|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 20, 2011 1:23:13 GMT -5
With the economy still shaky, and Green Lantern a $200 million dollar disaster, I'm sure that WB is scouring the internet to find ways to make the new Superman more fiscally sound. In the spirit of that, thought to be more pro-active to try to help WB out by throwing out suggestions to help them save money. Invite others to join in on creating new ideas to help make a dollar stretch for the Dubya Bee.... Here goes.... MY TOP TEN IDEAS TO HELP THE NEW SUPERMAN MOVIE SAVE MONEY: #10. Recycle the SR suit.... again. (Plus, there are alterations pretty cheap around our local dry cleaners that I'm sure are cheaper than in Hollywood, if Cavill doesn't mind driving there) #9. Since a fortune has been paid to remaster Superman IV's dvd, use the special effects flying footage here. People are tired of CG Superman, so let's go back to the Superman flying fx that worked so well in SIV.... over and over again.... #8. Forget Krypton. Use a comic book montage to cover that portion of the Superman story. Plus, save money by not having to use Crowe. #7. Integrate 'Smallville' footage, using clips from the first seven television seasons of "Smallville". Besides, some fans are dying to see Welling in a Superman movie. Now they can. #6. Have Zod be the ONLY villain from the Phantom Zone. (If you must include it). Since he's going to be crazy, the dialogues can be cleverly rewritten to monologues, and save money on those unnecessary extra villains. #5. Stock footage of New York for Metropolis. And who says the Daily Planet needs any other reporters besides Lois and Clark? #4. More product placement a must. Have Lois chain smoke different brands in every scene. Plus, we have yet to see Superman eat a piece of Apple Pie.... imagine the possibilities.... #3. Back to the costume.... Do we really need the cape? So long as the chest has the 'S', is it REALLY necessary? #2. Can Pa Kent die earlier? Costner's got to cost something... maybe it happens BEFORE they find the starship, and we can get the check to Kevin cancelled before he cashes it... #1. No wigs for Luthor.  |
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Jun 20, 2011 14:58:39 GMT -5
lmao ;D
|
|
Rod
New Member
Believe it or not
Posts: 498 
|
Post by Rod on Jun 20, 2011 22:53:32 GMT -5
;D
oh, the nightmare!
regarding cgi i am really tired it is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2011 11:58:51 GMT -5
You wanna have Superman on a slashed budget? I have three words for you: Smallville TV Movies.
|
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Jun 22, 2011 19:06:40 GMT -5
[quote #10. Recycle the SR suit.... again. (Plus, there are alterations pretty cheap around our local dry cleaners that I'm sure are cheaper than in Hollywood, if Cavill doesn't mind driving there) [/quote] # 3 and 10 are irrelevant... what are you saving with those?  ? 50k? ?? if that its like a dime in a billionaire's poket |
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Jun 22, 2011 19:13:42 GMT -5
You wanna have Superman on a slashed budget? I have three words for you: Smallville TV Movies. lmao...true dude.. they gotz to spend... this movie has to come close to dark night numbers...and i have funny feeling it will.....The right boys are at the helm.... everyone knows the SR catastrophic disaster..it wont happen again... If it does, god forbit..then WB should sell and perish.. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jun 24, 2011 9:40:15 GMT -5
It'd be fucking horrible if the new one tanked.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 25, 2011 10:34:55 GMT -5
Who is 'everyone'?
What 'disaster'?
From boxoffice mojo:
Domestic: $200,081,192 51.2%
+ Foreign: $191,000,000 48.8%
= Worldwide: $391,081,192
Production Budget: $270 million
($121 million profit)
Let's not forget:
CATWOMAN
Domestic: $40,202,379 49.0%
+ Foreign: $41,900,000 51.0%
= Worldwide: $82,102,379
Production Budget: $100 million
(-$18 million LOSS)
By comparison:
I think it'll turn out that GREEN LANTERN will be the 'catastrophic disaster'--
Domestic: $70,961,421 81.3%
+ Foreign: $16,300,000 18.7%
= Worldwide: $87,261,421
Production Budget: $200 million
(-$113 million LOSS so far, but probably will go down)
If MOS costs $270 and grosses $391, is anyone else curious if that's going to be called a success or a disappointment?
|
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Jun 26, 2011 14:50:33 GMT -5
Who is 'everyone'? What 'disaster'? ? Everyone is, well you know what i mean,, the vast majority thought SR sucked... and Disaster was from WB POV..Cause if it was'nt a bomb in their minds then where are the sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 1, 2011 18:44:49 GMT -5
The vast majority of people who paid $391 million to support the movie? More and more it's looking like it was a bad relationship with Singer that sunk it... |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 2, 2011 8:10:00 GMT -5
Production Budget: $270 million
There is no way in heck that SR cost $270 million. WHERE IS IT? It's not on the screen! It looks like it cost 100 mil, even WITH the RTK scene.
WB stacked the deck against that movie from the get-go.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 2, 2011 8:20:53 GMT -5
If it did (but I also doubt it) cost that much, then possibly it's added up time of 'rushed effects, spare no overtime costs' of the amount of CGI (NOT just the flying fx) used in the film. The other thing that I hear about is how things escalate in price from all corners once it's known that it's a major Hollywood production. Once people knew it was a Superman film, I have a hunch that even a sandwich inflated in price 1000%. Also, there was an article lately talking about how filmmakers who don't give enough solid plans to fx artists early end up raising the budget significantly--- but, I figure only a few that really are privvy to knowing the true cost of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 2, 2011 8:38:26 GMT -5
Thor cost 150 million, and every single penny of that is on the screen. Iron Man 2 cost 200 million, and watching it (especially on BluRay) you know where every one of those dollars went. Even Green Lantern, lousy as it is, looks like it cost 200 million. Even the Star Wars prequels cost considerably less than 200 million each to make, and those films are LADEN with effects shots and makeup work. 270 million for a film in which the hero appears on screen using his powers for roughly 20 minutes? No way. Especially since they moved the production to Australia, supposedly because it's CHEAPER to film there!!!
WB billed SR for the (thankfully) failed Burton movies and the production work done on the Abrams film. Full stop. Singer and his team were told to bring in a Superman movie that could be done on a relatively small scale, and that's what they did. That's why there's not so much as a MENTION of any of the more fantastic elements of Superman's universe. Even Singer's first X-Men film, which was also made on a comparatively tight budget (which shows...painfully...in the movie's final act) managed to give indications of the wider universe these characters inhabit, something which is obviously missing from SR.
One of these days, I'm going to write a book and prove this hypothesis. WB screwed us, but Singer was a willing conspirator. Putting the kid in the movie was a feat of sleigh-of-hand. "By doing something this daring, nobody will be talking about the fact that there are virtually no actual superheroics in the film".
I've always been a huge SR defender, but in recent months, I've begun to sour on it. It's upsetting to me, as I want to maintain my positive attitude about it. The more I look at it and the circumstances around it, the more I start to see it less as a Superman movie and more as a situation where we had the wool pulled over our eyes. While I always had issues with the film (Jason, the worst Lois in history), I was always able to forgive them because the movie does, somehow, manage to have a soul. But now, I see a movie that was made NOT by Superman fans, and certainly not for them either.
Still love Routh, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 2, 2011 13:40:50 GMT -5
Hey Valentine, I usually agree with you 99% of the time, but this is probably one of those rare "1%" moments- On my estimate (which is based on nothing factual, but just what I saw onscreen versus other movie budgets about the same size)- Thor didn't look like $150 million film to me, but maybe half of that--- Iron Man? Maybe a little bit more- but I think the benchmark has always been STM in terms of what's achievable by a certain budget. (And to me, neither 'Thor' or 'Iron Man' had the same epic scale as STM. 'Spiderman' looked closer to it, to me) There was an article where Singer & the producers asked for at least $5 million more to juice up the final act- (or, at least shoot it properly), but 20th wouldn't budge. That lends credibility to the idea that they were planning on shooting new stuff for Xmen 1's dvd recut during the X2 shoot simultaneously (why not? You have all the actors there anyways). Based on the things Singer has said about the film and the process, and seeing the final result, (plus seeing most of his other films), I attribute the weak superheroics to things conceptually being weaker than they should have. The fx sound pretty expensive, but it wasn't designed to have the biggest impact, per se. For example, if Metropolis were semi-trashed like Armageddon's New York, and Superman came in to 'save the day'--- but could only save half of it, it would seem far more spectacular, than seeing nothing really destroyed. The money looked like it was there to me, (at least a good chunk of it), but deciding that NOBODY gets hurt or injured or having no cgi (or model) buildings get trashed during the Metropolis attack I think was a big mistake, and takes away from some of the realism that they were striving for, and bent it more towards fantasy. Storywise, the child thing could have been horrible--- but the execution was amazing to me. And a bit moving. It's not impossible that the story that Singer came up with, also matched how much money WB wanted to spend. (Though, again, the deletion of RTK was ridiculous & it's one spot where WB should have stepped in) I don't know if Singer is a Superman fan per se, but a DONNER Superman the movie fan, I think should go without question. Singer's not foolish- he knew that making a film that had Brando, Williams' theme music, and an actor who had the look of Reeve would open himself up to an accusation of being unoriginal--- But Singer made the movie for himself- it's a story he wanted to see, and if WB didn't give him the chance, he might have (I still don't think there's a guarantee) done Xmen 3 and 4--- but we would have not only been deprived of SR, but maybe the Brando stuff from SII would never have been released, too. Singer seems to have ten million projects he can (and does) attach himself to. He didn't need to do Superman. He definitely was a fan of the Donner Superman, but the comics' Superman? Who knows. Still love Routh, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 2, 2011 20:38:20 GMT -5
CAM...you don't know where Thor's budget was??? In the first 20 minutes of the movie alone, Thor, Loki, Odin, and The Warriors Three (basically, SIX superheroes). Half the movie takes place in Asgard, which was beautifully realized. And WB is trying to tell me that Superman Returns, which features less than a quarter of those kinds of effects shots (not to mention sets and costumes) costs TWICE that?
No way in heck am I buying that. There are more FX shots in the first half hour of Thor than in all of Superman Returns. That money is there on the screen. It sure as heck isn't in SR. Which isn't to say that I think the action and FX in SR is shoddy, as it isn't. Among other things, I think the shot of Superman descending into the fortress is one of the most beautiful shots I've seen in any superhero movie. But if we string together all of those bits with Routh in costume doing ANYTHING, we get about 20-30 minutes. No way does the rest of that add up to 200 million bucks.
I know you love SR, but let's be realistic. There was some seriously creative accounting going on when the tally was made on SR, and I'd like to know why. I'm not kidding when I say I may try to get to the bottom of this at some point. I think there are some seriously interesting stories (and some freaky backroom shit) about all the failed attempts to bring Superman to the screen between Superman IV and SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 2, 2011 21:56:39 GMT -5
Putting aside SR for a moment, in looking up the budgets for each of the Lord of the Rings' movies- each one was estimated (according to box office mojo) less than $95 million each. And I felt like I was swallowed up by Middle Earth in each of these movies, whereas "Thor" (which cost more) felt like TINY little snippets of Asgard & the Frost Giant's place- like a 'mini' version of Asgard- and for $150 million, I was wondering why we didn't get the 'full' Asgard if LOTR cost only $95 mil to Thor's $150 mil- so that's why I felt shortchanged a bit.
Also, SR looked like a more expensive movie to me than 'Thor'- as so many of the sets looked custom-built and on a huge scale (ie. Daily Planet, Lex's boat, Top of the Daily Planet/globe, Fortress of Solitude, 'new' Krypton that Lex built, the Kent farm) whereas- outside of what little we saw of Asgard (was good, but not enough imo)... the Arizona stuff (shield temp hq/etc.) - where half of the movie seems to take place= seemed pretty cheap to me.
But- moot point. It's rare that I feel that I see a film and go, "yeah, EVERY penny is there onscreen"--- and the more films I see- oddly, the more amazing STM gets in relation to the scale they were able to achieve for the budget and tech they had at the time.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2011 21:31:54 GMT -5
The Lord of the Rings movies were all shot at the same time in New Zealand, where they received tax breaks and used a lot of indigenous crew. They also used an FX house (Weta Digital) that was relatively new to blockbusters and had a lot to prove. I can buy that they pulled them off at under $100 million per film. It'd be tough to do that again, though; there were a lot of special circumstances that allowed it to happen that way. You're not going to be able to secure a big name cast and ship them to New Zealand for a long shoot like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 4, 2011 10:08:15 GMT -5
I base it not just on LOTR; but also just on the creative choices Branagh made. Branagh's "Hamlet" and "Henry V" felt and looked like epics far bigger than the real budget suggested, through creative choices. But then again- it may be just how Hollywood spends its money on a film level. Ronald D. Moore talked before how he was amazed in the transition between Star Trek: Next Gen the tv show vs. Star Trek: Next Gen movies- tripled in price over everything..... just because of rates for feature films for the same things that you'd get far cheaper for a tv episode (i.e. a phaser blast). Pity. I guess that's why half of the films that don't scream 'this cost $100 million' end up costing $100 mil. ("Daredevil", "Ghost Rider", etc.) I think I gauge 'every penny on screen' similiar to what I see on a good scifi tv show in relation to what I'd expect for a feature expanded version of the same.... but definitely not accurate. I guess a Hollywood feature film dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a tv episode dollar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 12:02:29 GMT -5
There are a limited number of effects houses that do major feature work, so maybe that has something to do with it. Sony Imageworks, Weta Digital, ILM, and Digital Domain are the main ones that spring to mind. Maybe giving up-and-coming, hungry companies a shot at the big time would help keep costs lower; like I said, Weta had a lot to prove when they worked on Lord of the Rings. heck, Peter Jackson's tie to the company was probably the only reason they got that opportunity in the first place. It paid off, though, and now Weta is one of the big boys.
If there's more competition for special effects work on blockbusters, it might help bring costs down. Thinking outside of the box instead of just going to ILM by default would also help; the gorgeous nebula effects in The Fountain cost $140,000, because they went and found the same guy who did the macro photography visuals for the opening credits of Superman: The Movie. They used another FX house to clean up the footage and put it together on a computer, but the cost was still a lot less than it would have been if all the fluid dynamics had been rendered digitally. It's that kind of ingenuity that can lead to massive budget savings. Unfortunately, you mostly only see that kind of approach on smaller films- and it's usually a necessity due to very limited budgets.
|
|
