know Singer doesn't do it personally. I am explaining why Bay can make a movie for cheap where as Singer can't. Quit being so defensive. Bay has a working knowledge of it, which allows him to better manage his effect teams.

Ontop of that, Bay is a lot less wasteful than Singer. Singer wasted a KNOWN 17 million dollars worth of effect shots. That is quite a chunk of change. Bay on the other hand is meticulous with details. He has it all planned out before he even considers effect shots. It allows him to save money.

 

[Angeloz]

I thought marketing is often offset by deals done with consumer products and promotions. Like his likeness being on Pepsi, Corn Flakes and the like. I know there was some of that here (Australia) and more overseas (U.S. and elsewhere). So that could mean marketing broke even or maybe made money. Just a thought.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I will say i think the budget hurt the movie, and i also will say i think Singer got a bit too comfy with the budget, meaning he was wasting money at some points or at least misusing it.

But if we get a sequel, I think Singer will use the budget to the best effect.

 

[matthooper]

What hurt the movie is that it wasn't executed well. Here is a direct quote from Singer.

On Why This Story Was Chosen:

Singer:“…It comes to a conclusion. It’s sort of a story of Superman finding his place in the world that’s very much changed. And ultimately he does - at the end of the picture. It leaves some things open to future films... from
http://movies.about.com/od/superman/a/superman071705.htm

What changed? Finding his place?

This was the problem. Nothing had changed in the 5 years. He simply picked up where he left off. The only thing is 5 minutes before the film ended, he finds out he has a kid. The film we were promised is not what we got. This interview was done before the film opened, right after the trailer was shown at the 2005 Comic Con. The film was changed between 2005 Comic Con and the release.

Next:
The Source of the Story:

Singer: But there’s definitely a respect to taking an overview of the series and an overview of the movies and an overview of the serials and an overview of the musical, which I’ve seen. Yeah, they did it. Taking a piece of everything and the comic, of course, and all its incarnations to kind of give it a general [tone]."http://movies.about.com/od/superman/a/superman071705_2.htm

On Villains:

Singer :"…Parker Posey, Kal Penn and a group of thugs which are kind of modeled loosely after the crime gang in the musical."
http://movies.about.com/od/superman/a/superman071705_3.htm


It's good to know he added his overview of Superman the Musical into SR.


He had no clue, that is why the film failed. He, inhis own words a year before the film opened was going for something completely different than the film we got. A good Superman film can make money no matter when it is released.

 

[matthooper]

...and he says it again later in the interview.

Singer: "The world has moved on since Superman was the idealic young man who emerged from the fortress of solitude as Superman"
http://movies.about.com/od/superman/a/superman071705_3.htm

When did we really get the sense that the world moved on. He comes back saves the plane and it's as he never left. We never see the consequences of his leaving, so we never see how and when the world moved on. It seems quite odd that he constantly mentions a theme that never shows up in the film. We see a few headlines, that's it.

Singer never actually delt with the theme that he mentions the most. This interview was a year before the movie opened.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I just laugh out loud every time when he mentioned the took the villains from the musical...Oh my god...With all the characters and villains....he just took them from a ****ty musical? WTF

 

[mego joe]

I just laugh out loud every time when he mentioned the took the villains from the musical...Oh my god...With all the characters and villains....he just took them from a ****ty musical? WTF

I'd never heard that bit about the musical before. That's absolutely mindboggling!

Although I'm sure there are 3 people in the world that are just absolutely stoked over it.