Sequels WB: Superman Returns to get sequel if it passes 200 million mark [MERGED]

[Octoberist]

No doubt in my mind that WB will have more of a say this time around. I just hope that WB won't do the samething with Batman or any of the other DC properties.

 

[boywonder13]

Techically speaking....didn't POTC2 PWN all films in the history of filmmaking?

in box office....

but not in quality (compared to better films)...

 

[Bad Superman]

Bad Superman: Thank you. I to felt the pangs of cruelty as I put it together but it seemed so funny and ripe for humor it had to be done.

I to wouldn't mind seeing Routh back as Superman if they get rid of the kid and most of the 30 year old look of the movie. Hell just scrap it and start over with Routh. Although marketing wise WB might want to distance themselves from this somewhat.

We're definitely on the same page. Welcome aboard!!! Keep your M-60, UZI and hand grenades with you at all times. Things can get messy here.

 

[Octoberist]

Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Yeah, WB should of released Superman earlier..giving it some buffer time. I remember there was nothing release the week before.

 

[retconned]

Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Because 90% of the people in the Warner Brother's office, along with Singer and co. are, for lack of a better term, god damn idiots.

Batman Begins was an excellent film, but it was a fluke that such a good film got made under the WB banner. Lets hope the sequl is excellent as well

 

[buggs0268]

Even if it gets to $200M it doesn't sound certain and the much reduced budget is gonna make things harder and perhaps take Singer from the production

And that would be a god thing.

 

[Milkman95]

Because 90% of the people in the Warner Brother's office, along with Singer and co. are, for lack of a better term, god damn idiots.

Batman Begins was an excellent film, but it was a fluke that such a good film got made under the WB banner. Lets hope the sequl is excellent as well

I could name several films that have been great under the WB banner. I think you're mixing WB up with FOX.

 

[buggs0268]

Then why the hell would the studio, put it so close together. When they released Batman Begins, it was a great release time, right around the middle of June. They had a two and a half week buffer by the time War of the Worlds came out, even longer for when Fantastic Four came out.

It's not like they didn't know the first Pirates made over 300 million dollars, and was the biggest blockbuster of the summer for 2003. Heck it did better than X2 for crying out loud.

Everyone associated with this debacle looks dumb.

Because they thought it was going to be such a hit. they didn't expect it to bomb.

 

[Truthteller]

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241909

I posted this news more than 12 hours ago. This thread is also in the wrong forum....

Agreed. Merging...

 

[WTFwuzThT]

So....you think that at 144.....it won't make it to 200?

How long does a film usually stay in theaters?

Btw.....when CINDERELLA MAN didn't make any money, how'd they re-relase it?

Cinderella man was released to less than 800 screens in October to try and get it an Oscar nomination. Considering the audience reaction and reviews this film had do you find it hard to believe they couldn't find 800 screens to show it on at the lamest time of the year??? Even Catwoman could find 800 screens in October, nothing else is playing. It's like the Sci-Fi Original of movie months.

 

[Excel]

this cannot be true. it would be complete stubburness on the part of w.b.

 

[Excel]

supes will get 200 million probably, wether it has to scratch and claw its way there or not.

 

[Spider-Man™]

We have to see a sequel, dammit.

 

[Spider-Man™]

On second thought, how could this be true when all the actors signed on to come back for more?

 

[boywonder13]

We have to see a sequel, dammit.

We will have a sequel my friend......

relax.....

 

[OzzMosiz]

Terminator 3 is likely getting a sequel. That cost 200million to make and only took 150million in the US!

I see no reason why Superman can't get a sequel. They need to keep the tone the same but up the action.

Kill the kid and let Supes have a reason for getting p****d!!

 

[buggs0268]

hey guys, this is how studios work. Granted it isnt WB, but it is another heavyweight with the record breaking movie out now:

LOS ANGELES - Walt Disney Co. will substantially reduce its work force and slash its annual output of films from 18 to eight — cutbacks greater than Hollywood had anticipated, it was reported Wednesday.

Additionally, Daily Variety said all the movies will be Disney-branded, suggesting diminished roles for its Touchstone label. The Hollywood trade paper said a Disney announcement was expected within 10 days.

Burbank-based Disney, basking in the glow of a record $135.6 million debut weekend box office for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," wouldn't discuss the report.

"We are constantly evaluating our business to make it better and more efficient," Disney spokeswoman Heidi Trotta said in a prepared statement to The Associated Press.

Disney's move reflects a trend in Hollywood to cut costs amid increasing overhead, production budgets and marketing bills.

Disney has said for some time it was going to cut its total number of films and concentrate on Disney-branded offerings, which make more money that those released on the studio's Touchstone label.

The studio has already greatly reduced the number of films released on its Miramax banner.

During Disney's past four quarterly media conference calls, CEO Robert Iger has said cutbacks were coming but didn't discuss details.

"It becomes a much better investment for us when we make a Disney-branded film," Iger said last September. "We're not going to go out of the non-Disney-branded live-action business, but there has been a dramatic shift."

Wall Street sees the move as necessary if the entertainment giant wants to see double-digit growth, said analyst David Miller, managing director of the brokerage firm Sanders Morris Harris Group.

"Most of the street was onto the fact that Disney-branded film returns were greater," he said.

Disney's fortunes have been lifted recently by "Pirates" and it's Pixar-animated movie "Cars," which has earned more than $205 million this summer.

But the studio has also endured disappointments, including "Stick It," "Annapolis" and "The Wild."

Disney's annual motion picture capital allocation is believed to be $450 million, Miller said. Spreading that amount over eight films instead of 18 could be better in a variety of ways, including cutting marketing and production costs, he said.

So if this is going on at Disney, expecially with their company that has the biggest oney maker now, imagine what is going on at theWB over this.

 

[LongDong]

WOOHOO thois means that ther emight not be another horrible Singer movie. I for one am confident that this dud will not hit 200 mill in the good old U S of A and thus the studio (assuming they stick by their guns) do not greenlight a part 2 of this disaster.
Happy day!!!

 

[vampireslayer97]

Between DVD sales, toy sales and oversea grosses there will be another one.

 

[Style 92]

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php

TMZ.com claims that talent agency insiders with ties to "Superman Returns" have been told that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark in the U.S.
The film has already taken in US$144.3 million since its July 28th opening, and should have no problem reaching the reported $200 million fail safe.

No official announcement has been made by Horn or Warner Bros. regarding this claim, so at this stage it's only a speculative rumor.






So there is going to be a sequel cause it's almost impossible for Superman Returns not to make 200 million.....

Unfortunately, it doesn't look that impossible...

Maybe Superman could cameo in the next Batman?

 

[BULLITT]

Here's a suggestion; If WB prefers not to do another one, they should auction
an option for another studio (assuming another studio would want to) to do a film.

Aparently this was done before, with Supes, and after 10 years the rights reverted back to WB.

I saw SR in both a regular theatre and in IMAX-3D.

The action sequences in 3-D were friggen insane !

Some studio (someday) is going stomp 'Titanic' with a action/feature in 3D.

SR was O.K, but not great. It's hard today to make Supes palatable for most people - re; he's not an Anti-hero, I for one would rather not see another film than have the studio execs mess with the character, or the creativity of the film makers.

Singer will survive either way, but he should not allow WB to emasculate his ideas. Also, I think he should re-edit the DVD (a la the Donnor soon-to-be released 1978 film). Don't just add the deleted scenes, but rather, place them in their intended sections.

Another tip for Singer; go to a private island and read Superman comics. Your principle writers were in over their heads. This story was flat, and they (and you) saved money on the script by regurgitating dialogue from the original film. That's not homage, that's a pathetic attempt at covering-up a lack of creativity.

 

[geomon]

Between DVD sales, toy sales and oversea grosses there will be another one.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you remember a certain Warner Bros. film based on a DC comic that cost 100 million to make but fell a tad short domestically. Of course adding in overseas, dvd's and such put over the top a sequel was never green lit. Let's see if you can guess what it is.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know if we'll get a sequel but I'd expect it to cost a lot less if we get one though.