Who gets the PRAISE: Fox, Ratner, Writers, or Actors?

[X-Maniac]

Very cool. I made something out of Rogue as well in my script as well. Like you, this what many fans have been waiting for from Rogue for a while.

I did keep Wolverine in my story, however. But this is meant to be his last hoorah with the team.

Beast also returns in my script. and I've given him much more to do this time in battle. And Beast finally makes his appearance in the lab with his white coat and spectacles.

I too included Beast but I wonder if the studio would want the character back. Clearly, he - and Angel - were nowhere near the X-mansion at the end of the movie and that felt like a clue that those characters were out of the franchise. It would be hard to explain why Beast didn't have some kind of role if he was a UN ambassador but I guess he wouldn't necessarily be part of the X-Men's lives and problems any more. Beast is easier to include than Angel - to include Angel means showcasing his flight on at least one occasion and it could feel forced. Beast is also a politician, scientist and academic so his role goes beyond showing him leaping around.

 

[Neptune]

Since most movie fans consider X-Men: The Last Stand to be an outstanding effort, who should receive the bulk of the praise? X3 had grit, heart, and pivotal action. It is a work of art/comic book pulp fiction rarely seen on the silver screen. Who's most responsible? The characters, effects, and story were all X-ceptional. Director Brett Ratner picks right up where Bryan Singer left off and displays an amazing vision. He manages to keep the story intense and flowing but all the while it builds for a great climax to this third installment. Ratner also manages to deliver a little bit of everything ranging from true emotion to bad ass comic book style slugfests. I can see why some fans of particular characters might feel slighted, however. Cyclops, Angel and Colossus fans hoping for their favorite to shine must feel disappointed. Still, the rest of the cast was used remarkably well. Should they take most of the credit? Overall, like most people (who aren't stuck up fanboys, jealous Superman fans or Cyclops fanatics), I had a great time and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this movie.

This movie is the only real blockbusters of 2006 that lived up to box office expectations. Who gets credit for producing a gem of a finish to this remarkable trilogy?

Hahahahaha! This is the funniest post i've read since this movie came out.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Hahahahaha! This is the funniest post i've read since this movie came out.

I would have to agree. But not to stir up any trouble or anything, he has or had a history of being confrontational with his views and tends to insult those who don't agree with him. I will admit that I'm guilty of those same things, but he tended to take it to another level.

As for who gets the praise? Well I'll say the actors really. They could've given really crappy performances despite the rushed script, rushed scenes, and rushed production in general. But Marsden, Grammer, Famke, Ashmore, Page, Ian, Patrick, and Rebecca(despite her small role) gave pretty good performances in my opinion. Those were the highlights as far as the film is concerned.

 

[Mister J]

Hahahahaha! This is the funniest post i've read since this movie came out.

It made me think there was a more coherent version of X3 somewhere that I missed and everybody else saw. I felt left out for a minute.

I give whatever credit for the film that I have to the actors. If Fox and/or the writers (and to a lesser extent, Ratner) had better effort, I believe it would have found the film more palatable. I didn't really have a problem with any of the performances (some were actually quite good). However, the characterizations and story left something to be desired.

 

[X-Maniac]

I would have to agree. But not to stir up any trouble or anything, he has or had a history of being confrontational with his views and tends to insult those who don't agree with him. I will admit that I'm guilty of those same things, but he tended to take it to another level.

As for who gets the praise? Well I'll say the actors really. They could've given really crappy performances despite the rushed script, rushed scenes, and rushed production in general. But Marsden, Grammer, Famke, Ashmore, Page, Ian, Patrick, and Rebecca(despite her small role) gave pretty good performances in my opinion. Those were the highlights as far as the film is concerned.

I've never noticed that poster being that bad. Certainly not as much as you were in your dark days! Remember what a horror you were then! Even you admitted it later.

If that person prefers the movie to other stuff, and loves it, then so be it. Obviously some people are going to love it. It didn't make just under $460million for nothing - it's not a sign of universal dislike.

I'd have expected it to have made more, perhaps $500m-550m, but it was never going to be Spider-Man or Pirates - you'd need an entirely different approach to get it into that league. You'd have a paint on a much bigger canvas and make a movie with much more scope and scale to get it to those numbers. You'd also have to have a smaller main cast, especially far fewer big names eating up the budget with salary bills! Difficult to do with X-Men needing a relatively large main cast by its very nature. Unlike Spider-Man's much smaller and less expensive cast, and Pirates with its one main star.

Superman Returns cost $204m (and if you add in the tax break that rises to $232m and if you add the costs of previous abortive attempts at making a Superman movie it rises to $270m). Where did that $204m go? The only big name and big salary was Spacey, who got $14m. Routh got $400,000! Singer spent $10m on a return to Krypton sequence (which was completed), then cut it. The final costs of the movie include a whopping $2.3million for the scene where the bullet hits the eye; plus the costs of buying land and growing corn...only for most of those scenes to be redone with CGI anyway.

For X3's production budget of $150 million (which included four big-name actors with big salaries - Jackman, Stuart, Berry, McKellen; and any possible costs of Vaughn's work on sets etc which would have been scrapped), it's earnings of $459m were not bad. The BoxOfficeMojo production budget incorrectly adds on the marketing costs of $60m, which are separate and not part of 'production costs.'

 

[BMM]

Okay...

 

[X-Maniac]

Okay...

Aren't you going to add anything else!?

 

[The Batman]

The movie sucked in 06'...and it still sucks now...the X-Men deserved a better movie...

 

[Snikt]

The movie sucked in 06'...and it still sucks now...the X-Men deserved a better movie...

But that is your opinion. Don't worry, I won't try to convince you. I know others on this board are guilty of this. But you're entitled to your opinion.

My opinion, I loved the movie in summer of '06 and still love the movie in winter of '08.t:

 

[Adam]

The actors make this movie watchable.

 

[Theweepeople]

Aren't you going to add anything else!?

I was on temporary hiatus until Fox's next potential sci-fi financial failure(Jumper) came out but, this was too amusing to ignore. BMM's sarcastic and brief response pretty much sums up how I feel about responding to your commentaries on X3. Basically, everything you mentioned has been debated to death for over a year and a half now. Restating this information is going to change anyone's opinion.

Your assertion about Boxofficemojo being wrong about X3's budget is silly if you can't provide any evidence to back up your theory. However, I'm not suprised you still believe this after I had posted information about Laura Donner confirming that X3's budget was indeed set at 150million until Vaughn leaving caused it to skyrocket. I posted these links multiple times but you ignored it. You acted the same way when we debated over whether it was Singer's fault for leaving Fox for Superman. Most people don't remember that Singer actually left Fox to direct Logan's Run at WB. Fox didn't have a an issue with Singer until he decided to direct Superman. I'm sure you still believe Fox did everything right to keep Singer as the X-Men director inspite of the evidence telling a completely different story.

I might take a break for another two weeks so don't expect me to
immediately respond to whatever you say.

 

[X-Maniac]

I was on temporary hiatus until Fox's next potential sci-fi financial failure(Jumper) came out but, this was too amusing to ignore. BMM's sarcastic and brief response pretty much sums up how I feel about responding to your commentaries on X3. Basically, everything you mentioned has been debated to death for over a year and a half now. Restating this information is going to change anyone's opinion.

Your assertion about Boxofficemojo being wrong about X3's budget is silly if you can't provide any evidence to back up your theory. However, I'm not suprised you still believe this after I had posted information about Laura Donner confirming that X3's budget was indeed set at 150million until Vaughn leaving caused it to skyrocket. I posted these links multiple times but you ignored it. You acted the same way when we debated over whether it was Singer's fault for leaving Fox for Superman. Most people don't remember that Singer actually left Fox to direct Logan's Run at WB. Fox didn't have a an issue with Singer until he decided to direct Superman. I'm sure you still believe Fox did everything right to keep Singer as the X-Men director inspite of the evidence telling a completely different story.

Evidence to back up $150 million: First, The Numbers movie website at http://www.the-numbers.com confirms it as such. Since it gives such a detailed breakdown on the figures for most movies, especially the budget for SR, I'm inclined to believe it's somewhat more reliable.

Secondly, interviews with Vaughn (in which he spoke of being able to make the movie better) talked about him abandoning a $100million movie. I'll try to find the links but they were public interviews posted on here. He's obviously not being totally precise but the movie must have been in the region of that figure for him to say it. I believe the costs escalated to $150m after he left, when changes to the story meant some sets were scrapped and new ones were built (for instance, Ratner added the Sentinel head into the DR sequence, at a cost of over £1m, if i recall correctly from an interview at the time), and when money was ploughed into post-prod to meet the deadline.

I don't recall the link you posted from Shuler-Donner.

And I don't think Fox expected Singer to leave for Superman Returns. Once he'd signed the lucrative deal then I'm sure he wasn't coming back. He wanted Fox to give him a mega-salary ($50m is rumoured) and allow him to do two movies; for whatever reasons, they didn't want that. Negotiations over the next X-movie must have been ongoing and not concluded at the time he left, or Fox wouldn't be angry. The fact Singer took Marsden and tried to take Shawn Ashmore, Jackman and Famke shows that it had descended into a 'point-scoring' exercise. He wanted Ashmore as Jimmy Olsen, Jackman as Pa Kent and Famke as the PR spokewoman on the shuttle/plane.

But this is all crying over spilled milk, or spilled mutants, now. What's done is done. The fact that Fox got the respected independent director Gavin Hood in on the Wolverine project and the fact that Ratner's Red Dragon shows that he is clearly a competent film-maker who can evoke mood and suspense (and who is also able to emulate/respect the work of others well, in that his movie dovetails neatly into Silence of the Lambs), shows it's not as simple as the whiners, haters and no-life nerds would try to have everyone believe.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Evidence to back up $150 million: First, The Numbers movie website at http://www.the-numbers.com confirms it as such. Since it gives such a detailed breakdown on the figures for most movies, especially the budget for SR, I'm inclined to believe it's somewhat more reliable.

Secondly, interviews with Vaughn (in which he spoke of being able to make the movie better) talked about him abandoning a $100million movie. I'll try to find the links but they were public interviews posted on here. He's obviously not being totally precise but the movie must have been in the region of that figure for him to say it. I believe the costs escalated to $150m after he left, when changes to the story meant some sets were scrapped and new ones were built (for instance, Ratner added the Sentinel head into the DR sequence, at a cost of over £1m, if i recall correctly from an interview at the time), and when money was ploughed into post-prod to meet the deadline.

I don't recall the link you posted from Shuler-Donner.

And I don't think Fox expected Singer to leave for Superman Returns. Once he'd signed the lucrative deal then I'm sure he wasn't coming back. He wanted Fox to give him a mega-salary ($50m is rumoured) and allow him to do two movies; for whatever reasons, they didn't want that. Negotiations over the next X-movie must have been ongoing and not concluded at the time he left, or Fox wouldn't be angry. The fact Singer took Marsden and tried to take Shawn Ashmore, Jackman and Famke shows that it had descended into a 'point-scoring' exercise. He wanted Ashmore as Jimmy Olsen, Jackman as Pa Kent and Famke as the PR spokewoman on the shuttle/plane.

But this is all crying over spilled milk, or spilled mutants, now. What's done is done. The fact that Fox got the respected independent director Gavin Hood in on the Wolverine project and the fact that Ratner's Red Dragon shows that he is clearly a competent film-maker who can evoke mood and suspense (and who is also able to emulate/respect the work of others well, in that his movie dovetails neatly into Silence of the Lambs), shows it's not as simple as the whiners, haters and no-life nerds would try to have everyone believe.

We've all had this debate time and time again. Truthfully I'm not going to say it's crying over spilled milk, or even spilled mutants, in my opinion it's just fans are disappointed with the wasted potential of this franchise. The more I think about the films the more I feel that the X-Men were doomed from the beginning. While I do like Singer's direction and I'm a huge fan of Superman Returns, Usual Suspects, Apt. Pupil, and the upcoming Valkyrie looks really good too. But I just feel he didn't really understand the characters and neither did Ratner.

If I were a director myself or a writer I would've done a good job. I think it's great to have fans of the material to be part of film franchises. I think that's why films like Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Blade 1 and 2, 300, Sin City, and Hellboy were so successful because while there were some deviations, ultimately the product didn't suffer and obviously they had longer filming periods in order for the material to be better.

But what's done is done. X3 has been been made, released, and made it's money in the theaters and DVDs.

 

[X-Maniac]

We've all had this debate time and time again. Truthfully I'm not going to say it's crying over spilled milk, or even spilled mutants, in my opinion it's just fans are disappointed with the wasted potential of this franchise. The more I think about the films the more I feel that the X-Men were doomed from the beginning. While I do like Singer's direction and I'm a huge fan of Superman Returns, Usual Suspects, Apt. Pupil, and the upcoming Valkyrie looks really good too. But I just feel he didn't really understand the characters and neither did Ratner.

If I were a director myself or a writer I would've done a good job. I think it's great to have fans of the material to be part of film franchises. I think that's why films like Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Blade 1 and 2, 300, Sin City, and Hellboy were so successful because while there were some deviations, ultimately the product didn't suffer and obviously they had longer filming periods in order for the material to be better.

But what's done is done. X3 has been been made, released, and made it's money in the theaters and DVDs.

That sounds reasonable enough. I'm not a huge fan of Superman Returns though; I can see the artistic/technical quality in it and I admire the craft that went into it and some of the scenes but i think it 'fell short' and the box office reflects this.

I only have the Director's Cut of Hellboy (I didn't see it at the cinema, for some reason) and I think that it also lacks something in places though, again, I applaud the directorial artistry in it.

I like all three X-movies, for different reasons. I know people whose favourite is X1, some whose favourite is X2 and some who prefer X3. X2 is the most 'rounded' of the three though it's still not perfect or universally acclaimed (see the critics' reviews on Metacritic, or the BoxOfficeMojo review; some reviews of X2 are very harsh). At least the movies established the idea of the X-Men in the public consciousness, so that future movies will have something to build on. I can see why they chose to give a focus to the movies by making Wolverine a prominent character - in such ensemble movies, you need something like this or it becomes messy.

For the X-Men to reach the heights of LoTR, Pirates or Spider-Man is not an easy task. Everyone knows of Spider-Man, LoTR is a classic set of books that had never before been seen on the big screen, and the idea of swashbuckling pirate adventures on the high seas is popular in the public imagination. X-Men didn't have any of those advantages, despite the 90s cartoon series. Also, such a large cast is needed for X-Men and all those characters are not going to get serviced equally. A large cast is also expensive, especially if you are going to get big names in to boost the profile of the movie.

But perhaps now we have three X-movies the next one can be more epic and longer too because the public is more aware of the X-Men. Despite Jackson's King Kong being of somewhat excessive length, it made more at the box office than X3 and even got a second DVD release with an even longer version. I do think though that three hours is rather long for a cinematic release (okay for the DVD though!). I also keep hoping that we'll get extended editions of all three X-movies one day. If Oliver Stone can give us three different DVDs of Alexander, i don't see why we can't get more versions of the X-movies. A BluRay trilogy set perhaps, containing the original theatrical releases and also extended cuts? Or a new set released at the same time as the Wolverine movie or packaged with the Wolverine DVD?

 

[The Batman]

I like circles....

 

[X-Maniac]

I like circles....

Of course you do. That's why you are back here again. The Hype is full of cyclical arguments, partly because new people join and make the same points and ask the same questions, partly because some people just can't let go of something. If we were all normal, we wouldn't be here in this obsessional washing machine of lather-rinse-repeat; we'd have moved on long ago. And that applies to you too!

 

[DoctorJones]

Just a note, a Reuters interview confirmed the film's budget to be $160 million. Unfortunately, this interview is now off-line.

 

[Theweepeople]

Evidence to back up $150 million: First, The Numbers movie website at http://www.the-numbers.com confirms it as such. Since it gives such a detailed breakdown on the figures for most movies, especially the budget for SR, I'm inclined to believe it's somewhat more reliable.

I decided to look at some other budgets on that website because you said it is so accurate. I find it interesting that this website you recommended has Rush Hour's 3 budget at 40 million more than boxofficemojo's numbers(140million). Please explain to me how Rush Hour 3 cost more money to make than X-Men 3?!!!!

What's even more interesting is your website has Pirates of the Carribean 1(165million) and 2's(187million) budgets with a difference of only 22million!!! I don't buy that for one second. The CGI used in Pirates 2 cost Disney a fortune. Plus Disney had not signed the cast for future films until after Pirates 1 was released. The main casts' salaries dramatically increased after Pirates 1.

Thanks for your recommendation but, I feel comfortable sticking to boxofficemojo as my source for these numbers.

 

[X-Maniac]

I decided to look at some other budgets on that website because you said it is so accurate. I find it interesting that this website you recommended has Rush Hour's 3 budget at 40 million more than boxofficemojo's numbers(140million). Please explain to me how Rush Hour 3 cost more money to make than X-Men 3?!!!!

I have no idea why RH3 appears to cost more - I've never seen Rush Hour 3, nor any of the Rush Hour movies, and have no real desire to do so. Expensive location shooting in Paris? A generous studio? Who knows. Does SR look like it cost $204m, or $270m according to boxofficemojo? Hardly. What we see on screen isn't really indicative of what was spent.

I'm curious though that the boxofficemojo figures for RH3 mean the budget exactly matched the box office (both are $140m), so the film appears then to break even, in domestic terms. The Numbers figures would mean it didn't recoup its budget and therefore failed. I'm surprised you don't want to believe a higher figure that means this Ratner movie was a flop.

What's even more interesting is your website has Pirates of the Carribean 1(165million) and 2's(187million) budgets with a difference of only 22million!!! I don't buy that for one second. The CGI used in Pirates 2 cost Disney a fortune. Plus Disney had not signed the cast for future films until after Pirates 1 was released. The main casts' salaries dramatically increased after Pirates 1.

What's even more interesting still is that numbers vary, partly because there are no officially published figures as far as I'm aware. So there's a lot of conjecture going on, and estimating. It makes your financial arguments less than watertight.

For instance, The Golden Compass cost $180m to make according to boxofficemojo but $250m according to The Numbers (which also has a marketing figure stated, so the $250m does not include marketing). The film's reported earnings also vary, with mojo putting it at $325m and The Numbers putting it at $315m.

Thanks for your recommendation but, I feel comfortable sticking to boxofficemojo as my source for these numbers.

I'm sure you would feel comfortable sticking to a site that appears to validate your arguments. But the fact remains that figures vary and there is no way of knowing which are accurate unless, as with SR on The Numbers, there are official quoted sources.

Since Vaughn spoke of leaving a $100m movie, and since someone else above says a Reuters report put the X3 cost at $160m, it seems to me that The Numbers figure of $150m ought to be pretty close. Especially as I recall a $60m marketing figure mentioned too and that would add up to the mojo total of $210m.

I don't intend to stick with either boxofficemojo or The Numbers, but to compare the two and look for official sources where possible. Unlike you, I don't have an agenda and therefore feel no need to base my arguments only on information that validates my arguments.

 

[Theweepeople]

I have no idea why RH3 appears to cost more - I've never seen Rush Hour 3, nor any of the Rush Hour movies, and have no real desire to do so. Expensive location shooting in Paris? A generous studio? Who knows.

Fair enough. However, my question still stands for anyone who can explain this because it makes no sense.

Does SR look like it cost $204m, or $270m according to boxofficemojo? Hardly. What we see on screen isn't really indicative of what was spent.

Okay. So you have no problem accepting Rush Hour 3's budget but, have a problem with SR budget being only 24million more? Furthermore, SR had some of the best CGI I've ever seen in a comic book film. What I saw on screen felt consistent with a budget estimated to be around 200million. Also, why are you acting like you don't know where boxofficemojo got their estimate from. The WB wasted at least 60million dollars on writers, directors, and actors for the ill-fated Superman Lives before Singer came on board to direct SR. This topic was discussed over a year and a half ago on this forum and you were one of the participants.

I'm curious though that the boxofficemojo figures for RH3 mean the budget exactly matched the box office (both are $140m), so the film appears then to break even, in domestic terms. The Numbers figures would mean it didn't recoup its budget and therefore failed. I'm surprised you don't want to believe a higher figure that means this Ratner movie was a flop.

The main reason I posted this information was to show that your websites numbers are not as accurate as you think. Secondly, I don't want to believe a higher figure because it defies all logic. Ratner's cast cost significantly less than X3's. X3's effects were filled with CGI while Rush Hour 3 had none. Besides, with a budget of 140million the movie still underperformed and there won't be a sequel unless Ratner pays for it all by himself. I remember reading an article about New Line Cinema spending 50 million to promote this film. The movies a disappointment for New Line Cinema regardless of how you try to spin it.

I must say that you've have been right about one thing all along. I am biased against Ratner and I don't see what's wrong with having an agenda against Directors who've made a career out of putting together mediocre films with no replay value. Should I feel ashamed about having this bias?

What's even more interesting still is that numbers vary, partly because there are no officially published figures as far as I'm aware. So there's a lot of conjecture going on, and estimating. It makes your financial arguments less than watertight.

When have I ever said that my financial arguments were watertight? You're the one who provided the link to a website which you believed was more accurate with estimating budgets. All I have done is shown you that some of your websites budget numbers don't make much sense. Therefore, your websites budget estimating measures appear to be just as flawed as other boxoffice budget websites.

For instance, The Golden Compass cost $180m to make according to boxofficemojo but $250m according to The Numbers (which also has a marketing figure stated, so the $250m does not include marketing). The film's reported earnings also vary, with mojo putting it at $325m and The Numbers putting it at $315m.

No kidding. These numbers don't make either of our arguments any more or less valid.

I'm sure you would feel comfortable sticking to a site that appears to validate your arguments..

That's right. I'm also sure you would feel comfortable sticking to a flawed site that appears to validate your arguments.

But the fact remains that figures vary and there is no way of knowing which are accurate unless, as with SR on The Numbers, there are official quoted sources.

No kidding.

Since Vaughn spoke of leaving a $100m movie, and since someone else above says a Reuters report put the X3 cost at $160m, it seems to me that The Numbers figure of $150m ought to be pretty close.

Well, if that budget of 100million really is true then I have an even greater bias against X3. Of course I don't believe it. X2's budget was 110million. How could Fox expect to make a good X3 movie on a budget less than the previous film considering all the CGI expected to be in X3 and the increasing actor/actress salaries?

Furthermore Boxofficemojo has never been my only resource to confirm these numbers. I posted a link to darkhorizons that also confirmed these numbers for multiple summer movies that were released during the summer of 2006. Also, the link you keep on forgetting about http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002539112

which confirms the budget was 150million before Matthew left.

I'll even post the paragraph in the article that confirms it so you won't have to look for it.

"But Vaughn's departure threw a monkey wrench into a huge $150 million production that was already stretching its resources to meet its opening date. "Then suddenly, weeks of prep time were lost," she says. "It killed us. It was an extremely desirable release date. There was no way we were going to miss that date. We had to protect it by any means possible." Go off that date and "X-Men 3" would bump into the likes of such other summer releases as Singer's own "Superman Returns" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

Especially as I recall a $60m marketing figure mentioned too and that would add up to the mojo total of $210m.

What's funny about your above comment is your website states that 34mil was spent on advertising X3!!! So now it's completely obviously that even you know your own source is flawed if you don't believe the numbers from your so-called accurate website.

I don't intend to stick with either boxofficemojo or The Numbers, but to compare the two and look for official sources where possible.

Bullcrap. You said you were convinced The numbers budget numbers were more reliable. You're earlier post proves you are biased against boxofficemojo's numbers for X3.

Unlike you, I don't have an agenda and therefore feel no need to base my arguments only on information that validates my arguments.

I have no regret in admitting I have a bias against movies that are bad and directors/writers who make crap. However, I have still provided multiple sources that back up my beliefs.

I'm suprised that you can't admit that you still have a bias against people who don't like X3. You wouldn't be coming back to this thread time and time again reposting the same information that has been argued to death if you didn't have an agenda. I know this is not the first time you posted The numbers website on this forum. We've had this discussion before and similar ones like it. Funny how the discussions always seem to end the same way yet you keep reposting the same stuff.

 

[X-Maniac]

It was only recently i stumbled across The Numbers website, so unless i found it before and blanked out the whole experience, I don't believe I've posted the information before.

All of this proves nothing, ultimately. Vaughn says $100m, Shuler Donner says $150m, The Numbers says $150m, Boxofficemojo says $210m. I find it hard to believe that the budget skyrocketed from $150m to $210m after Vaughn left. Especially since Ratner more than likely condensed (and cut) things to make them time-manageable, rather than going berserk with new and expensive ideas.

Reading what Shuler Donner says in that quote, her reasoning for trying to meet the release date sounds logical and appropriate, considering the sets were built, the actors signed and other processes all moving forward. Vaughn was a dick for walking out and it's a wonder he wasn't held by contractual obligations.

I have no agenda, I have no problem with people not liking X3, but I think the reasons should make sense - and be valid and, where possible, factual.

I know where boxofficemojo got their SR estimate from, as The Numbers breaks it down in a quoted piece lower down the page, taking information from Variety. It says:

Budget Note
Bryan Singer was quoted as saying the budget for Superman Returns was $250 million in late 2004. He has since denied that figure (Entertainment Weekly, January 27, 2006). Warner Bros. has unofficially put the budget at $184 million, "factoring in tax breaks offered in Australia" (Variety, February 22, 2006 and March 27, 2006). Assuming the Australian tax break is 12%, that puts the actual production budget at $209 million, which is the figure we are using. Variety (May 22, 2006) also reports an additional $40 million in "prior pay or play deals," which brings the cost to Warner Bros of $250 million. It is possible the "official" budget for the movie will be lowered when (or even after) it is released, since the studio can spread some of the costs between this release and possible sequels.
Update: In Newsweek's July 3-10, 2006 issue, Singer says, "The approved budget was $184.5 million. We had projected overages for visual effects, and there was a sequence that I wanted that was going to cost an extra $2.3 million. So the hard, honest number is $204 million." We are taking this as the official final budget. Factoring in the tax break puts the cost at $232 million, and adding the $40 million in previous costs to the studio means that the total expense on the project was in the neighborhood of $270 million.

My argument is that you would not think when watching the movie that it cost the $270m that boxofficemojo lists, and some may not think it looked even like a $204m movie (The Numbers figure). The average cinemagoer would not be aware of previous abortive attempts at a movie and all that stuff. Which is why i said that's what's on screen is not necessarily indicative of what was spent. Especially since the $10m spent on the Krypton sequence is not visible in the movie, as that scene was cut. I didn't find the CGI in SR to be anything magnificently jaw-dropping - in fact i heard complaints about the supposedly photo-real CGI Superman looking like a plastic doll - but I'll admit I had no real problems with the FX. Nowhere near as good as Pirates though. I had no problem with the FX in X3 either for that matter. I don't think FX were the flaw in the movie.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I always wondered why Singer cut the Krypton sequence. That was one scene I wanted to see with Superman and for him to cut it really made me shake my head.

As far as the CGI is concerned in SR? I really liked the visuals and thought they were very beautiful. The shot of Superman flying to the sun in order to gain his strength back was epic, him descending into the Fortress of Solitude was straight out of the comics, and of course the Airplane sequence will go down as an amazing piece of wonderful visual effects.

Overall though I felt what was missing for me was the Krypton sequence. With the updated special effects and Singer's eye for direction I would've loved to have seen Superman's visit to Krypton.

 

[The Batman]

Of course you do. That's why you are back here again. The Hype is full of cyclical arguments, partly because new people join and make the same points and ask the same questions, partly because some people just can't let go of something. If we were all normal, we wouldn't be here in this obsessional washing machine of lather-rinse-repeat; we'd have moved on long ago. And that applies to you too!

Yes...but some people like circles more than others...hence the reason im here once in a long while i see the same people regularly making the same comments, all the while saying that thats all theyre gonna say on the subject....

 

[YJ1]

I would have to agree. But not to stir up any trouble or anything, he has or had a history of being confrontational with his views and tends to insult those who don't agree with him. I will admit that I'm guilty of those same things, but he tended to take it to another level.

I'm glad I'm remembered! I'm probably guilty as charged. I don't recall ever initiating any insults but I probably responded or over-responded in the past. I'm glad you used the word "had" if that's how I struck you. I've tried to stay on the positive path and staying AWAY from the X3 board has brought serenity to my karma.

(Now if Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are as good as I think there are and people irrationally attack them, I don't know if I can control the raging spirit that dwells within.)

Let the great budget debate continue unabated...

 

[Nightmare]

X3 cost how much to make??