Well, he hasn't gotten a thing right so far. Maybe he'll luck out with this.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Well, your "oh, wait" is technically incorrect. Warner was disappointed with SR, and it spelled the end of Singer's carrying the Donner/Lester/Reeve series into the 21st century. That's what SR was--a very late sequel.
The new Superman film is a complete reboot, like the Nolan Batman movies had nothing to do with the Burton/Schumacher series of the 80s/90s. They are treated as completely different entities, which in both cases, gave the studio a clean slate to work from.
It's not. Contradicting it requires wading into technicalities, though.
^^^
Which makes it technically incorrect. And there is a big difference between making a good enough return for a direct sequel and a return that leads the studio to put the franchise on hiatus and return years later with a reboot.
Which makes it technically incorrect. And there is a big difference between making a good enough return for a direct sequel and a return that leads the studio to put the franchise on hiatus and return years later with a reboot.
Where did he get 110 million from last week?
Don't worry, he'll have completely accurate predictions for this weekend and an acute analysis of them all - sometime Tuesday.
I believe the member he responded to could be thinking more of a series, than the umbrella term of franchise.
As a series, "Oh, wait" would be applicable when an actual series suffers a bad film, but continues despite the flop. For example, The Man with the Golden Gun was not considered up to the box office standards of most of the Connery films, but Eon continued with the same series (in that case, the hit Spy Who Loved Me).
So, if anyone suggests Superman Returns "killed" the Superman film series, they are correct, as Singer was not charting new continuity (ex. a reboot like the new Spider-Man), but producing a sequel to an existing series.
The new Superman film starts from a clean slate--like a property new to film, aside from the name recognition, so its not tied to the effects/influence of the older series.
He's using a very low internal multiplier, way too low in my opinion. Star Trek had an unusually high multiplier. It would be great if STiD could match it, but it could be tough with this weekend's competition. But a regular multiplier for a film in its second weekend on MD weekend would lead to a $41-42 million 4-day take from a $9 million Friday. Hopefully the Friday number will be adjusted up a bit.
Edit to add: RTH on the BoxOffice.com forum is saying at the moment he's expecting a Friday take of $10-11.5 million for STiD. Guru's sources were better than RTH's numbers on the opening Friday. Hopefully this time it'll be the reverse. We'll just have to wait on the studio estimate to find out.
Last edited:
I like this thread. It's exciting.
Ugh. Superman Returns. Is it a sequel? A reboot? Both?!
It made 400 Million or so worldwide. It's domestic numbers were close to that of Batman Begins. It still has a decent Rotten Tomatoes score. It looks beautiful, and Singer was respectful of the lore. I liked how Singer approached the old John Williams theme as "Star Wars" territory (how could you not have a film without it?!). (That said, I'm now ready for a new score, and like what I've heard from Hans so far!) Tracked well with female audiences.
But... Superman films were in development hell for a long while. When you consider the costs associated with pre-production of the earlier attempts (Tim Burton, JJ Abrams) and Singer's own budget, it still somehow was seen as a disappointment by the studio, instead of a respectable return and/or an investment in continuing the franchise. Batman Begins brought that film franchise back from the brink of creative and financial distress, leading to bigger/better things.
If given a sequel in 2009 or so, would Superman have done the same? Singer said he wanted to "Wrath of Khan" the sequel, with plenty of action. I'm of the mind that a sequel had the potential to reinvigorate the franchise. But perhaps the Returns story painted themselves into a a corner creatively (yes, the damn kid). In any event, it didn't happen. And we don't know the full extent the legal battles regarding copyright and ownership by the heirs of the creators had to do with this, but I'm confident it played a role.
The sad fact is that the story didn't service what needed to happen to continue. And I still have a soft spot for it (as a footnote on the Reeve films).
Yes, off track here. But trying to swing it back to Trek. Trek was dead before the Abrams film of 09. Big director, along with big money menat a big spectacle film that put Trek back into the front burners of pop culture. But will it ever be "Avengers" big? Nope.
And I liked the sequel. It's making good money so far (including the ever increasingly important foreign market) and hopefully it has legs. And like Superman Returns, it has a pretty good critical and fan response (internet boards notwithstanding!) Hopefully Paramount has appropriate expectations of what the franchise can accomplish.
While I'm aware of the fiancial results of these big films, at some point, I've begun to care less. I find it odd in myself and others that fans become "armchair bean-counters" for multi-billion dollar conglomerates who will churn out hundreds of films a year, in which quality of storytelling is not the most important aspect of the film business. Nor do I feel crestfallen if a film that I enjoy is considered by some "a flop". What does matter to me is my friends, family and peers: I enjoy sharing movies, TV and music I enjoy with people. And of course, groups of like minded "internet pals" who I may not actually know, but can see they have the same passion and can articulate what they like and dislike about. Factions and camps of "pro" this or "anti" that degrade into name calling and insults can induce a chuckle maybe, but tire quickly. Marvel vs DC! Trek vs Wars! Pepsi vs Coke! Chevy vs Ford! Liberal vs Conservative! Meh... it gets old.
I think that's why I can enjoy the Red Letter Media review for STiD but still disagree; they bring something to the table. Nothing that hasn't already been brought by the fine posters here though.
There will be a third Trek film. Hopefully for the 50th anniversary. Lessons learned on the business side may help give a kick in the pants to the creative side to satisfy the studios, the general film audience AND long-time Trek fans...
It made 400 Million or so worldwide. It's domestic numbers were close to that of Batman Begins. It still has a decent Rotten Tomatoes score. It looks beautiful, and Singer was respectful of the lore. I liked how Singer approached the old John Williams theme as "Star Wars" territory (how could you not have a film without it?!). (That said, I'm now ready for a new score, and like what I've heard from Hans so far!) Tracked well with female audiences.
But... Superman films were in development hell for a long while. When you consider the costs associated with pre-production of the earlier attempts (Tim Burton, JJ Abrams) and Singer's own budget, it still somehow was seen as a disappointment by the studio, instead of a respectable return and/or an investment in continuing the franchise. Batman Begins brought that film franchise back from the brink of creative and financial distress, leading to bigger/better things.
If given a sequel in 2009 or so, would Superman have done the same? Singer said he wanted to "Wrath of Khan" the sequel, with plenty of action. I'm of the mind that a sequel had the potential to reinvigorate the franchise. But perhaps the Returns story painted themselves into a a corner creatively (yes, the damn kid). In any event, it didn't happen. And we don't know the full extent the legal battles regarding copyright and ownership by the heirs of the creators had to do with this, but I'm confident it played a role.
The sad fact is that the story didn't service what needed to happen to continue. And I still have a soft spot for it (as a footnote on the Reeve films).
Yes, off track here. But trying to swing it back to Trek. Trek was dead before the Abrams film of 09. Big director, along with big money menat a big spectacle film that put Trek back into the front burners of pop culture. But will it ever be "Avengers" big? Nope.
And I liked the sequel. It's making good money so far (including the ever increasingly important foreign market) and hopefully it has legs. And like Superman Returns, it has a pretty good critical and fan response (internet boards notwithstanding!) Hopefully Paramount has appropriate expectations of what the franchise can accomplish.
While I'm aware of the fiancial results of these big films, at some point, I've begun to care less. I find it odd in myself and others that fans become "armchair bean-counters" for multi-billion dollar conglomerates who will churn out hundreds of films a year, in which quality of storytelling is not the most important aspect of the film business. Nor do I feel crestfallen if a film that I enjoy is considered by some "a flop". What does matter to me is my friends, family and peers: I enjoy sharing movies, TV and music I enjoy with people. And of course, groups of like minded "internet pals" who I may not actually know, but can see they have the same passion and can articulate what they like and dislike about. Factions and camps of "pro" this or "anti" that degrade into name calling and insults can induce a chuckle maybe, but tire quickly. Marvel vs DC! Trek vs Wars! Pepsi vs Coke! Chevy vs Ford! Liberal vs Conservative! Meh... it gets old.
I think that's why I can enjoy the Red Letter Media review for STiD but still disagree; they bring something to the table. Nothing that hasn't already been brought by the fine posters here though.
There will be a third Trek film. Hopefully for the 50th anniversary. Lessons learned on the business side may help give a kick in the pants to the creative side to satisfy the studios, the general film audience AND long-time Trek fans...
Last edited:
See, technicalities.
Is this a good number for STID..?
On a side note, the somewhat dissapointing gross for STID so far isn't quite as baffling to me as the popularity of those Fast and Furious films...
This is a very solid number for STiD. It's less than a 50% drop from its opening weekend. I actually think the projection is a little low and I suspect we are looking at something closer to $48 million for the 4 day holiday.
Also this number demonstrates that word of mouth is very solid as it held up extremely well against major competition. STiD should hold up very well next week too as it moves into June.
Yancy