Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 2:00:20 GMT -5
CAM, it's gonna be okay.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 8:40:00 GMT -5
Ask him what it feels like to direct a flop 159th highest grossing film of ALL TIME how is that a flop fmd just get over it boring as all heck Yeah, but it was the 13th most expensive movie of ALL TIME. And that's using $209 million. If you used $270 million, it would be the 2nd most expensive. Now, take the most expensive movie of all time...$300 million. But it made $963 millon...good for 14th ALL TIME. A MUCH better return. (Pirates: At World's End). Superman Returns simply underperformed.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 6, 2012 9:14:24 GMT -5
out of interest Shoges, do you know SR's profit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 11:04:39 GMT -5
There is absolutely positively no fucking way Superman Returns cost $270 million to make. I'd say $120, TOPS. The rest of that is from the development heck it had been in for decades. It's so unfortunate that they had to make up everything for all the money that WB had lost.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 6, 2012 11:09:45 GMT -5
If only WB had invested that much for Superman III (including paying for a decent script); an already very healthy franchise at that point.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 11:12:01 GMT -5
SR made $391 million worldwide off a $270 million budget. Thats 121 million more than its budget. But the-numbers.com has SR budgeted at 232 million. www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.phpAnd they also add in about FORTY million from previous incarnations of the film before Singer even jumped on board to bump it up to $270 million. Its something I've said for years. SR was behind the 8 ball before Singer was even chosen to make it. I think Shogun once calculated that SR made a 0.5 return on investment but I could be wrong.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 11:15:55 GMT -5
There is absolutely positively no fucking way Superman Returns cost $270 million to make. I'd say $120, TOPS. The rest of that is from the development heck it had been in for decades. It's so unfortunate that they had to make up everything for all the money that WB had lost. According to the-numbers.com $40 million extra came from development that went no where and pay or play deals. We know Cage may have made $20 million to end up doing nothing. Looking at Amazing Spider-mans similar budget I can believe it. It doesn't look like it cost that much either. Also surprised to see SR sitting at 76% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes considering how vocal the haters are.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 11:22:28 GMT -5
out of interest Shoges, do you know SR's profit? The total WW or domestic? $391 WW and $200 domestic. That's total gross. Obviously, just subtract the cost from that (whichever you want to use). Kev, I've seen SR's cost at $209 million...the figure of $270 is including the development heck money. I'm guessing that is why WB wanted the $200 million domestic figure to make a sequel...to essentially break even (not including the development monies).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 11:25:10 GMT -5
What did you say the ROI was once? I know you said Green Lantern was a bigger money "loser" for WB than Superman Returns was.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 11:28:22 GMT -5
What did you say the ROI was once? I know you said Green Lantern was a bigger money "loser" for WB than Superman Returns was. I have to update it with the newer superhero movies but here it is...anything under 2.0 didn't get a sequel or got rebooted (heckboy being the exception). Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles -- 14.96 (it made 14.96 times its cost) Batman ('89) -- 11.74 Spider-Man -- 5.91 Superman -- 5.56 Dark Knight -- 5.41 Iron Man -- 4.18 X-men -- 3.95 Spider-Man 2 -- 3.92 X-men 2 -- 3.70 Spider-Man 3 -- 3.45 Batman Forever -- 3.36 Batman Returns -- 3.33 Fantastic Four -- 3.30 Kick-Ass -- 3.20 Iron Man 2 -- 3.11 Blade II -- 2.87 Wolverine -- 2.49 Batman Begins -- 2.48 Constantine -- 2.31 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -- 2.30 Daredevil -- 2.30 Fantastic Four ROTSS -- 2.22 Spawn -- 2.20 X-men 3 -- 2.19 Ghost Rider -- 2.07 Blade: Trinity -- 1.99 Batman and Robin -- 1.90 heckboy 2 -- 1.88 Hulk -- 1.79 Incredible Hulk -- 1.75 Punisher -- 1.64 heckboy -- 1.50 Superman Returns -- 1.45 Watchmen -- 1.42 Elektra -- 1.30 Losers -- 1.16 Green Lantern -- 1.10 **Edit**Howard the Duck -- 1.03 Catwoman -- 0.82 Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World -- 0.80 Punisher War Zone -- 0.29 Jonah Hex -- 0.23
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 11:30:06 GMT -5
I just can't believe that. Where is the money? Where did it go? It ain't on the screen, I'll tell you that much.
If that's true, so be it, but I just buy it. It couldn't have cost that much to make. It was in AUSTRALIA for Christ's sakes! Wasn't that why they filmed it there? Because it was cheaper?
$209 million for Superman Returns? Having just watched it, I have to say no. No way. The Lord of the Rings movies, ALL THREE OF THEM, cost less than $300 million! TOTAL!
I mean, shit...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 11:41:04 GMT -5
A lot of Superhero movies over the last 5 years are examples where I just don't see the money on the screen.
TASM cost MORE than Avengers but I just don't see it. Meanwhile I see EVERY PENNY on screen in Avengers.
Seems like Sony Imageworks turns in a lot of overly expensive work in superhero movies that doesn't look worth it.
Maybe a lot more money than you'd think goes to practical stuff. Location filming, practical fx and stuntwork, sets that have to be built. For example I wonder how much it cost just to create the Kent farm in SR.
More than anything I just don't think the money is always spent wisely and economically. Considerable waste abound.
Interesting to see where Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles sits on Shoguns list. I'd always read that it was one of the most successful independent films ever. Cool.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 6, 2012 12:02:00 GMT -5
Surprised Incredible Hulk did so poorly.
Catwoman did less than Howard, lol. In the mood to watch CW again after watching DaD recently.
Any numbers for S2, 3 and 4?
I guess a lot of the SR budget was snorted up Jon Peters nose.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Aug 6, 2012 12:02:32 GMT -5
There is no way in heck they sank 209 million into SR. They probably dinged SR for the nearly 100 million in pre-production that got sunk into the other Superman movies going back to Burton that never got made.
For 209 million in 2006, we should have had Superman teaming up with Orion and Lightray to fight Darkseid on New Genesis. At the behest of the Guardians. with a pre-credit origin recap, and a post-credit Brainiac tease.
It was shot in Australia to save money. That cast certainly didn't demand historic paychecks. And there are, what, two extravagant sets in the entire movie? Four (brief) action sequences? No way. Look at what Incredible Hulk did with 150 million. SR, despite some handsome special effects, doesn't do HALF of that.
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Aug 6, 2012 12:08:20 GMT -5
Here's the thing....
I think a lot of you guys equate scale to showing every penny on screen and that's not always the case. That's just how the director approached his material and was able to convey that atmosphere very well. Also keep in mind that Spider-Man was shot on location in NYC....which is ridiculously expensive to shoot there for the kind of the shit they did. And believe me, I remember the traffic!
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 12:27:06 GMT -5
There is no way in heck they sank 209 million into SR. They probably dinged SR for the nearly 100 million in pre-production that got sunk into the other Superman movies going back to Burton that never got made. For 209 million in 2006, we should have had Superman teaming up with Orion and Lightray to fight Darkseid on New Genesis. At the behest of the Guardians. with a pre-credit origin recap, and a post-credit Brainiac tease. It was shot in Australia to save money. That cast certainly didn't demand historic paychecks. And there are, what, two extravagant sets in the entire movie? Four (brief) action sequences? No way. Look at what Incredible Hulk did with 150 million. SR, despite some handsome special effects, doesn't do HALF of that. I am surprised that some of you are surprised by this. We talked about the budget years ago....was it $209 million or $270 million? The $270 million included the preproduction stuff. The $209 wasn't debated at all! By the way, the ROI I used on SR uses $270 million. If you used $209 million, it would have only gone up 4 spots, if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Aug 6, 2012 12:34:40 GMT -5
There's some creative accounting at work here, then. 209 million for that movie? Where is it? It's not even that I expect to see every penny of it (although, I kinda do), it's that I barely see HALF of that when I watch SR.
I am now more certain then ever that by the time the project landed in Singer's lap, he was told by WB to bring it in on the cheap. He had proven he could make a good looking film even after they ran out of money with X1, and THAT is why Singer was their man. Hence the understated story, the drama and tension created by the "is he/isn't he" factor of the child (and not by anything resembling a threat to Superman), the almost complete lack of action, and the use of one action sequence that had probably been already at least partially rendered for the Abrams film (the airplane sequence).
I'm not saying SR was designed to fail, but clearly, they had to clear the ledgers and use some of what had already been developed over the previous decade. Had it been the kind of success they wanted, THEN they would worry about making it into a franchise. But from the looks of things, as it stands, there was NO game plan going into that movie other than to bring it in substantially under this fictional $209 million budget.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 12:42:23 GMT -5
Any numbers for S2, 3 and 4? I could never find reliable international numbers for those unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Aug 6, 2012 12:54:32 GMT -5
Also, marketing jacks up the budget too. Even if it's bad marketing, people need to get paid too.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 13:11:53 GMT -5
Surprised Incredible Hulk did so poorly. Catwoman did less than Howard, lol. In the mood to watch CW again after watching DaD recently. Why torture yourself? ;D Catwoman might be the one comic book movie thats worse than Batman & Robin. TIH's performance is one of those greatly debated questions. It basically ended up in the same spot Hulk did success wise even though they did everything they needed to make the necessary changes/improvements. Did Hulk affect perception of TIH before it was released? was there some kind of disconnect with such a CGI heavy movie and character? Or did Marvel not crack the cinematic success code of the character until Avengers? Here's the thing.... I think a lot of you guys equate scale to showing every penny on screen and that's not always the case. That's just how the director approached his material and was able to convey that atmosphere very well. Also keep in mind that Spider-Man was shot on location in NYC....which is ridiculously expensive to shoot there for the kind of the shit they did. And believe me, I remember the traffic! Like I said location filming. But that doesn't excuse some of the shitty CGI in TASM. It was the same thing with SR and Spider-man 3 and Green Lantern. Sometimes an fx house just turns in crappy work. Whoever worked on Avengers simply turned in better work. And then there's waste and poor planning. Would it have been cheaper to give Green Lantern a practical costume instead of a fully rendered CGI costume? A lot of people talk shit about The practical Thing suit in the FF movies but how much more could it have cost if Thing always had to be rendered in CGI? Even the Surfer was combo of a practical on set suit/make up and CGI and it probably saved them a lot of trouble. Also, marketing jacks up the budget too. Even if it's bad marketing, people need to get paid too. You mean like Green Lanterns shitty marketing campaign where they paid huge money for a Superbowl spot only to show us one of the worst trailers in recent memory?
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 6, 2012 14:04:34 GMT -5
Has Routh's lacrosse movie been released yet? Wonder what those figures are like.
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Aug 6, 2012 14:17:29 GMT -5
Has Routh's lacrosse movie been released yet? Wonder what those figures are like. Domestic gross...$1.8 million. Nothing to go on as far as foreign or cost.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 6, 2012 18:52:18 GMT -5
i do think WB punted with "superman returns".
they wanted to have a project eat the squandered development cash for 15 years of false starts and so on.
too bad we had such a great production value, a wonderful superman only to have them fall on the sword.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,980
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 6, 2012 20:48:46 GMT -5
I almost wonder if they did. Like...did they just go ahead and make it and get it out of the way because they felt they had to or used it to write certain things off? Contracts were in place...for years in some cases.
Peters had little to do with the movie but his name was still on it.
I've wonder the same thing about Catwoman. Much worse than SR but they HAD to know it would be crap at a certain stage. Was the ball rolling and they just couldn't stop it? It was also in development heck for well over a decade and Denise DiNovi stayed with it the whole time. Catwoman was originally a spinoff of Batman Returns but it took so long that it morphed into something else just the way the Superman movie evolved over a decade.
I never understood why WB made a Catwoman movie that was still teathered to the old Batman franchise when they were rebooting Batman and taking him a totally different direction.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 6, 2012 22:45:55 GMT -5
Agreed.
A friend of a friend became one of the accountants on "Bowfingers" years ago--- and out of curiosity he asked her why the film cost so much....(being in her position)--- apparently one of the stars kept on showing up perennially late- costing the production a LOT of extra dollars to pay a lot of folks who were also on the clock waiting for him.
That kind of stuff + the constant rumors one reads/hears about "tricky Hollywood accounting" probably makes everything suspicious when it comes to movie budgets and cost overruns.
Even if one COULD get ahold of the accounting books for SR--- who knows what's legit on those books?
|
|