Superman Returns WB, Singer, and the Sequel

[Hunter Rider]

Yeah, I basically came here now because this news confirms what I been saying and is my vindication from all the people who said I was a fanboy in denial for believing the movie was going to make money and WB was likely to make a sequel with Singer. This said, I don´t feel like coming here often anymore, these are by far the most annoying, trolled and nitpicky boards of all SHH. I´m fine if some didn´t like the movie, but compare Singer´s movie to B&R and Catwoman... Gimme a break.

The line is drawn so thick here that it's all or nothing which makes a lot of debates fairly circular.
I'm not gonna celebrate yet,Horn needs to sound positive and he said "they plan" to the sequel with Singer for 2009 but that's not coming from a concrete place yet and he did admit to the movie making $100M less than hoped,thats a sizeable chuck of cash

 

[Alonsovich]

The line is drawn so thick here that it's all or nothing which makes a lot of debates fairly circular.
I'm not gonna celebrate yet,Horn needs to sound positive and he said "they plan" to the sequel with Singer for 2009 but that's not coming from a concrete place yet and he did admit to the movie making $100M less than hoped,thats a sizeable chuck of cash

Concretely 20% less than expected. Someone at Time Warner will have to explain that to their stock holders...

 

[Hunter Rider]

Concretely 20% less than expected. Someone at Time Warner will have to explain that to their stock holders...

Yep,right now i think sitting tight is the way to go,Horn has to take a positive stance on Singer and the film as they still have the DVD sales to come and no doubt they are hoping that will help soften the blow

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Yep,right now i think sitting tight is the way to go,Horn has to take a positive stance on Singer and the film as they still have the DVD sales to come and no doubt they are hoping that will help soften the blow

Soften the blow? Maybe you have problems getting that this movie has already earned 50 millions to WB before the DVD sale, according to the article.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Soften the blow? Maybe you have problems getting that this movie has already earned 50 millions to WB before the DVD sale, according to the article.

Where to you get that idea ? it's total cost is over $300M it has made $347M,that's $47M profit,now divide the theatres percentage and Legendary's percentage and WB will be lucky to have $20M in fact it will be a lot less than that as overseas distribution is so high,thats why the studios mostly care about Domestic gross

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Where to you get that idea ?

Maybe from this part of the LA Times article that says:
Horn declined to divulge figures, but a person familiar with the studio's internal projections said Warner's cut of the "Superman Returns" profit was expected to be $50 million to $60 million. The film cost $209 million to produce and more than $100 million to market worldwide.
And to clarify things, SR is opening in these days in some big markets like Germany, Japan and Italy. It will probably make more than 400 millions worldwide.
Warner make the same amount of money overseas that they do in USA because they distribute directly the movie worldwide, so they also get their distribution share out of the gross.
Noone here seems to consider that the sale of the TV rights for the movie earns the producer as much money as the theatre gross.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Maybe from this part of the LA Times article that says:
Horn declined to divulge figures, but a person familiar with the studio's internal projections said Warner's cut of the "Superman Returns" profit was expected to be $50 million to $60 million. The film cost $209 million to produce and more than $100 million to market worldwide.
.

Was "expected to be" not Was

 

[Steelsheen]

Where to you get that idea ? it's total cost is over $300M it has made $347M,that's $47M profit,now divide the theatres percentage and Legendary's percentage and WB will be lucky to have $20M in fact it will be a lot less than that as overseas distribution is so high,thats why the studios mostly care about Domestic gross

i keep forgetting the figures, but how much does the stuios take from overseas earnings?

 

[Hunter Rider]

i keep forgetting the figures, but how much does the stuios take from overseas earnings?

Hulk is the guy to ask but i beleive it's around 13%

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Hulk is the guy to ask but i beleive it's around 13%

No. Warner as distributor/producer gets 50% of the gross. You have to add the money thay ask upfront to the theatre owner to the options for their movies and detract the marketing costs. For some movie, like Superman, they can ask even 70% of the gross for the first week to the theatres.

 

[Steelsheen]

Hulk is the guy to ask but i beleive it's around 13%

geezus that less than a 1/5th of the total. its chump change.

No. Warner as distributor/producer gets 50% of the gross. You have to add the money thay ask upfront to the theatre owner to the options for their movies and detract the marketing costs. For some movie, like Superman, they can ask even 70% of the gross for the first week to the theatres.

ok, now i'm confused.

so WB gets 70% of the first week's run, then how much do they get during the succeeding weeks?

 

[Hunter Rider]

No. Warner as distributor/producer gets 50% of the gross. You have to add the money thay ask upfront to the theatre owner to the options for their movies and detract the marketing costs. For some movie, like Superman, they can ask even 70% of the gross for the first week to the theatres.

It's different overseas.Hulk mapped it out i'll try and find his post,it's the reason studio's care less about in'll take

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

So WB gets 70% of the first week's run, then how much do they get during the succeeding weeks?

50%

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

It's different overseas.Hulk mapped it out i'll try and find his post,it's the reason studio's care less about in'll take

I live in Italy. I worked for a production company that had a working relationship with Warner, and one of my teachers at the production school was one of the boss of Warner Italy (he's at Fox now) so I know what I'm saying.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I live in Italy. I worked for a production company that had a working relationship with Warner, and one of my teachers at the production school was one of the boss of Warner Italy (he's at Fox now) so I know what I'm saying.

So you are saying WB will take the same cut from their overseas money as their domestic ?

 

[xwolverine2]

what are we arguing about again?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

So you are saying WB will take the same cut from their overseas money as their domestic ?

Sure, as they distribute directly the movie worldwide.

 

[Steelsheen]

what are we arguing about again?

we're talking about WB's cut of the overseas receipts.

its better than bashing each other over topics we're already taken beating for

 

[Hunter Rider]

Sure, as they distribute directly the movie worldwide.

Well i recall Hulk and GL saying something very different but ok

 

[matrix_ghost]

So we can pretty much say the sequel is going to be released in 2009 right ?
Cool if Singer can start working with his script now i think , they can begin shooting in mid 2007. IMO they shouldn't rush the picture out and instead really take 2008 for their post prod period. Just focus on the movie.

As for the bad year , WB will still make it's money in the fall season as they have some good titles coming up.

 

[xwolverine2]

we're talking about WB's cut of the overseas receipts.

ill help you and settle this once and for all..............


NOTHING!... the movie made NOTHING!....lol!

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Well i recall Hulk and GL saying something very different but ok

Hulk was probably referring to this article
http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?165
and the part where they analyze "Gone In 60 Seconds" international gross. But you can't simply apply the same percentage to all movies. What's enlightning about that piece is the part where they say:
The best-kept secret in Hollywood, especially from Wall Street, is that the movie studios’ biggest profit centre is not theatrical movies, or even DVD sales: it is TV licensing.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Hulk was probably referring to this article
http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?165
and the part where they analyze "Gone In 60 Seconds" international gross. But you can't simply apply the same percentage to all movies. What's enlightning about that piece is the part where they say:
The best-kept secret in Hollywood, especially from Wall Street, is that the movie studios’ biggest profit centre is not theatrical movies, or even DVD sales: it is TV licensing.

I'm not sure he got it from there,im sure he'll clarify when he's on,as for the article thanks for the link,it looks an impressive piece that ive logged to read later when i have more time,thanks
That part about TV licensing is interesting,im guessing it's the nature of a straight transaction with no extra costs that makes it so profitable

 

[AgentPat]

Can someone point me to a concrete article where Jeff Robinov or Alan Horn say "Bryan Singer is going to direct the Superman sequel"?

Pfft. Somebody point ME to an article that says they actually greenlit one, regardless of cast and crew.

NOTHING is confirmed yet. SR is still in theaters, and barely at that.

I thought I'd buy the DVD when it came out, but I'm rethinking that now. It would only sit still-wrapped on my shelf for months anyway, 'cause I don't plan on watching it again. As a Supes' fan, I'd only buy it to "have it," but I'm starting to think that's not a good enough reason anymore.

I'm still laughing at all the "Wrath of Khan" one-liners too. ST:TMP grossed $82M domestic off its estimated $35M budget, so there was a bankable REASON for a sequel. Oh, and Singer seems to have forgotten that Par got a different director and writers for Khan.

That said, IF Warners does okay a second film with Singer and existing cast, and Singer goes all requel again with his Zod plans, I definitely will have no interest in seeing it. As much as I didn't like what I had heard about SR, I still went to see it out of dumb curiosity. But I won't be taken in a second time. Furthermore, I have no interest in seeing films with casts I don't like, regardless of subject matter. Routh and Bosworth were limp like wet fish, and about as romantic as that too. I think I'll save my money the second time around.

 

[xwolverine2]

I thought I'd buy the DVD when it came out, but I'm rethinking that now. It would only sit still-wrapped on my shelf for months anyway, 'cause I don't plan on watching it again. As a Supes' fan, I'd only buy it to "have it," but I'm starting to think that's not a good enough reason anymore.

im not getting it for that same reason