Superman Returns WB, Singer, and the Sequel

Since you stated production budget for BB (which does not include marketing, etc. costs).

SR production budget cost= 204 mil. Not 270 mil.

Lol. You actually get your 'news' regarding budget from BOM instead of more credible sources? Lol. That's funny.

Yes, BB came out on top. But, next time- use ACTUAL facts when talking statistics.
 
Triligors said:
Since you stated production budhet (in other words, a budget that doesn't include marketing)- BB=150 mil + marketing

SR production budget cost= 204 mil.

Lol. You actually get your 'news' from BOM instead of credible sources? Lol. That's funny.

Yes, BB came out on top. But, next time- use ACTUAL facts.

Box Office Mojo has proven time and time again to be a credible source. Who is yours? Bryan Singer? A man who is trying to do damage control to see that his career doesn't go down the toilet after this...debacle?
 
Newsweek/ Bryan Singer/ RECENT article. Production Budget. Which went all over the net- and other box office sites. Funny how BoxOfficeMojo didn't pick that one up and instead- out of nowhere, one day ago- bumped their budget up by 10 mil without a source or saying where that extra 10 mil comes from.

So, I'll choose to believe more credible sources (Singer answering through WB)- while you can choose to believe whoever you want.
 
Bad Superman said:
:cmad: How about an original story without unnecesary changes that hurt the film/story?

PS- Someone remind Horn Singer cut alot that could've benefitted the film such as the "Journey to Krypton" scene which cost $10 Million. . . .

In all honesty, I really doubt Horn is going to be around much longer. WB has had an incredibly disappointing year all around, and with the next Harry Potter (WB's next guarunteed hit) still a year off...he really has nothing to redeem himself with. WB is a publicly traded company. I really wouldn't want my investment in that man's hands. I'm guessing he will resign in say...2 months.
 
Triligors said:
Newsweek/ Bryan Singer/ RECENT article. Production Budget. Which went all over the net- and other box office sites. Funny how BoxOfficeMojo didn't pick that one up and instead- out of nowhere, one day ago- bumped their budget up by 10 mil without a source or saying where that extra 10 mil comes from.

So, I'll choose to believe more credible sources (Singer answering through WB)- while you can choose to believe whoever you want.

I'll believe the Wall Street Journal, thanks. A newspaper who has journalists dedicated to covering financial dealings on a daily basis and knows much more than regular journalists on such matters as it is their specialty.

And I am sure Bryan Singer isn't trying to do a bit of damage control :rolleyes: But wait...that puts your God in a negative light, and we can't have that.
 
Why is the budget issue still an issue? The film's production budget was 204 million. It's been stated plenty of times throughout this entire production.

What's the damn argument now?
 
I'm not. I don't need to be as the numbers clearly speak for themselves. You're in full on denial.

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Newsweek owned by Time Warner?

Notice how the only sources reporting that the budget is lower than most estimates are those affiliated with Time Warner and have something to gain?
 
Matt said:
In all honesty, I really doubt Horn is going to be around much longer. WB has had an incredibly disappointing year all around, and with the next Harry Potter (WB's next guarunteed hit) still a year off...he really has nothing to redeem himself with. WB is a publicly traded company. I really wouldn't want my investment in that man's hands. I'm guessing he will resign in say...2 months.

Didn't I just read in an article that with Horn at the head WB has been in the top 3 of studio earners 6 out of the last 7 or 5 out of the last 6 years? Somebody would have to back that up with the article.
 
Yep, there's a mass conspiracy. Everything that comes out is a spin. All negative is true. All positive is false. Lol. How many times have anti-SR posted something sounded like a "conspiracy" rave? It's almost become a clitche.
 
This is WB's first off year in a few years. Horn isn't going anywhere. And considering the line up he has next year, he'll be fine.
 
Showtime029 said:
Didn't I just read in an article that with Horn at the head WB has been in the top 3 of studio earners 6 out of the last 7 or 5 out of the last 6 years? Somebody would have to back that up with the article.

Warner Brothers is always in the top 3. It has very little to do with Horn. The fact is, when the shareholders see the losses WB takes following the first three quarters of the year (and they will be considerable) and really nothing in the fourth quarter to recoup those losses...someone is going to have to take the fall. Its the nature of the business. Horn will likely be that man.
 
Triligors said:
Yep, there's a mass conspiracy.

It has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it has to do with using your resources to put yourself in a more favorable light.
 
Hey, you believe what you want to believe. I believe what I want to believe. Agree to disagree. No one has WB's finance book, so there is no definite answer one way or the other. So, agree to disagree- best this argument is going to get.
 
Matt's correct but that's just this year. If this was happening in consecutive years, then I'd say Horn is in trouble.

WB will be among the top earners next year with Order of the Phoenix and Ocean's 13 next summer. I'll go ahead and predict a huge box office for The Dark Knight in June of 2008 along with the Half-Blood Prince in November of 2008.
 
J.Howlett said:
This is WB's first off year in a few years. Horn isn't going anywhere. And considering the line up he has next year, he'll be fine.

But here's the thing. This was supposed to be WB's year. The launch of a new flagship movie, based on a pop culture icon right up there with Star Wars and Elvis. This was supposed to be a HUGE year for them. Their only competition was a Disney movie whose first film did considerably well, but many analysts considered a fluke. Now look at it.
 
Matt,

Considerably well? Pirates one did 300 million in 2003. That's more than considerably well considering no one had it on their radar in 2003.

Yes, Superman was suppose to be the big one. No one predicted that Poseidon was going to be big. Lady in the Water has a limited audience...depending on what M. Night had up his sleeve.

V for Vendetta was a hit, considering it's budget and is now cleaning house on DVD. Their two animated films this summer didn't do well but Happy Feet in the Fall will help that out.

They'll come close or reach a billion dollars in box office this year. They were just expecting way more than that.
 
J.Howlett said:
Matt's correct but that's just this year. If this was happening in consecutive years, then I'd say Horn is in trouble.

WB will be among the top earners next year with Order of the Phoenix and Ocean's 13 next summer. I'll go ahead and predict a huge box office for The Dark Knight in June of 2008 along with the Half-Blood Prince in November of 2008.

I actually anticipate disappointments for all of the films you mentioned. BB did pull in a kiddie audience that won't be returning now that parents realize it was not a child friendly film (not that there is anything wrong with that but it will make the B.O. a bit less).

Ocean's 12 dissappointed a lot of people, but Pacino's name alone could skyrocket 13, so I suppose it is a bit of a wild card.

The Harry Potter movies will be interesting to see...as they are outgrowing their primary demographics. Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince are incredibly dark books which will be translated into incredibly dark films. WB could water them down, but Rowling retains some creative control I believe, and I doubt she would allow that. Then again, the book sales are as strong as ever...so time will tell I suppose.
 
HoratioRome said:
Besides the comment that SM would make more than BB is just speculations. The numbers clearly show that BB kicked SMR's ,..well you know.
BB cost $150 million to make, earned $205M domestic and $371M total
SMR cost $270M earned so far $194m domestic and $360m total.

I think the winner is pretty clear here


The funny thing is about that Batman number, we got figues as high as 180 Million last year from reputable sources if I recall correctly....but no one wants to hear that. They take the lower figure and run with it. Everyone takes SR's 204 Million and adds whatever previous costs to it.

The production budget on Superman Returns was 204 Million. The movie you saw. The movie Bryan Singer came on and directed. The production starring Brandon Routh. <- True statement. (actually even lower if you read some articles...)

http://www.variety.com/article/VR11...egins+and+budget&display=batman+begins+budget

Sources on the production suggest that the film's budget is already north of the $208 million being spent on Universal's "King Kong," although insiders say the price tag is actually around $175-180 million, factoring in the substantial tax incentives offered in Australia

Getting a new Superman movie on the table since the 90's.....well over 250 Million in production costs. Did Bryan Singer's Superman Returns cost 270 Million to make? No. Because that wasn't it's production cost.

People love to throw that number at SR all the time. I'd love to see what Spiderman and The new Simpsons movies real budgets look like if they play that game. Or the REAL cost of the Star Wars movies since Lucas didn't include the SFX his house provided. ROTS cost WELL over 200 million dollars. Or even the REAL cost of X3. That production budget it even higher than SR's if you look at BOM. Wonder what the real cost of POTC2 was while we're at it.....

You can play that game with any movie to inflate or deflate the stats. Now tell me, if the WB says BB cost 150, is it more impressive to look at than saying it if the Variety/ Hollywood Reporter says it cost 180 million? Or will you just believe whatever works best for your argument?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR11...egins+and+budget&display=batman+begins+budget

Warners hopes "Begins," which reportedly carried a budget of more than $150 million, will relaunch its lucrative "Batman" franchise.


Variety is also quite a flip-flopper...

Legendary soups up pic presence
Quite an entrance for film company

By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK

Blasting onto the scene, recently formed Legendary Pictures is putting up no less than half the production budget for Warner Bros. Pictures' "Superman Returns" -- as well as having footed half the bill of "Batman Begins."

Legendary, run by financier Thomas Tull and backed by private equity, also will be Warners' 50-50 co-financing and production partner on M. Night ShyamalanM. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" and animated family pic "The Ant Bully," both of which are set for release next summer, as is "Superman."

PactPact between the film studio and Legendary comes at a critical time for the larger Warner Bros. Entertainment, which is looking to trim costs next year and institute possible layoffs in anticipation of a revenue slowdown, particularly on the DVD side. Other divisions of parent conglomconglom Time WarnerTime Warner also are completing aggressive budget reviews, including HBO.

By partnering on a big-ticket item like "Superman" and spreading the risk around, Warner Bros. Pictures can display fiscal responsibility. The high-profile film, directed by Bryan SingerBryan Singer, is still under way shooting in Australia for another few weeks, having begun lensing in the spring.

Sources on the production suggest that the film's budget is already north of the $208 million being spent on Universal's "King Kong," although insiders say the price tag is actually around $175-180 million, factoring in the substantial tax incentives offered in Australia
.

The Legendary deal also continues Warner Bros. Pictures' track record of aggressively going after co-financing partners, such as Village Roadshow.

Linked to big pix

For its part, Legendary and its non-Hollywood investors get immediate cache by attaching themselves to blockbusters and A-list directors. Legendary and Warners will split all revenue streams equally after the studio recoups costs. Warners will handle worldwide distribution.

"One of the central pillars of our philosophy is to back the very best filmmakers, and to be part of projects that are part of our cultural fabric," Tull said.

Tull said he didn't mind that Legendary wasn't able to have a producing credit on "Batman""Batman" when the film hit the theaters. Legendary does have a credit on the DVD, which was released earlier this month. Film has grossed more than $200 million at the domestic box office, and $370 million worldwide.

When Warners and Tull announced their pact in late June, all they said was that Legendary planned to invest $500 million in 25 pics over the next five years, suggesting Legendary might attach itself to a series of smaller projects.

Revelation that Legendary is co-producing such tentpole pics as "Superman" and "Batman" suggests that the frosh production and financing company is confident the pool of money will grow to be much more than $500 million as returns are reinvested, explaining why Legendary insists it still will have enough money to fund the full, 25-pic slate.

Not a 'fund'

Tull, who most recently ran media and entertainment holding company the Convex Group, said it's wrong for people to think of the $500 million as a "fund." Rather, Legendary is an operating company. Tull continues to split his time between Atlanta and Hollywood, but intends to relocate to Los Angeles.

Neither Warners nor Legendary would comment on specifics of their deal, citing strict non-disclosure rules.

"The way we approach it is very simple," Tull said. "We each put up half the money. We each work to produce the film. After the studio recoups costs, our nickel sits next to their nickel, and we all revenue streams."


And to those who love to talk about the Legendary and WB connection or agreement........Read it a second time as you spew all you know about it. This is why none of you can say

'THERE'S NO SR SEQUEL, BOMMMMMMBB!'



Some studios, of course, have been accused in the past of using "Hollywood accounting" practices that allow them to keep a large part of the pie before allocating any money to its financing partners.

'Financially sophisticated'

"There are some different aspects to this deal that I can't talk about," Tull said. "The investor group we have includes some of the most financially sophisticated people around. If these folks came in and financed our company, it's because they were very comfortable that the deal allowed our interests and Warners' to be closely aligned."


Another exec involved with the partnership said that the deal provides "a very fair allocation."

Traditionally, studios minimize risk by giving financing partners overseas rights.

Unlike other private equity fund deals, such as the $230 million fund at Paramount, Legendary is an active investor, meaning it considers itself a full producing partner, involved in all stages of the process, including budgeting, casting, greenlighting, marketing and merchandising.
 
So Matt since one Movie did not do as well as expected everyone that supported it should be fired at the WB ?
 
Pickle,

Episode III didn't cost well over 200 million dollars. It barely cracked 100 million in production budget and that includes ILM's services.
 
I do not see how people are even trying to compare Star Wars to Superman Returns especially since most of Star Wars money came out of one guys pocket & the same guy that owned some good sfx companies. That is unfair comparison if you ask me
 
J.Howlett said:
Matt,

Considerably well? Pirates one did 300 million in 2003. That's more than considerably well considering no one had it on their radar in 2003.

Yea, considerably well. That is pretty good, 300 million. But the fact remains, no one expected Dead Man's Chest to do as well as it did.

Yes, Superman was suppose to be the big one. No one predicted that Poseidon was going to be big. Lady in the Water has a limited audience...depending on what M. Night had up his sleeve.

Both Lady and Poseidon were horrible flops. And don't tell me that Poseidon was expected to flop. WB would not have dumped 160 million into its budget if they only expected a 60 million dollar return.

V for Vendetta was a hit, considering it's budget and is now cleaning house on DVD. Their two animated films this summer didn't do well but Happy Feet in the Fall will help that out.

V did well for a small film, but it is just that, a small film. Not enough to make up for everything else.

As for Happy Feet...it just doesn't seem to have the appeal of the likes of Shrek or Nemo. I expect another animated bomb.

They'll come close or reach a billion dollars in box office this year. They were just expecting way more than that.

A billion dollars? Disney made that in one movie. Superman was expected to pull that in for WB's world wide.

Someone will have to take the fall for this. I expect that someone to be Horn.
 
Matt said:
Warner Brothers is always in the top 3. It has very little to do with Horn. The fact is, when the shareholders see the losses WB takes following the first three quarters of the year (and they will be considerable) and really nothing in the fourth quarter to recoup those losses...someone is going to have to take the fall. Its the nature of the business. Horn will likely be that man.

I wouldn't bet my shoe on Horn staying or leaving, same goes for Singer. You never know whose going to take the fall in a situation like this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,075,100
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"