Superman Reboot?

Comment on “Superman Reboot?”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. darthmoridin Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 18:48

   "Singer’s film actually cost $270 million to make, and it earned nearly $400 million at the box office. That’s a cool $130 million in profit."
   
   Not quite. You have to remember that studios typically get only 50-60% of a box office gross, as they have to share the rest with the theatres. (Studios aren't allowed to own their own theatre chains for anti-trust reasons).
   
   That also doesn't take into account the $100 million spent on the marketing. As a theatrical venture, Superman Returns was a loser. If you factor that probably $50 million of that budget was money spent in the 90s on the Nic Cage version, it lost at least $125 million, including marketing. If you include the $50, that's $175 million in the red. DVD and other TV revenue probably helped offset that, but it certainly did not make $130 profit.

1. JoshT Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 18:50

   darthmoridin, if you apply your calculations to every movie, then no movie in history has ever turned a profit. `

1. Dalton Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 18:50

   Sounds more like a guy who has his head far up his ass. Maybe he should look at the box office totals and reviews not only from critics but from audiences as well. People loved Returns, it was a great return to Superman that was good.
   
   In fact, my only problem was at moments it was little too dour. I understand the direction Bryan Singer was going for, but sometimes it was a bit much. That and Kate Bosworth, a good actress that just doesn't seem fit for Lois Lane. Parker Posey would've been a great Lois Lane herself. Switch them, and I think Singer would've done better with Lois.
   
   Still, it was a great movie no matter what and the fact that its labeled a failure is injustice. You might as well call Batman Begins a failure as well, as Begins only made just a few million more than Superman. Both properties returned to the big screen with a litany of doubts, justified by the fact the both franchises suffered their worse entries (in fact Superman IV and Batman & Robin are two of the worst comic-to-film adaptations ever).
   
   This is probably a bunch a babbling bullshit coming from the mouth of a nobody who got lucky with one film, and thinks hes some sort of fucking genius. Singer needs to stay, he put his best foot forward with Superman Returns, and like the leap of quality with X-Men and X2: X-Men United, it will only get better.

1. Cece Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 20:20

   The public loved SR? On which planet? Krypton?
   
   For any movie to be considered a success it has to make 2 and 1/2 times its budget DOMESTICALLY!!!! Now, SR cost around $200mil - without the problematic false starts - and barely made it back in 119 days. Yet "Iron Man", a much less know character made $300mil in 50 days and had $140mil budget. Now that is a success!!!!
   
   
   Btw, are you sure this is not Singer writing this post?

1. Mike Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 20:20

   It's interesting how people keep forgetting that Batman Begins had a budget of $150 million and Superman Returns had a budget of $220 million to be exact - not counting the $50 million wasted on Burton et co and the $100 million on marketing the movie.
   
   Yet Begins made back $205 million domestically and Returns just over $200. But I'm sure the WB agrees with Singer and thank him for reminding them that they were to blame for the movie's failure. After all, $100 million on marketing is not enough to promote a movie, wouldn't you agree too?

1. JoshT Says:
   July 2nd, 2008 at 20:23

   CECE SAID:For any movie to be considered a success it has to make 2 and 1/2 times its budget DOMESTICALLY!!!!
   -------------------------------
   Again, Cece, if that is true then Batman Begins and just about every movie you can think of was a failure. Batman cost $150 million to make and earned $205 million. Thus by your criteria it should be considered a flop... however it is generally considered a monster success.
   
   Mike... I really don't quite understand what you're getting at. No one said anything about Singer blaming WB for anything.

1. darthmoridin Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 00:40

   @JoshT
   
   You care to bring any facts to back up your generality? Hollywood studios famously don't make money on their blockbusters. It's called creative accounting. For instance, the original Batman had a production budget of $35 million—its marketing budget probably didn't exceed that (in those days much less was spent on marketing), and it grossed $411 million worldwide. Yet Warners to this day claims that it lost money, mostly to avoid paying executive producers that had net points deals. But that's a movie that was obviously profitable.
   
   Some movies do make money, some make a lot of money. My point was that Superman Returns, using the available figures, was not a money maker for the studio. It may not have lost $200 million as Millar is quoted, but it didn't profit anything.

1. JoshT Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 00:43

   @darthmoridin
   
   I don't have to bring any facts to back up my generality. You just did it for me.
   
   I said: "darthmoridin, if you apply your calculations to every movie, then no movie in history has ever turned a profit."
   
   and then
   
   You said: "Hollywood studios famously don't make money on their blockbusters."
   
   So you're backing me up on that. Alright then, if we're working from that premise, then you're saying that yes, Batman Begins and every other blockbuster which has gotten a sequel probably didn't make any money. So if no Hollywood blockbuster makes money, why is that fact being used against Superman Returns to justify a reboot when it's not being used against other movies to justify a reboot of them?
   
   Again, I'm not sure I buy that premise, but even working from that premise, any way you want to stack it man, rebooting Superman Returns is just plain stupid.

1. Gregory Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 01:06

   Tent poles never make money at the theater with the rare exception where its a monster hit at home and abroad. Most movies do not make money at the BO, they lose money. The theatrical run I have heard called an advertising campaign. They make there money on the back end. You will notice sometimes in financial statements in regards to movies of them saying this movie will turn a profit in three years.
   
   Take Batman Begins
   205 mil
   50-60% goes to the studio. However the studio gets the front loaded half. The theater makes more when the movie is in the theater longer as each week a larger and larger portion goes to them. So something like BB may have given the theaters half the 205 mil.
   Add in advertising which was not huge but still alot and say its 50 mil
   
   So the studio has spent 255 mil and made 105 mil back at the theaters meaning on the domestic run they lost probably 150 mil. Sounds like a lot. Its not.
   
   Now you start adding in the international BO, Airlines, DVD's, Pay-Per-View, Cable, TV rights, Toys, Customes, books, bedding, underwear, advertises wanting to tag on, etc. and of course completely revitalizing a franchise which reaches out into cartoons, comics, and an entire Brand Identity and Industry. Make no mistake Batman is a Brand Industry for Time-Warner.
   
   This is where the money is made and why franchise is everything to a studio. Franchises are a Brand. Batman is a brand in all its incarnations and its number one form of advertising is the movie. In its most cynical sense its a 2 hour commercial. Pirates of the Carribean is now a brand. A one off movie will only sell so much however a franchise will generate massive profits for years even decades like Star Wars. Its estimated that the star wars toys had sold 3 billion dollars worth and this was back in 1999 before the new ones came out. That was more then double the theatrical run of the three movies combined.
   
   Movies make money. However they do not make it where you think they make it. Because people are unaware of how it all really works its easy for a studio to cry poor. However if they were poor they would not be in business.

1. Kris Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 12:17

   Basically the way it works is this, if they can make back most of the budget (including marketing) at the BO, meaning if a total movie cost $200mil to make and it made $200mil at the BO, then the movie will make a profit. This is because everything else AFTER this is pure progit. For instance once the overseas rights are sold, usually for several million dollars , bang- Big money. Plus you have mechandising, marketing tie-ins, and most improtantly, DVD sales (In fact im willing to bet DVD sales on Batman Begins were at least TRIPLE what Superman Returns were- this is very important.)

1. Aaron Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 12:17

   Millar is an idiot.
   
   He actually took his script to WB before the SR was made and they turned him down because they didn't want to go in that direction. He's a crackpot that has really convinced himself that he is going to be making a superman movie.
   
   And for all the idiots that think SR didn't make any money, you’re wrong. It's that simple. If a movie makes more than what it spent then it made a profit. You have to remember the budget of a movie includes everything in it. From the effects to the salaries of everyone involved. And everything else it takes to make it. And trying to say that the only way a movie is a hit is it has to make double what it spent then like Josh said that would mean almost every movie made would have been a flop. Movies very rarely make that much.
   
   Also, as much time and money that WB has put into Superman trying to get it started and all of the directors and actors they have went thru to get to something that they liked I don't think they would just give up and start all over again and blow more of there millions when they have a direction that has already produced a profit and it's sequel will as well.
   

1. nicole Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 12:17

   forget the superman reboot and focus on the superman returns sequel. Just include more action and more fighting. Introduce Doomsday, Brainic, Bizzaro these are the characters that will make the movie a smash hit

1. Denny Dango Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 12:47

   Millar is just projecting his desperate hopes, nothing more. SR was a unique superhero experience, sacrificing mass action for a deep storyline. Is it any wonder the scene at the end when he states Jor-El's final words to Jason is ranked in the top ten best comic movie moments everywhere? Singer is no fool and will go all out to produce what the fans want in MOS. Just look at X-2.

1. Nightwing83 Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 17:11

   SUPERMAN RETURNS was a disgrace to the character, but also, this article is bunk. First-off, HULK and BATMAN & ROBIN also made a profit of over $100-million. And yet, somehow, those were followed up by movies that were meant to establish a new continuity.
   
   Second, SUPERMAN RETURNS did NOT make as much as BATMAN BEGINS in the domestic box office. It made $5-million less. Insignificant? Perhaps, until you fact or in how much MORE SR cost than BB. $270-million? And most people argue that it cost more like $209-million and that the rest was on development for other incarnations of the project. It sure doesn't seem like it.
   
   The article is also pretty pessimistic about INCREDIBLE HULK. Y'know, even though it's only in its third week at the box office. I could be anecdotal and mention that everyone seems to like it, even people who don't read comics.
   
   Even if INCREDIBLE HULK does poorly, however, that wouldn't mean a Superman reboot would, although it's a possibility that it would discourage WB from making it. That's a shame.
   
   Also, if you wanna talk about THE INCREDIBLE HULK performing sluggishly, look at SUPERMAN RETURNS after about the fourth week. It fell off--and hard. Of all the films of the '00s, it was the slowest one to reach $200-million. The only one that took less time within this decade (I repeat: within this decade) was MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING: a romantic comedy, that was re-released after winning Oscars. SUPERMAN RETURNS seems to have been kept on a financial respirator by Singer Puppets, and the baby boomers who thought Routh was a wimp compared to George Reeves, weren't impressed by how much he SUPPOSEDLY looked like Christopher Reeve, and who wanted to wait until it came out on DVD.
   
   There has never, EVER, been a time when a film series needed to be "reboot"ed as much as this. BATMAN & ROBIN and HULK may not have been great films, but they didn't screw up their characters as much as this! By giving Superman a love-child, casting him with someone whose only contribution to the role is SUPPOSEDLY looking so much like another actor in the role, and with a horrible script and snobby fanbase; it's time to start over.
   
   What's hilarious is that the solution they keep throwing around is, "more action." As if that's the point. "More action," even though their line is, "it's a smart film, it's not just a bunch of action."
   
   Maybe the reason it faired so underwhelmingly is that people didn't like a film that's advertised as having a protagonist we're all supposed to look up to; then having him turn out to be the baby daddy.

1. Nightwing83 Says:
   July 3rd, 2008 at 17:11

   
   
   There was nothing "deep" about it. In fact, it was extremely shallow in the way it handled the concept of him finding out he had a son. I think the "desperate" people are the ones who have to condescend to people who hated this movie by saying, "uh, they just want action." No. We just want FIDELITY.
   
   
   
   Where is it ranked there? Because I think it was one of the worst. It's "no wonder," because people who make lists like that are suckers for FAKE emotion. I mean, to people like that, "I'm always around," probably establishes that they have this incredible "bond," but it's not even as strong a bond as a regular father and son have!
   
   And it's a disgrace. He shouldn't have had a son to say that to. This movie had no idea what it was saying when they decided he should be the father.
   
   
   
   It's too late. He's turned Superman into an example of something he should never have been. As such, there is no way he can make a satisfying sequel to this rat-infested movie.
   
   If you're impressed by the movie for PRETENDING to be "deep" just because it had "characterization," well, that's not enough for me. It was BAD characterization. It was SELF-CONTRADICTORY characterization. Even superhero films that were ultimately generic action films had better characterization, because it was usually somewhat consistent.
   
   This film was a disgrace to what Superman is supposed to be.

1. Rich Says:
   August 26th, 2008 at 20:44

   I agree w/ you on this, Chief. Everyone seems to miss the point on "Superman Returns". That film was in the red BEFORE Bryan Singer even touched the script! As for the release itself, it was far from a flop, but unfortunately, executives are seeing things through greedy lenses after "Dark Knight" took such a huge haul of dough (money). But the year of 2006 I saw more Superman merchandise sold and on the streets than I have ever seen for any charatcer! T-shirts, stickers, backpacks, etc. Clearly the release of SR had an impact in reviving the heroes trademark logo and comic-related merchandise. Let's not forget the money made on DVD sales, IMAX box office, etc.
   
   While SR's script had many inherent flaws, Bryan Singer should at least be given credit for taking the character and movie out of development hell and actually getting a film made. It's not fair to brand SR a disappointment when "Batman Begins" was also about reintroducing and rebuilding the franchise, as well. I'm sure if given the opportunity, Singer & Routh could deliver a really kick-ass sequel and address the problems of SR to most fan's satisfaction. Imagine if X-Men were rebooted after the first film! We'd never have X2 to cheer about!
   
   Furthermore, with no disrespect intended towards anyone, I must also say I not impressed by any "flavor of the month" writer (or writers) trying to push a reinvention of Superman to satisfy their own ego-trip. I personally will stay away from reboot because it is simply NOT necessary and just TOO SOON. "The Incredible Hulk" was a reboot as everyone knows, and it was no bigger at the box office than Ang Lee's "Hulk"! I am a Superman fan, through-and-through (comics, TV series, old serials, etc.), but it's too much to reboot a character just to satisfy the whims & desires of the moment when clearly a SR sequel could be such a great film, if given the chance.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)