Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
lolz... well since he was trying to stop Talia so he had no choice and Batman was saving Gordan's son
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!! 😱
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Even if I was to believe a word Singer said when he was trying to save his reputation, it still didn't even double it's production cost. And that's without taking into account marketing costs.MOS on the other hand is on it's way to tripling it's budget cost, and made up marketing costs through sponsors.
So you have a very strange definiton of "being close in budget and gross."
Also your claiming that the general audience liked Superman Returns is frankly laughable. If they enjoyed it they would have watched it more and recommended everyone else to go watch it. It's not like Superman is some unknown name.
And of course Profit dictates sequel potential. Trying to argue otherwise is just trolling.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I recall, one of the biggest critiques of Watchmen (which was a great movie, despite the flaws (overuse of slowmo, ridiculous Synder violence)) was that it was "too faithful" to the source material.
lol. Damn, that's the height of stupidity, unless they were picking actual negatives from the books that got brought over.
I mean, was changing the ending of the thing not enough for them?
Originally posted by jedi90
READING IS FUNDAMENTALthe 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.
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.
Originally posted by Femi32
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.
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.
Originally posted by jedi90
the fact that it stayed too close to it's source?
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.
Originally posted by -Pr-
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.
Originally posted by jedi90
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.
Ah okay.
Agreed. I'm looking forward to a sequel, which I'm guessing is all but certain at this point.
Originally posted by Femi32
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.
also, this is the article i referring to earlier in regards to the 400 million.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22165
singer says:
That movie made $400 million!" Singer says incredulously. "I don’t know what constitutes under-performing these days..
either way 400 or 391, still close.
Originally posted by -Pr-
If he hadn't wasted what massive budget he'd been given on making a love letter to Donner, maybe we would have gotten a sequel.Man, being an X-Men AND Superman fan, I ****ing despise Singer sometimes.
you would have gotten another emasculated superman movie.
WB knew they had to do the opposite of SR in every way while making MOS. I knew when they hired snyder there would be a ton of anime/DBZ style fights.
Originally posted by jedi90
you would have gotten another emasculated superman movie.WB knew they had to do the opposite of SR in every way while making MOS. I knew when they hired snyder there would be a ton of anime/DBZ style fights.
I dunno, he did say it was going to be all Wrath of Khan and such. I might dislike Singer, but that sounded awesome.
I don't watch anime really, though I was happy with the fights. They came across as how I would imagine Superman actually fighting in his early days.
Originally posted by jedi90
also, this is the article i referring to earlier in regards to the 400 million.http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22165
singer says:
either way 400 or 391, still close.
Box Office Mojo has the exact numbers at $391 million.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm
Originally posted by jedi90
READING IS FUNDAMENTALI 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 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.
Originally posted by jedi90
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.
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.
Originally posted by jedi90
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.
Clearly you need lessons in PR. Singer got flat out fired. Action speaks louder than Singer's desperate words trying to save his reputation.
Originally posted by jedi90
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.
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.
Originally posted by jedi90
also, this is the article i referring to earlier in regards to the 400 million.http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22165
singer says:
either way 400 or 391, still close.
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.