Word from DC Entertainment: "Superman" movie not in near future

[JacksonArcher]

Actually, Singer went on record saying the film's actual production budget was $185 million, which is on par with The Dark Knight. Heck, even X-Men: The Last Stand was made for more by comparison, apparently balloning to $225 million after all was said and done.

But the Superman Returns box office debate is like Herpes: It ain't never going away.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Scott Rowe, a Senior VP at Warners, sent this email to the Superman Homepage:

"Superman is an important member of our family, but because of on-going litigation we cannot announce any concrete plans at this time. That said, at some point in the future, you're likely to see a new Superman. So... have no fear."

 

[Bad Bishop]

Scott Rowe, a Senior VP at Warners, sent this email to the Superman Homepage:

"Superman is an important member of our family, but because of on-going litigation we cannot announce any concrete plans at this time. That said, at some point in the future, you're likely to see a new Superman. So... have no fear."

It's just like you called it yesterday.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I guess I should whip out that dusty Superman spec manuscript...

 

[Captaindemotion]

Also, re: Captaindemotion. Batman Begins wasn't really a "financial disappointment". It didn't open hugely ($45 million opening weekend), but it went on to gross four times that, ending domestically with $200 million, which is pretty unheard of. Plus the film did great on DVD and like you said really scored with fans and critics.

I think I said it was 'perceived to be' a financial disappointment.

I must admit, I never got this perception myself but I think when it didn't produce quite the same box office frenzy that Burton's movie did in 1989 or that the first Spider-man movie did, some pronounced it an under-performer.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Also, re: Captaindemotion. Batman Begins wasn't really a "financial disappointment". It didn't open hugely ($45 million opening weekend), but it went on to gross four times that, ending domestically with $200 million, which is pretty unheard of. Plus the film did great on DVD and like you said really scored with fans and critics.

I think I said it was 'perceived to be' a financial disappointment.

I must admit, I never got this perception myself but I think when it didn't produce quite the same box office frenzy that Burton's movie did in 1989 or that the first Spider-man movie did, some pronounced it an under-performer.

Of course. Except Batman had the advantage of being the first dark and serious approach to the character and to some the first legitimate Hollywood production (discounting Adam West's 60's Batman: The Movie). Same as Spider-Man.

Batman Begins had the disadvantage of being the fifth Batman film after a really horrible one tanked and tarnished the character's once skyrocketing appeal, leaving the franchise in smoking ruins. So for it to do as well as it did, naturally leading to a much more successful sequel, I too don't see where the perception is that Begins was a fiscal disappointment. It may have underperformed slightly at the time but it clearly has made up for it now.

 

[RandyS]

The term "Superman" is offensive to those who are differently abled. Thus the movie they make will be called "Above Average Man."

As a disabled man (I refuse to use that moronic PC term), I would be offended by your comment if I didn't know you were joking.

 

[RandyS]

1. Over in the Batverse, Batman is currently on the run.

2. It's a given that no normal person has a chance of catching Batman.

3. The authorities call in Superman to deal with the Batproblem. Fun ensues.

I'd pay to see that.

 

[Aragorn]

The term "Superman" is offensive to those who are differently abled. Thus the movie they make will be called "Above Average Man."

As a disabled man (I refuse to use that moronic PC term), I would be offended by your comment if I didn't know you were joking.

Sorry. I didn't mean "differently abled" in the PC sense. I meant differently abled to Superman. Maybe I just should've said "mere mortals."

 

[The Comedian]

The term "Superman" is offensive to those who are differently abled. Thus the movie they make will be called "Above Average Man."

As a disabled man (I refuse to use that moronic PC term), I would be offended by your comment if I didn't know you were joking.

Sorry. I didn't mean "differently abled" in the PC sense. I meant differently abled to Superman. Maybe I just should've said "mere mortals."

As a mortal I object to the use of the term "mere".

 

[RandyS]

The term "Superman" is offensive to those who are differently abled. Thus the movie they make will be called "Above Average Man."

As a disabled man (I refuse to use that moronic PC term), I would be offended by your comment if I didn't know you were joking.

Sorry. I didn't mean "differently abled" in the PC sense. I meant differently abled to Superman. Maybe I just should've said "mere mortals."

Like I said, I wasn't really offended because I knew you were kidding.

 

[Timby]

Batman Begins wasn't really a "financial disappointment". It didn't open hugely ($45 million opening weekend), but it went on to gross four times that, ending domestically with $200 million, which is pretty unheard of.

In 2009, five movies have grossed above $200 million, 2008 had six, 2007 had eleven, 2006 had six and 2005 had eight. It's not exactly an "unheard of" threshold.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

In 2009, five movies have grossed above $200 million, 2008 had six, 2007 had eleven, 2006 had six and 2005 had eight. It's not exactly an "unheard of" threshold.

I believe Jackson Archer was referring to the fact that it's unusual for a film with the level of opening that Batman Begins had to hold up well enough to reach $200 million domestic. Most films - especially superhero films - that go over $200 million domestic do so from the launching pad of a much bigger opening.

"Unheard of" is still perhaps putting it a little too strongly - and one has to take into account that Batman Begins opened on a Wednesday, which took some of the heat out of its three-day weekend number - but, nevertheless, it had very good box office legs by the standards of superhero films.

 

[LeahBoBo]

Superman was my favorite comic book hero until Superman Returns. I didn't like anything about that movie and I hated the whole Lois Lane-love child thing most of all. If this project does manage to ever see the light of day, I hope they forget all about Superman Returns because it sucked.

 

[JacksonArcher]

In 2009, five movies have grossed above $200 million, 2008 had six, 2007 had eleven, 2006 had six and 2005 had eight. It's not exactly an "unheard of" threshold.

I believe Jackson Archer was referring to the fact that it's unusual for a film with the level of opening that Batman Begins had to hold up well enough to reach $200 million domestic. Most films - especially superhero films - that go over $200 million domestic do so from the launching pad of a much bigger opening.

"Unheard of" is still perhaps putting it a little too strongly - and one has to take into account that Batman Begins opened on a Wednesday, which took some of the heat out of its three-day weekend number - but, nevertheless, it had very good box office legs by the standards of superhero films.

I was referring to that. Thank you. I said that it was pretty unusual or unheard of because I believe I read somewhere perhaps on Box Office Mojo which postulated that.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
Yes, a 4x multiplier is unusual. For a film to go and make 4 times its OW tally is one part of the puzzle to Begins success.