SUPERMAN Movie Franchise...Likely Dead Again

[Paul MacLean]

Well, if he thinks the Krypton scene should be seen on the big screen, why did he shoot in a crappy digital system which looks like a muddy cable TV show with all the colour drained out of it? It even looks low quality on the TV clips!

And on top of that it is only a ONE-CHIP camera!

Ok, I'm sure its color reproduction is better than a low-end Sony Handycam, but to behold the drab, desaturated look of the film, one wonders if this "revolutionary" new camera is not partly to blame. And I wonder if the conspicuous absebnse of reds -- noticeably in Superman's outfit -- was due to the fact this camera might not handle them well.

All I know is that everything I've shot with my $1200 3-chip Panasonic camcorder looks better than anything in Superman Returns!


Paul

[romanD]

oh my.. i finally saw it and being friends with John Ottman I rather don't write much about it (never know whether he stumbles upon this). He is very busy right now, so I can't talk to him about it, though Im very curious what he has to say about many things I noticed.
Well, overall I guess Im not a good judge, as I never liked Superman, neither the 70ies movies, nor even Williams' music.
Overall this movie won't change it... the script didnt work for me at all, the characters acting and reacting in ways I just didnt understand (the sonthing...hello???), it definitely lacks humour, especially when my fav. actress Parker Posey can't make me laugh, but just feels wrongly directed or not directed at all... welll, I guess then I'd say something doesn't work.
Liked the music throughout, the editing was very good as it never was this rapid-fire editing you get way too often...

the camerawork was horrible, the FX ok, but why had Supi to be CGI almost all the time? The brides in Van Hlesing looked much better and had their real faces on them!!!

The audience seem to hate it, as the guy next to me wrote like 5 text messages during the movie... my friends and I yawned many times...

I would be surprised if they do a sequel and if so, that it makes more money...

this was really all you could do wrong in a summer blockbuster. Am very disappointed...

oh and the cast sucked... was unbeliavble from the get go, was bland and couldn't act... what were they thinking?
And just a minor thing... Lois is this world-renowned reporter? She must be very intelligent to write pulitzer-winning things and thenher password to her probably top secret-files-containing computer is SUPERMAN???? How ridiculous is that! Please...

oh my...

[Carlson2005]

I can see where Warners are coming from with talk of a sequel, particularly if you write off the $50m they blew on development. With the merchandising, DVDs and TV, this will break even and there's no reason for future films to cost as much - they will, of course, but there's no real reason. However, I think they're going to have to have a major Hulk-style rethink: this can be a viable franchise in the future, but it needs a better look, better casting, better photography (film next time) and a better story that doesn't sound like it came from Days of Our Lives.

Frankly, even if it weren't shot on crummy video, there's been nothing about this film to make me give it a chance in a theater - the ad campaign has been dull, the TV clips look terrible and the word of mouth from everyone I know in the real world who's seen it has been blah. In 1978, Superman was a big deal, but in 2006 it's a big "So what?"

But then, looking at what's being released this summer and what's lined up for the next few months, there's virtually nothing I genuinely want to see this year. For all the doom-and-gloom spread last year about box-office, this has been a far more disastrous year for movies.

[romanD]

well, at least x3 was great, POTC 2 was fantastic, you get Descent soon, which is the best horror movie in years, I think this year fares a bit better than last year...MI3 was forgettable, but at least not as bad as part 2... still made lot less money than that... hm...

[Carlson2005]

Nah, we already had The Descent here last year, and when it still had the proper ending. Apart from Casino Royale and, maybe, Warrior King, there's pretty much nothing that seems vaguely watchable coming out in the UK until January.

[AndyDursin]

I can see where Warners are coming from with talk of a sequel, particularly if you write off the $50m they blew on development. With the merchandising, DVDs and TV, this will break even and there's no reason for future films to cost as much - they will, of course, but there's no real reason. However, I think they're going to have to have a major Hulk-style rethink: this can be a viable franchise in the future, but it needs a better look, better casting, better photography (film next time) and a better story that doesn't sound like it came from Days of Our Lives.

I totally agree there's room for SUPERMAN in this world -- just not the version Singer opted to go with.

As it is, it might just about break $200 million domestically, but for what they spent on it, who knows if it'll be worth another installment (I hope not). I agree on the HULK "restart" idea though, as well. Marvel is smart to go that route and not do a continuation of the Ang Lee concept, which I enjoyed but certainly didn't feel it was part of the "Hulk" universe proper.

[romanD]

but doing like 3 years later a re-do of a movie version... well, that's a sure bomb. People didn't go to HULK not because of the script or the style (which I really really loved and found amazing and new), but just because the whole HULK idea is very silly. Not every comic book needs a movie and certainly a second attempt at one right after the first bomb looks like suicide to me.

This sounds even more like creative dead in Hollywood. Now they can't come up with any own ideas or remakes anymore, so they do the same movie again every year?

[AndyDursin]

but doing like 3 years later a re-do of a movie version... well, that's a sure bomb. People didn't go to HULK not because of the script or the style (which I really really loved and found amazing and new), but just because the whole HULK idea is very silly. Not every comic book needs a movie and certainly a second attempt at one right after the first bomb looks like suicide to me.

This sounds even more like creative dead in Hollywood. Now they can't come up with any own ideas or remakes anymore, so they do the same movie again every year?

That's a fair point Roman, but I think the HULK is as viable and popular a comic book character over here as there is. I did think Lee's movie was interesting but it certainly didn't appeal to kids and kids are a built-in appeal of the Hulk (once upon a time comic books were actually aimed at them, too!

I don't blame Universal for "restarting" the franchise there, but after seeing Lee's movie and now what Singer did with Superman, it does make you appreciate the respect that Raimi and Sony brought to SPIDER-MAN and also raise the question of WHY these filmmakers want to tinker with these characters. If you want to make a Hulk movie, what's wrong with making a real Hulk movie? Same with Superman -- what exactly did the "touchy feely" aspects Singer brought, and the totally unnecessary element of his child in particular, do for the character? If you don't have that aspect of reverence and respect, it kills franchises!

[romanD]

true true... I never liked SPIDERMAN either but I can say that it is done much better and truer to the source.

Dont know anything about HULK, just loved the style of the movie and at least that was very comicbook like...

[romanD]

finally we had a press showing in Germany and all my friends hated it. They were either Supi Fans or Singer-Fans and both sides agreed that it was awfully free of humor, excitement, soul, good effects, hated the actors, story... everything... they had high hopes after the Xmen movies by Singer, and were really shocked how bad this movie turned out.

not a good sign for the BO in Germany... very curious how it will do over here...

[AndyDursin]

So far the movie has taken in $337 million TOTAL between U.S. and foreign markets...just a shade ahead of what FANTASTIC FOUR (a film that cost less than half as much) did between all of those markets.

That, definitely, is a huge disappointment considering expectations and the budget.

As a point of reference (from Boxofficemojo.com):

Combined Domestic & International Grosses:

SPIDER-MAN: $821 million
SPIDER-MAN 2: $783 million
X-MEN 3: $440 million (so far)
X-MEN 2: $407 million
BATMAN BEGINS: $371 million
SUPERMAN RETURNS: $337 million
FANTASTIC FOUR: $330 million

[mkaroly]

Someone told me that he heard that Singer has gottent he okay to make a second installment, due out in 2009....and the villain is rumored to be possibly Braniac. Can anyone confirm that??

Looks like if these rumors are true, Superman isn't dead. But I have to be honest- I am more excited about the prospects of the BATMAN sequel than a SUPERMAN sequel.

[AndyDursin]

Someone told me that he heard that Singer has gottent he okay to make a second installment, due out in 2009....and the villain is rumored to be possibly Braniac. Can anyone confirm that??

Looks like if these rumors are true, Superman isn't dead. But I have to be honest- I am more excited about the prospects of the BATMAN sequel than a SUPERMAN sequel.

I get the impression they may have to tally DVD sales before its official, but if it IS official, I'm guessing the budget will be dropped. I'll be shocked if the majority of Superman fans go crazy for the direction the story is going in, but we'll see if Singer gets a chance to continue what he started. The failure to exceed $200 million domestically and fairly tepid international numbers -- on top of huge marketing campaigns that must have cost a pretty penny -- is not a good sign.

Right now I'm more excited about GHOST RIDER than any Superman sequel!

[Carlson2005]

Superhero movies don't travel that well - where most movies will do around 65% of their total overseas, with superhero films it's usually nearer 35% or 50% at best. That's probably why Warners have put so much emphasis on the domestic gross of $200m as their point for a okaying sequel. But I do get the feeling they're regarding SR as a loss leader to start a franchise which will cost less in future (after all, some basic costs are already covered, like construction, etc, while that wasted $50m of development costs shouldn't be repeated - or at least not on that scale) - as long as they don't lose anything, they may well go ahead with a sequel, although I think Singer's involvement looks more tenuous.

[AndyDursin]

Here's a good article on where the sequel is at. BTW, the last time someone promised a WRATH OF KHAN, we got STAR TREK: NEMESIS instead!

One problem with the rationale being floated that a sequel would do better business (a la Austin Powers and X-Men): that assumes audiences LIKE the idea of a sequel in the first place. Given the lukewarm reaction Singer received from comic book types at Comic Con to this movie, I think that's a clear indication he's more excited about making another Superman than most of us. We'll see!

WB mulls 'Superman' redux
Word is studio trying to lock down a Singer for a sequel

By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
Will "Superman Returns" return?

Warner Bros. Pictures execs are mulling whether to go ahead with a planned sequel and ink another deal with director Bryan Singer.

The film is not such a blockbuster that a follow-up is inevitable -- but not such a disappointment that a sequel would be ludicrous. After all, the first "Austin Powers" pic was a modest hit that begat two huge grossers.

Word on the Warners lot is that the studio is trying to lock down a deal with Singer for a sequel.

Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What's more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries and merchandising -- even subsid DC Comics.

Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures have a shot at breaking even on "Superman" once all the revenue streams are accounted for, but it's going to be a long, tough haul.

Warners and Legendary -- which splits all profits with the studio down the middle -- are counting on strong home entertainment sales to make up for slower-than-expected box office. (WB's 2005 "Batman Begins," whose B.O. was comparable to that of "Superman," earned $167 million in DVD sales, according to estimates by Variety sister pub Video Business.) Then there are the various TV windows.

There's no doubt that with Legendary as a partner, Warners has a far easier time justifying big-budget efforts like "Superman." At the same time, Legendary has investors to answer to.

Officially, Warners says it's premature to talk about any sequel, since "Superman" has yet to open in certain key international territories.

Last month at the fanboy gathering Comic-Con in San Diego, Singer enthusiastically predicted the second film would bow in 2009. He promised fans more action, saying he used the first pic to "lay the foundation" for the relaunch of the franchise.

Singer said he'll "go all 'Wrath of Kahn' " on the next installment -- a reference to the fact that Paramount's long-running "Star Trek" film franchise really kicked in with its second installment, which was tighter, faster and better received than the original "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

Negotiations between Singer and the studio would get delicate if Warners wants to include over-budget penalties. Warners certainly can't wrest control away from a director like Singer, but it can try to make sure the budget stays under a certain level.

Word is that WB and Legendary will want to keep the budget of the next one at $200 million or below, but the studio denies any such cap.

Sequels are generally costlier than the original pics, since they need more action and more special effects to tempt auds. In theory, a "Superman" follow-up could be cheaper, since expensive sets are already built, and some CGI experimentation is out of the way (e.g., how does his cape look when he flies?).

On the other hand, Universal threw in the towel with the Hulk after the first pic in the potential franchise failed to wow.

But is the character too retro? While "Superman Returns" received better notices than nearly all of the other 2006 summer tentpoles, some reviewers questioned whether the superhero is too stolid for modern-day fans, who favor darker, more complicated characters, such as Batman or Spider-Man.

Warners had believed that Superman, because of his good-beats-evil mythology, would appeal to a broader audience than Batman.

WB's "Batman Begins" grossed $203.5 million domestically and $166.5 million overseas. "Superman Returns" could edge past its predecessor. It has grossed $190.5 million in the U.S. and $146.5 million overseas, where it has yet to open in several key territories. Conservative estimates are that the pic will gross at least $170 million overseas, bringing its worldwide total to about $360 million.

But "Superman" was far more expensive than "Batman," whose sequel, "The Dark Knight," was just announced by Warners. Pricetag for "Superman" included a production budget of at least $223 million, offset by $20 million in Australian tax breaks. The P&A budget was well north of $100 million.

There is an added $40 million in previous development costs for earlier aborted attempts to resurrect the superhero. The studio wrote off those costs in previous years.

Top studio execs, along with Legendary, insist they will make money on the pic when all is said and done.

But some have speculated that -- based on box office alone and just counting the production budget -- Warners and Legendary could each be out more than $20 million. Those losses could rise sharply when factoring in marketing costs.

Strong DVD sales could lessen the gap. In it deal with Legendary, Warners also gets a theatrical and home entertainment distribution fee.

In "Superman Returns," the question is posed: Does the world still need Superman?

The answer isn't clear, at least in the real world. But the world -- along with Warners, Legendary and Singer -- may have another chance to find out.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111794 ... an+returns