Production budget was NOT $270 million. The $70 million was a mixture of the cost from the failed attempts and the marketing expenses. The production budget was $200 million, so the film basically made even.
Brandon Routh may return to Superman after all
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
^^^^But "breaking even" doesnt cut it in today's Hollywood. And it finally made it to that 200 mil mark at the beginning od October. Long after other films that same summer came and went with 300 mil, more or less. WB knew it had a turd on its hands, which is why they left it out as long as they did.
I can't say wether Routh would make a good Superman or not because he wasn't given enough to do, in my opinion. I hope in the reboot, it would be different. Not balls to the walls action like so many Singer apologists seem to think the critics of SR wanted. But something in the vein of the calssic storyline "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, And The American Way" Or even have whoever's going to make it take a page out of Morrison and Quitely's All Star Superman. Those are best Superman stories I've read in a long time. And nary an annoying superkid in sight.
I can't say wether Routh would make a good Superman or not because he wasn't given enough to do, in my opinion. I hope in the reboot, it would be different. Not balls to the walls action like so many Singer apologists seem to think the critics of SR wanted. But something in the vein of the calssic storyline "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, And The American Way" Or even have whoever's going to make it take a page out of Morrison and Quitely's All Star Superman. Those are best Superman stories I've read in a long time. And nary an annoying superkid in sight.
I'm not saying it does. I'm just making sure no one has incorrect information or is spouting incorrect information. Also, no film in the Top Ten of 2006 made $300 million -- Superman Returns was at #6 with $200 million, and then others finished out with anything ranging from $217-250 million (Dead Man's Chest was the only film of 2006 to make anything beyond that, with $423 million).
Doesn't that mean that one 2006 top ten film did make more than 300 million?
Yeah, one film did. One film.
Like I said, conjecture. You don't have any hard numbers or even all the numbers. None of us here do.
The numbers puts SR's ad budget at around 40 million. They also say that in addition to its 190 million dollar international haul it made an additional 80 million on DVD, 60 million in merchandising, and 17-25 million in Cable TV rights. Still, who knows how accurate these figures are? My point is that none of us know how profitable or unprofitable SR's was. What I believe is clear, is that it didn't live up to Warners' financial expectations.
I agree, he did disappoint WB, never argued that point. As to disappointing the fans, I think we're pretty divided on that. A lot of folks really liked Returns, a lot of folks hate it. I don't feel he disappointed me.
Concerning Singer's return and whether or not he'll get another film with a budget larger than 100 million, that's once again conjecture on your part and irrelevant to the discussion. That said, Valkyrie is reported to have a budget of at least that much, where his career goes from here we'll have to wait and see, but I dare say a lot of studios in Hollywood would be happy to hire a director of Singer's technical and artistic ability.
I never disagreed on that point.
I never said Superman Returns was successful, I believe Warner's was disappointed with its take. What I said is that we don't have enough information to determine how badly or not so badly SR's pefrormed against its budget, we can only theorise.
Additionally, you should perhaps realise that just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's of dubious quality. I dislike Smallville with every fiber of my being but still watch it every week.
As a side note, I really don't understand why this board almost always completely overlooks international gross. In quite a few instances a films international gross outweighs its US domestic take.
Believe me, I do realize things I don't like may be quality work to other people's senses. Take Firefly or any other work by Whedon for example. I can't stand his stuff. But a lot of people like it, including some close friends of mine. I just chalk it up to different people and different tastes. I don't go around saying it sucks, mainly because I don't really know the subject matter or understand it's appeal. A totally different matter when it comes to Superman. With Superman, I do consider myself an authority on his history and mass appeal by virtue of being a fan of the character for as long as I can remember (over 40 years). As well as having done extensive research on his history and creation. Add into that mix an understanding of sales and marketing (my career), and I think I have a fairly good idea what it will take to sell this character.
And to try to answer your side note question, we ignore it because the studios also ignore it by and large to determine if a film is successful. When you start talking about what a movie makes outside of the US, you start having to deal with costs for international distribution (often not the same as the studio that made the film), language translations, and advertising in those markets. All those things eat into the profit margins. And when the studio execs look at the larger picture, they have a consistent guideline that if a film is successful domestically, it will be so internationally. And well as the converse, if a film fails domestically it is unlikely to succeed overseas. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule. But if something holds true 90% of the time, then it becomes an easy short-hand way of guesstimating what a film will do outside of the US.
*Pounds keyboard*
Dagman, I'd taken quite a while to draft a response, sadly the intertubes ate my homework and frankly I'm too lazy to start over.
Suffice to say I respect your opinion and agree on certain points. Good to have a level headed conversation once in a while rather than just bash heads repeatedly.
Dagman, I'd taken quite a while to draft a response, sadly the intertubes ate my homework and frankly I'm too lazy to start over.
Suffice to say I respect your opinion and agree on certain points. Good to have a level headed conversation once in a while rather than just bash heads repeatedly.
And Singer vehemently and strongly denied the Jim Caveizel rumors. Those were initiated by Mark Millar, who erroneously misled many by proclaiming that without a doubt Caviezel was cast as the new Superman.
Yeah, like that provided to be at all true.
Millar's still going, by the way. In recent months, he's claimed to be involved with the storyline for an upcoming Superman film that would reboot the franchise and be the first of a trilogy of movies. All 100% untrue.
I kind of like it from the waist up....not so much from the waist down though
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Two things:
1) The kid is okay, and a hell of a lot better than 'the clone who becomes a cousin of Superman' Connor Kent.
2) Lex was not goofy, but pretty sly and dry with his wit, as well as somewhat deadly serious, and looking to kill Superman. If he were as goofy as in the first movie, he never would have stabbed Superman with a shard of Kryptonite and thrown his body off into the sea. Some 'easy defeat'.
Well, of course Superman has to have a riddler moment, as some people call it. (That's a moment when a hero does something really reckless or stupid, allowing a lame villain to defeat him temporarily)
Superman could've lifted the little island thing into space to begin with, but he needed to have at least one scene with the bad guy, so first he flies over to Lex and stands there until he is completely depowered. Fortunately Lex went to the same Evil School that Dr. Evil did. Never actually kill your opponent.
The threat was pretty poor, Supes foils Lex's plan even under direct kryptonite exposure. Then again, any threat is poor if Superman can just go back in time whenever he screws up.
Say...
Supes should just go back in time five years! Reboot within continuity!
Superman could've lifted the little island thing into space to begin with, but he needed to have at least one scene with the bad guy, so first he flies over to Lex and stands there until he is completely depowered. Fortunately Lex went to the same Evil School that Dr. Evil did. Never actually kill your opponent.
The threat was pretty poor, Supes foils Lex's plan even under direct kryptonite exposure. Then again, any threat is poor if Superman can just go back in time whenever he screws up.
Say...
Supes should just go back in time five years! Reboot within continuity!
I like it!
