Superman Returns

[Jimbo]

Aug 22, 2011 13:40:06 GMT -5 ye5man said:

TDK didn't flop

And what a difference a smaller budget makes...

SR would not be a labeled a flop if it had a more realistic 150M budget, and wasn't victim to the costs already paid out in the prior decade. It looks like a 150M movie (like Captain America), and definitely not a 260M movie (Avatar).

SR has outgrossed Thor, Captain America, X-Men: First Class, Wolverine, both Hulk movies and both Fantastic Fours. Yet it's a 'huge flop' while the others are not.

WB must have known what they were getting themselves into. They OKed the 260M+ budget. They knew it would not bring in more than 200M in the US because that's what Batman Begins brought in a year earlier. There was a year between BB and SR, and I never heard of any effort on their part to rein in the budget. Then they were stupid enough to schedule it just a week before Pirates 2. WB wanted it to flop. They OKed Superman Returns to break even for all the money they spent on Burton/Cage/etc., nothing more. It was all just a giant write-off.

[atp]

Here's the formula behind the success of The Joker in TDK.

Step a) Steal the look of Brandon Lee in The Crow.
Step b) Add Jeff Goldblum's mannerisms from The Fly
Step c) Throw in green hair, so that viewers don't recognise steps a and b.
Step d) Add a mysterious death, so that anyone who points out steps a, b and c is accused of being insensitive.

[ShogunLogan]

Aug 22, 2011 13:48:26 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

SR has outgrossed Thor, Captain America, X-Men: First Class, Wolverine, both Hulk movies and both Fantastic Fours. Yet it's a 'huge flop' while the others are not.

ALL the movies you mentioned were more profitable than Superman Returns...ALL of them. If you reduced SR's budget to an even $200M, it will be more profitable than the Hulks, that's it.

And Thor has now made $448M worldwide.

[Jimbo]

Aug 22, 2011 15:42:23 GMT -5 ShogunLogan said:

ALL the movies you mentioned were more profitable than Superman Returns...ALL of them. If you reduced SR's budget to an even $200M, it will be more profitable than the Hulks, that's it.

Re-read the first two paragraphs.

[ShogunLogan]

Aug 22, 2011 15:53:23 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

Aug 22, 2011 15:42:23 GMT -5 ShogunLogan said:

ALL the movies you mentioned were more profitable than Superman Returns...ALL of them. If you reduced SR's budget to an even $200M, it will be more profitable than the Hulks, that's it.

Re-read the first two paragraphs.

You mean when you said SR wouldn't have been labelled a flop if it has a lesser budget and still made the same money? And it would have been more profitable that other superhero movies?

Well, no shit.

But, if you mean that, hypothetically, it cost like the movie it looked like it was...then I think I get you.

[Jimbo]

Aug 22, 2011 15:56:40 GMT -5 ShogunLogan said:

But, if you mean that, hypothetically, it cost like the movie it looked like it was...then I think I get you.

Yup, that's it.

If everything in the final cut were the same, with the aborted 90s productions and Return to Krypton never happening, I think we'd be looking forward to part 3 of the Singer/Routh series right now. Budget would have been around 160M, and its ROI would have been about 2.44. So really, the movie itself is blameless. It's all the crap in the background that compounded the problem and doomed it.

Look no further than Batman Begins to see that played out in reality. After B&R, the franchise lay dormant. They didn't waste any money on the franchise before giving it to Nolan, just limited work on the aborted sequel Batman Triumphant. Then Nolan kept things grounded without wasting money with its 150M budget. It finished at 373M - 2.49 ROI. And now, we're looking forward to his Part 3.

[eccentricbeing]

I think Brett Ratner would be jumping on Superman 3 by now.

[crazy_asian_man]

So really, the movie itself is blameless. It's all the crap in the background that compounded the problem and doomed it.

Agreed!

[stargazer01]

yeah but I still think Bryan 'fickle' Singer didn't push hard enough for the sequel. I dislike him so much, even though I like him as a director.

[crazy_asian_man]

yeah but I still think Bryan 'fickle' Singer didn't push hard enough for the sequel. I dislike him so much, even though I like him as a director.

I would conclude that, too--- until the Sam Raimi/Spiderman 4 mess.
In broad strokes, Raimi wanted to do a ton of Spiderman sequels, pushed for creative control- but despite the big box office of each one of them..... (countering the 'SR was a box office flop=no sequel' 'logic'- Spiderman movies were NEVER flops=Spiderman 3 made a ton=no sequel').... and despite Raimi chomping at the bit to do the sequel- The studio didn't want to do what Raimi wanted to do, so, Raimi got the boot.

Who knows for sure whether or not that also happened with Singer?
No matter what, Singer should always get credit for his vision for SR and bringing it to the screen--- no one else would have had the hunger to honor Donner's films like that---

And, yup, I'm also in the camp that believed/believes that even if you weren't going to keep Singer, they shoulda kept Routh. (And not even a phone call from WB about his being let go. Jerks.)

[stargazer01]

Who knows for sure whether or not that also happened with Singer?

Who knows really, but I hate the way how he lately practically apologizes for doing SR the way it was (come to think of it, maybe he does it as a way to seek not only the geek community forgiveness, but also WB's). He seems so insecure and with little conviction. I despise that. He did kinda the same thing to the X franchise.

No matter what, Singer should always get credit for his vision for SR and bringing it to the screen--- no one else would have had the hunger to honor Donner's films like that---

I give him credit, I loved his movie. I think he did something unique and special.

And, yup, I'm also in the camp that believed/believes that even if you weren't going to keep Singer, they shoulda kept Routh. (And not even a phone call from WB about his being let go. Jerks.)

Agreed. He's still the best candidate to me. A true Superman on and off the screen.

[Jimbo]

Aug 22, 2011 17:27:14 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

they shoulda kept Routh. (And not even a phone call from WB about his being let go. Jerks.)

I think you're more offended by that than Routh is.

He was not let go. His job ended when SR was finished. Instead, WB just didn't hire him back. There's a difference there. One involves expectation, and one does not. Did Eric Bana deserve a phone call saying that they were rebooting The Hulk and would be casting Edward Norton? Not really.

[MerM]

From what I understand, he was under contract for sequels a few years, and when it ran out he wasn't asked back.

[stargazer01]

I think Brandon expected to continue to play the role in at least another movie. He said in more than one time that he was told by the higher ups that they really wanted him to continue playing the role in future movies. Alan Horn and the legendary Pictures CEO in particular wanted him back. But then things changed, like is usual with Superman and WB. It's really a miracle that SR happened. I'm at least glad for that.

[Jimbo]

Aug 22, 2011 18:04:11 GMT -5 MerM said:

From what I understand, he was under contract for sequels a few years, and when it ran out he wasn't asked back.

I believe there was a time limit in his contract for those sequels to happen. Otherwise it would have been a pay-or-play contract. Routh would have known by 2008 2009 (though the writing was on the wall well before that) if he had the job again or not.

[ShogunLogan]

Aug 22, 2011 18:04:11 GMT -5 MerM said:

From what I understand, he was under contract for sequels a few years, and when it ran out he wasn't asked back.

Yes, Routh said that. In 2009 his sequel contract expired.

splashpage.mtv.com/2009/07/06/brandon-routh-says-his-superman-contract-has-expired/

[crazy_asian_man]

Whoknows really, but I hate the way how he lately practically apologizes for doing SR the way it was (come to think of it, maybe he does it as a way to seek not only the geek community forgiveness, but also WB's). He seems so insecure and with little conviction. I despise that. He did kinda the same thing to the X franchise.

Suprisingly, the more I read about directors' reactions to how a film is received shows far more insecurity than you would think. Ridley Scott was willing to go back to Blade Runner for changes after a disastrous preview for "Blade Runner" (*the studio ended up making the changes without his supervision for him & is chronicled in the 'Future Noir: Making of Blade Runner book) , Oliver Stone in a biography on him (forgot the entire name, sadly) talked about how freaked out he was early on, with negative reaction to his film once it came out (If I recall correctly, it was 'The Hand'), that he purposely made sure that when one was ready for release, that he would already be at work on his next project so as not to have his confidence shattered. Donner wanted a preview for STM, and was irritated that he didn't get one.

So, directors can be as insecure and second guess themselves as much as actors, apparently. SInger's not the only one, though I wish he realized what he had done right in SR. If he let the loud ones' opinions get to him, got a bad feeling that he'll never get into what he would have REALLY done with Jason & company, in any form.

[eccentricbeing]

Of course directors are going to be insecure about their work. Have you guys ever had to present something in front of class or group of people that you put A LOT of work into? Yeah, you'd be concerned how people would react to it too. It's like you're putting yourself out there naked and have people judge you by your work. You make it seem like they're wimps looking for a self-esteem boost. ;D

Plus with film directors, their careers are on the line for every big project they do for a studio. If it bombs, then well...they don't get funding for their future projects. A lot of pressure is involved here. Whether that justifies Singer's blase comments about his film is another issue, but try to keep things into perspective when you label people.

[crazy_asian_man]

Of course directors are going to be insecure about their work. Have you guys ever had to present something in front of class or group of people that you put A LOT of work into? Yeah, you'd be concerned how people would react to it too. It's like you're putting yourself out there naked and have people judge you by your work. You make it seem like they're wimps looking for a self-esteem boost.

Wasn't the intention. I think there's the perception (I may be wrong) that directors see themselves as infallible immortals, but I just wanted to put out there evidence that, naw, they're as human & subject to be self-questioning about their work as the rest of us may be (but with MUCH more money to play with).

[eccentricbeing]

Some directors do have egos...very big egos and it's fair to call that out. But even those people are vulnernable to the insecurities of their own work. An exception would probably be George Lucas. ;D

[Jimbo]

Aug 23, 2011 10:45:54 GMT -5 eccentricbeing said:

Some directors do have egos...very big egos and it's fair to call that out. But even those people are vulnernable to the insecurities of their own work. An exception would probably be George Lucas. ;D

Lucas is vulnerable just like any other filmmaker. The difference is that he acts on his insecurities instead of leaving well enough alone.

There have been many changes which fan backlash has caused him to redo or undo. CGI Jabba was crap, so they reanimated it. 1997 version of Greedo shooting first was very fake looking, so they 'improved' it, and a scream added to Luke when he jumped at the end of ESB (a reuse of Palpatine's scream in ROTJ ), which was taken out in 2004. Then you have all the messed up lightsabers which are being un-messed up this time around.

[eccentricbeing]

Hey hey now....keep that in the Star Wars thread. ;D

[Jimbo]

You mentioned Lucas. Live with the consequences. ;D

[stargazer01]

Aug 22, 2011 20:32:09 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Whoknows really, but I hate the way how he lately practically apologizes for doing SR the way it was (come to think of it, maybe he does it as a way to seek not only the geek community forgiveness, but also WB's). He seems so insecure and with little conviction. I despise that. He did kinda the same thing to the X franchise.

Suprisingly, the more I read about directors' reactions to how a film is received shows far more insecurity than you would think. Ridley Scott was willing to go back to Blade Runner for changes after a disastrous preview for "Blade Runner" (*the studio ended up making the changes without his supervision for him & is chronicled in the 'Future Noir: Making of Blade Runner book) , Oliver Stone in a biography on him (forgot the entire name, sadly) talked about how freaked out he was early on, with negative reaction to his film once it came out (If I recall correctly, it was 'The Hand'), that he purposely made sure that when one was ready for release, that he would already be at work on his next project so as not to have his confidence shattered. Donner wanted a preview for STM, and was irritated that he didn't get one.

So, directors can be as insecure and second guess themselves as much as actors, apparently. SInger's not the only one, though I wish he realized what he had done right in SR. If he let the loud ones' opinions get to him, got a bad feeling that he'll never get into what he would have REALLY done with Jason & company, in any form.

Interesting. Well directors are people too after all. I just think that some things are best to keep to yourself. The less you say the better, especially in a case like this with Singer and SR. The guy just looks like a fool, imo.

[crazy_asian_man]

Interesting. Well directors are people too after all. I just think that some things are best to keep to yourself. The less you say the better, especially in a case like this with Singer and SR. The guy just looks like a fool, imo.

Nah, say what you want. I do. This is the only place to talk about Routh, Singer, SR, isn't it?


Singer is not a great public speaker, but a great director. (Go figure. Tim Burton also seems to be a mumbler in interviews, but people still love to work with him)

Directors generally have to fight and put up with more shite than actors do. Actors only have to take care of themselves. Directors are responsible for EVERYBODY under them and the whole film. Do I have more respect for directors than actors? Depends on the director, depends on the actor. When the movie's good, everyone can claim credit, when it's bad, it's the director's fault.

There's an excellent book out there, where its filled with interviews of famous actors who became directors (Ron Howard, Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, to name a few) who talk about the giant differences that come up (and the wake up calls) when they actually have to be the bus driver versus the star of the show and how much their perspectives on their fellow actors (and themselves as actors) changed.

I have a hunch that the one interview with Singer where he talked about 'if he had a chance to go back and do things differently' ruined Singer forever in your mind, when he said he might have done things differently with a younger actor and a different approach if he didn't do what he chose to do with SR.

I know it looks like Routh got unfairly treated after SR- I TOTALLY agree, but I don't think Singer meant anything malicious, and I think it's important to remember Routh is also human, too. It's odd that he apologizes for his behavior to the crew during the shoot at the wrap up. (Although we never see on the bts footage what he's referring to- but I'm glad that it wasn't shown, I'd rather not know as it ruins the illusion if we saw footage of Superman cursing out anyone off camera or losing his temper or whatnot) Neither Routh nor Singer are perfect people, but human. *

(Same goes for Reeve, who there have been stories we've all heard now and then about tempers on set- but what movie doesn't have these situations? Probably animated ones.)