replace talia with zod, batman with kal-el, Gordon's son with an entire family.. superman did in one movie what batman needed to do in two.. plus, there was a sonic boom.. A SONIC BOOM!!
I never said or claimed general audiences like SR, just well recieved by critics and non fans. you seem to have a reading comprehension problem
i'm not arguing how much MOS is making, it's a good flick. your statement that money alone determines a sequel is wrong when SR doubled it's money. WB has flat out stated that they just didn't like the direction, though they felt the film did good financially, they felt the film should have made more due to the brand attached to it. i even posted links for you and now WB and singer are liars according to you.
the extra 70 million you guys keep including are marketing costs which ARE NOT apart of making the movie and have nothing to do with singer making his movie.
150 million is close to 204 million when you're talking in millions. 400 million (SR) is very close to 375 million (BB). both movies grossed close to the same amounts so that lends credit to WB stating they just didn't like what was being done with the superman property.
You may not like it but SR still has a high approval rating among critics. going off your philosophy BB didn't warrant a sequel either.
for the record i think SR is a horrible movie and didn't deserve a sequel.
__________________
"I don't give them hell, I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
Last edited by jedi90 on Jul 9th, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Superman Returns actually made 391 million with a 204 million budget. I remember the movie peaked at 185 million and it took from June to October to crack 200 million domestically. WB wanted to see if the movie sold well on DVD to warrant a sequel and it sold over 81 million. It eventually double it's budget, but profits overall were luke warm.
It's not just profit that determine if a movie will get a sequel. It also depend if the franchise has a future. With Superman Returns, WB really didn't plan for the future.
the articles i read said 400, that's not a huge difference but for darth to say BB and SR were not close in gross is wrong or that profits alone determine a sequel when that's obviously not the case.
__________________
"I don't give them hell, I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
No, that people would choose something that is generally a strength to complain about, especially in light of the fact that they changed a pretty noticeable part of the story.
People talk about Watchmen as being a seminal work (and while I don't agree, I can see why they would say so), but sticking too close to it is apparently a bad thing? I don't really get that, I suppose.
Though it's not so much relevant to this discussion as a whole, anyway. This a new take on Superman that follows the more modern comics than the older, pre crisis ones.
ah i see. speaking for myself, i was referring to the dialogue and pacing of the film. some alot of scenes needed more dialogue and come off as just thrown in the film. The scenes where they stayed true but also expanded played off better.
MOS has it flaws but is on the right track.
__________________
"I don't give them hell, I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell."
I have no problem except your constant lies and trolling. If "non-fans" like the movie it would have been a big success.
As it was very few fans and non-fans enjoyed the movie.
Because it hardly made anything after marketing and distribution costs.
Not exactly worth spending another 200mill for a sequel.
And your constant lying about it doubling it's money is getting tiring.
Clearly you need lessons in PR. Singer got flat out fired. Action speaks louder than Singer's desperate words trying to save his reputation.
BB went way past doubling it's budget. SR did not even double it's budget. Not to mention SR spent more on marketing and STILL couldn't double it's own budget.
DC's biggest icon, and former superhero star on the big screen, having his first film in 20 years and not even making Half a Billion WW? And could not even double it's budget? Just face it SR was a HUGE Disappointment and was rightfully considered a failure.
Whilst BB was a decent success, considering the Batman franchise was going down the toilet at the time, yet went way past doubling it's budget.
Singer has explained himself "since then" why his movie didn't work. The guy admits now his Superman was a failure, so stop defending that ass.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Jul 9th, 2013 at 08:27 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 8th, 2013 10:46 PM
