Originally posted by Robtard
Returns cost 270mil in 2006; that's about 306mil in 2012 adjusted for inflation.
Actually it's "about" 306.32mill when adjusted 😛
But seriously where did all that money go on Returns? Only Singer could pull off a budget that big without having a single fight in the movie.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERYou also got to remember high end Special effects probably cost more in 2006 than it did today.
Actually it's "about" 306.32mill when adjusted 😛But seriously where did all that money go on Returns? Only Singer could pull off a budget that big without having a single fight in the movie.
So think about all the stuff in there like the Gatling gun, bullet eye scene. The island lifting feat. The yacht lifting scene. The Superman saving the city from the flood scene and you can start to see how it all adds up.
Originally posted by Robtard
Reading up on Returns, that 270mil didn't factor in marketing cost, so all in all Returns barely broke even and why it's considered a flop.
Yep.
Originally posted by Newjak
You also got to remember high end Special effects probably cost more in 2006 than it did today.So think about all the stuff in there like the Gatling gun, bullet eye scene. The island lifting feat. The yacht lifting scene. The Superman saving the city from the flood scene and you can start to see how it all adds up.
I also remember a lot of money was spent on bringing back Marlon Brando's voice.
It was all money wasted Imo. Spend half the amount on having Superman fight other Kryptonians and you get entertainment from the budget.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Actually it's "about" 306.32mill when adjusted 😛But seriously where did all that money go on Returns? Only Singer could pull off a budget that big without having a single fight in the movie.
To be fair it wasn't all Singer. Some of the budget money was wasted on other directors attempts to create a Superman film.
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah I heard that to.What a waste.
Heh, I think it was worth it. After all, it's the best part of the movie.
Originally posted by ares834Which imo is sad that you can say that not be wrong.
To be fair it wasn't all Singer. Some of the budget money was wasted on other directors attempts to create a Superman film.Heh, I think it was worth it. After all, it's the best part of the movie.
I mean when he walked through the gattling gun fire I think everyone understood he is bullet proof. Millions on an eyeball shot, to reaffirm what the previous scene already showed us, is waste and that money could have been used to help do other things in the movie to make it better.
Why did Zod use the World Engine on Earth? What benefit could the natural Kryptonian atmosphere provide that wouldn't instantly be trumped by the super powers Earth gives?
There's a lot of confusing things like that in this movie. It's the kind of film where you need to shut your mind off and just enjoy the explosions like the Transformers films.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusThey needed cool flying reptilian thingies, those can't survive on Earth, queer.
Why did Zod use the World Engine on Earth? What benefit could the natural Kryptonian atmosphere provide that wouldn't instantly be trumped by the super powers Earth gives?There's a lot of confusing things like that in this movie. It's the kind of film where you need to shut your mind off and just enjoy the explosions like the Transformers films.
Use your head.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Why did Zod use the World Engine on Earth? What benefit could the natural Kryptonian atmosphere provide that wouldn't instantly be trumped by the super powers Earth gives?There's a lot of confusing things like that in this movie. It's the kind of film where you need to shut your mind off and just enjoy the explosions like the Transformers films.
the codex and revenge, is why.
Not being snarky, I just don't think it's factually a weak plot point, just an opinion of one.