Man of Steel wraps; deemed "toss up" as a success

[EnriqueH]

Though it turned a profit and did better than Superman Returns, it seems like box office pundits and Hollywood is trying to understand the success of Man of Steel. And almost ALL of Hollywood sees the inclusion of Batman in the sequel as a sign that WB is unsure of Superman's future success at the boxoffice. I think a big reason everyone sees the MOS with suspicious eyes is the huge tumble it took in the weeks after week 1.

According to Boxofficemojo.com:

Man of Steel: Zack Snyder-directed Superman reboot Man of Steel set a June opening weekend record with an incredible $116.6 million ($128.7 million including Thursday night grosses). Unfortunately, lukewarm word-of-mouth caused the movie to collapse after opening weekend, and it will wind up earning less than $300 million at the domestic box office. Add in good overseas figures ($360 million and counting) and Man of Steel is absolutely going to turn a profit. Still, the much-publicized decision to add Batman to the Man of Steel sequel suggests that this wasn't the kind of runaway success that Warner Bros. was hoping for.

According to Forbes:

But as I’ve discussed elsewhere, the insertion of Ben Affleck as Batman into the next film shows that Warner is concerned about the ability of a second film to pop accordingly.

Entertainment Weekly:

Critics didn’t like Zack Snyder’s Superman adaptation, and crowds had a mixed reaction...We’ll see whether audiences stick around when he goes against Batman in 2015.

Comicbook.com

There’s been a lot of discussion this summer, with movies like Man of Steel and Pacific Rim making less money than fans and studios had hoped or expected, about how exactly we’re meant to define financial success in today’s movie landscape.

Kansas State Collegian (thought it was interesting what collegiate opinions might be)

DC Comics, which licensed its heroes through Warner Brothers, has had a more difficult time putting their characters on film. Warner Brothers had huge success with the Dark Knight trilogy thanks to director Christopher Nolan, but no hero besides Batman has clicked with audiences in a similar way. “Superman Returns” and “Watchmen” were modestly successful, but “Green Lantern” and “Jonah Hex” failed to perform, and the less said about Halle Berry’s “Catwoman” the better. This year’s “Man of Steel” was successful enough to warrant a sequel, but even “Man of Steel” didn’t set the world on fire like Warner Brothers might have hoped.

Examiner.com

With a cost of production and advertising somewhere around $225-$250 million, this implies a modest profit (in blockbuster terms) although nowhere near the tallies that the last two Batman films earned (or the last two Marvel Studios films)...Home video sales will add to "Man of Steel"'s final tally, although it isn't enough for Warner Brothers to produce a straight sequel; instead a team-up with Batman is slated for 2015.

Wall Street Journal

The new Superman film, “Man of Steel,” didn’t perform quite as well as some analysts had expected. Sure, it has made $288 million at the domestic box office – a great number — but many had assumed a new Superman film would be a lock to make well over $300 million, especially with comic book movie guru Christopher Nolan serving as writer and producer.

[Deleted]

I was asking the wife if she wanted to see it again at the budget theater. She wasn't that interested. She kind of agrees with me that, yes, it's a good movie, but it's nothing special. It's the origin, again. It has new actors and a few new actors, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. We've seen an origin with Reeve, with L&C, multiple origin reboots in the last 30 years (Bryne, Waid/Yu, Johns/Frank), not to mention we just did 10 years of "Smallville" not too long ago. At least with "Batman Begins," we got a film origin, which we didn't get the first time around in the film series. I still maintain that Singer attempted to do more with new story elements by giving him a kid and allowing him to move in a new direction. It's really too bad the rest of the movie was bogged down by inferior story beats.

Yes, I'm surprised it didn't make more domestically, but after seeing the movie and forming the analysis I have, I can't say I'm surprised now.

But, I'm interested in seeing the first live-action team-up. I haven't given up on this version of the franchise yet. I'm still glad we're moving on from Donner/Reeve after 35 years.

[EnriqueH]

It's a shame we didn't get better closure to the Donnerverse, or that we didn't get a better opening in the reboot.

Instead, Superman will have to settle for average on both counts.

[Metallo]

Cool post Enrique. Lots of interesting info. MOS was a hit but not the one I imagine WB hoped for. The international box office has become a huge deal since SR came out. WB Had to be expecting bigger returns from overseas markets. Not to mention they threw their best, their heavy hitter creative names into the mix.

[Jimbo]

It's bullshit that the next movie is saddling Superman with Batman, as if Batman makes anything better.

See? Warner Bros. doesn't know what the heck they're doing. They got drunk off of the success of TDK and TDKR. The bar was set too high for MOS (similarly with SR), then they wonder what went wrong. But this time, they don't have to worry about pissing off Nolan who was working on TDK, so then they think the solution is "this needs Batman, Batman makes money".

By casting a bigger name than Cavill (Affleck), this says to me they don't trust Cavill to carry a movie. Inserting a very popular character (much too soon) played by a big name is exactly the kind of move a clueless studio would do. After all, making Superman a co-star in his own movie has been done before, and with great success.

Superman as a movie franchise ... is it really in a much better position now than it was in 2006?

[MerM]

Absolutely. It has more punching in it.

[atp]

Sept 9, 2013 1:38:22 GMT -5 MerM said:

Absolutely. It has more punching in it.

Not to mention a dragonfly. And a world engine.

[Deleted]

Takes butt hurt to a whole new level. They want the justice league, everyone knows that, everyone has known that for ages, throwing Batman in is a way to get closer to that whilst also guaranteeing big money. Been through it time and time again, I don't see the problem or what new information we have here.

If the polls for Joe public are anything to go for there's no toss up, it's a success, and no amount of whinging will change that.

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, cause everyone uses Yahoo.

Edit: Iron Man 3 was in the lead until 3 hours before the poll closed. Sounds like a cadre of Superman fans logged into multiple accounts.

What other non-Yahoo polls, pray tell, did MOS win? You did, after all, imply there were more than one. Right?

[theoj]

I agree that it was a brave decision of Singer's to move forward along the beaten track with SR and him having a son and I wish we had seen a sequel to that, where the action would have been guaranteed in Superman's fight against Brainiac or Doomsday or whatever. It probably would have been a bigger success than SR, as they knew what some of the failures of SR were and how to fix them.

But with MOS 2, WB only seem to be going for the easy route and an old formula, displaying no real ambition or courage for the future of the Superman franchise, but are using MOS 2 more as a foundation to launch the Justice League off of, which in itself is no guarantee of success.

Looks like we will have to wait another 15-20 years for another reboot of the Superman franchise, but what is more and more certain is that STM will never be surpassed in our lifetime!!!

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2013 7:22:26 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

Yeah, cause everyone uses Yahoo.

Edit: Iron Man 3 was in the lead until 3 hours before the poll closed. Sounds like a cadre of Superman fans logged into multiple accounts.

What other non-Yahoo polls, pray tell, did MOS win? You did, after all, imply there were more than one. Right?

Various. I'm not sure why that's of no value to you but the opinions of pretentious critics is?

You need to get over it Enrique. If the really is a massive hit I'm actually worried you and one or two others might stick the hose in the car exhaust pipe. Sad bastards

[EnriqueH]

Nobody is saying it wasn't successful, but box office performance is about context.

And actually, those weren't movie critics, most were financial writers.

[Metallo]

Who knows how much MOS really cost to make and market. I remember when the original production budget was supposed to be $ 185 million. It sure didn't stick to that. With MOS it was a hit...but there was a serious risk of diminishing returns with the sequel after MOS split people.

WB doesn't have a clue. They want Justice League but look how massively indecisive they've been and how much they've backtracked.

Anyone seen this list of problems with DC since guys like Lee DiDio and Harris took charge along with the woman who was put in charge of DC entertainment?

guttersandpanels.com/gutters-and-panels/2013/3/23/the-new-52-timeline-of-departures

Its DC entertainments purpose to help get great films and tv made. The lack of vision and corporate meddling is creatively crippling these characters. The fuck up with canceling Young Justice and Green Lantern TAS are another sign that there are lots of problems across various media.

We aren't even sure if Flash is going to be a movie and a tv show or just one and not the other. I don't think WB knows either. Would it be right to have both? Remember the complaints about there potentially being two live action versions of Superman after MOS?

[crazy_asian_man]

On one hand, I've been saying/thinking forever that if SR had a sequel, it would have probably satisfied everyone's desire for action AND had the characters already established. Would it have made as much or more than MOS? Who knows.

But- we know that nobody around this poll feels all that great about Batman being inserted into the sequel, versus a standalone sequel.... and possibly being a formula for Superman sequels hereon out.

I have to say that it's got to (kind of) suck being Ben Affleck going into Batman vs. Superman (or whatever it's going to be called) with all the difficulties that go into making a film, and knowing that even at this stage of so many superhero films out, that a giant portion of the public doesn't want you to play the role.
(There's always been backlash against most of the actors chosen but with Keaton, the internet wasn't around and superhero films were still rare despite STM being successful)

In any case- the novelty factor of 'Batman vs. Superman' will bring in people- but will it bring them in again and again for multiple viewings?

With Marvel, if Joss Whedon is put in charge of Shield and Avengers, I think they're in great shape.

With 20th Century, if Bryan Singer is in charge of X-men from hereon out, I'm thrilled.

With WB, if Snyder and Goyer are the guiding light for DC superheroes.... I'm resigned to the fact.
( Just thinking of them as big budget fan films, with flat acting and questionable scripts. If I can sit through a fan film, I can sit through any Superman film these guys put out. Go WB! )

[crazy_asian_man]

Anyone seen this list of problems with DC since guys like Lee DiDio and Harris took charge along with the woman who was put in charge of DC entertainment?

guttersandpanels.com/gutters-and-panels/2013/3/23/the-new-52-timeline-of-departures

Its DC entertainments purpose to help get great films and tv made. The lack of vision and corporate meddling is creatively crippling these characters. The fuck up with canceling Young Justice and Green Lantern TAS are another sign that there are lots of problems across various media.

I'm not at all suprised about what a (mostly) giant disaster creatively the 'new 52' has been. At the comic conventions, I love attending the writer and artist panels- where most are pretty open about how messed up the system is at DC.... and we can see the surface results for much of WB's superhero film projects as not much better.

Over and over Kevin Feige is given credit for steering the Marvel movie ship by its directors to finagle something like the Avengers, and the movies (while admittedly a mixed success) have generally stayed faithful to the comics characters. Supposedly Geoff Johns was the overseer, but at Wondercon, he sounded more like he was all about 'collaboration, not control'-
(Nice guy, but can he really hold his head up high after the creative results of Green Lantern?) So, essentially, maybe there's NO equivalent to Kevin Feige- unless that role has or hasn't been given to Snyder.

What's odd is that Disney (who seemed to have a reputation of micromanaging) has been the smarter company by buying, then leaving Pixar and Marvel alone--- and WB seems to be either indecisive or choosing the wrong team- more times than not- for their superhero properties.

[EnriqueH]

I think Affleck just may be a Keaton/Craig situation, although Affleck comes with a lot fanboy baggage.

[atp]

In MoS, when the singularity sucked the villains back into the Phantom Zone, did the giant frozen penises get recreated?

[Metallo]

Sept 9, 2013 11:02:09 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Anyone seen this list of problems with DC since guys like Lee DiDio and Harris took charge along with the woman who was put in charge of DC entertainment?

guttersandpanels.com/gutters-and-panels/2013/3/23/the-new-52-timeline-of-departures

Its DC entertainments purpose to help get great films and tv made. The lack of vision and corporate meddling is creatively crippling these characters. The fuck up with canceling Young Justice and Green Lantern TAS are another sign that there are lots of problems across various media.

I'm not at all suprised about what a (mostly) giant disaster creatively the 'new 52' has been. At the comic conventions, I love attending the writer and artist panels- where most are pretty open about how messed up the system is at DC.... and we can see the surface results for much of WB's superhero film projects as not much better.

Over and over Kevin Feige is given credit for steering the Marvel movie ship by its directors to finagle something like the Avengers, and the movies (while admittedly a mixed success) have generally stayed faithful to the comics characters. Supposedly Geoff Johns was the overseer, but at Wondercon, he sounded more like he was all about 'collaboration, not control'-
(Nice guy, but can he really hold his head up high after the creative results of Green Lantern?) So, essentially, maybe there's NO equivalent to Kevin Feige- unless that role has or hasn't been given to Snyder.

What's odd is that Disney (who seemed to have a reputation of micromanaging) has been the smarter company by buying, then leaving Pixar and Marvel alone--- and WB seems to be either indecisive or choosing the wrong team- more times than not- for their superhero properties.

The problem is there is no clear creative voice in charge of DCs properties. With Marvel you can point to Feige and say he's one of the top guys when it comes to the entertainment side of things. With DC it's obvious guys like DiDio and Lee and Snyder and Goyer are all being puppeteed by the suits. Every creative decision is being by money men who don't know how to execute creative decisions. Collaboration is great but I don't think that's what we are seeing. There's too much second guessing going on. Bruce Timms one of the best creative minds they have. He's done in animation what WBs trying to do on film yet even he's not being allowed to really cut loose despite his track record. They can say Geoff Johns is being listened to but we all know he's not.

Disney is happy to admit they don't know how to handle every creative decision with Marvel, let Marvel do what they do best, and and take the money. WB hasn't figured that out. Instead they are trying to chase Chris Nolan's tail in rush because that's the only thing they have to point to despite having nothing to do with the creative decisions that made his films work.

[EnriqueH]

You know what?

Part of me thinks MOS2 will be more of the same, but part of me is hopeful MOS2 will be better and I'm going to tell you why.

Back in 1989, I thought Batman SUCKED.

I liked Nicholson, the soundtrack and certain individual scenes, but overall? Nah. I couldn't STAND Keaton. (I don't feel that way about Cavill, but I don't think he distinguished himself either.)

But then 1992 rolled around and Batman Returns surprised the shit out of me.

I loved it.

It's still one of my favorite superhero movies.

Go figure.

So I hope history will repeat itself and that I will really like MOS 2.

I just hope that if I do, WB won't pull another Batman Forever...

[Kirok]

Does anyone feel the SR/MOS relationship is akin to the "Hulk" and "Incredible Hulk" a few years back? SR was NOT what people were expecting and ended up being a very devisive film, same with "Hulk." They were also built to stand alone outside of the context of shared cinematic universes.

Despite making a profit (taking into account the worldwide numbers) and sequel chatter for a few years, both films were eventually labeled failures and their respective franchises rebooted a few years down the road. Both MOS and "Incredible Hulk" were constructed as almost direct responses to the criticisms of their failed predecessors, ditching the "too cerebral" (to borrow a phrase from Star Trek's history) approach and delivering an all-out action extravaganza. They were more mainstream because that's what the mainstream had demanded. They were also built with shared cinematic universes in mind, with Tony Stark appearing in IH and MOS being touted as the launch of the DC cinematic universe since day one.

Yet at the end of the day, to call either IH or MOS a success was as the title of this thread says, a "toss up." Funny how Hollywood works.

[theoj]

MOS made more than doubles IH's US gross and triple its international gross!

MOS is a big success at $657 million, but I'll admit a disappointment to most, when a billion dollars was expected out of it.
MOS needed to make just a couple dozen more millions in the US to be deemed a great success, but perhaps its biggest disappointment is overseas where a gross of $367 million around the world is pretty feeble! Nowadays, you would normally expect the overseas gross to doubles the US gross but it's only been a 44%/56% split, so MOS really didn't take off overseas like a Transformers movie does, though it tried to be like Transformers for at least 45 minutes!

Let's face it, people are either tired of Superman, or just not attracted to what a new movie offers.

With Transformers 4, you can bet people will still come out in droves and it will again make a billion dollars.

[EnriqueH]

I think Superman can do a billion if it gets people talking positively and generates buzz.

But we know how often that happens...

[Metallo]

Sept 10, 2013 6:11:31 GMT -5 theoj said:

MOS made more than doubles IH's US gross and triple its international gross!

MOS is a big success at $657 million, but I'll admit a disappointment to most, when a billion dollars was expected out of it.
MOS needed to make just a couple dozen more millions in the US to be deemed a great success, but perhaps its biggest disappointment is overseas where a gross of $367 million around the world is pretty feeble! Nowadays, you would normally expect the overseas gross to doubles the US gross but it's only been a 44%/56% split, so MOS really didn't take off overseas like a Transformers movie does, though it tried to be like Transformers for at least 45 minutes!

Let's face it, people are either tired of Superman, or just not attracted to what a new movie offers.

With Transformers 4, you can bet people will still come out in droves and it will again make a billion dollars.

Didn't it also cost more than TIH too? Not only that but haven't prices gone up and international box office become bigger in the five years since TIH's release? It's very similar to the Hulk situation. If you take into account higher ticket prices, IMAX, and 3D tickets and the rise of importance of international box office MOS didn't do THAT much better than SR. If SR were released now I think it would make more money than it did in 2006. some movies that have done poorly in the US have cleaned up overseas. Look at John Carter.

I think SR was better than Hulk but TIH was better than MOS. that's just me though.

[EnriqueH]

I really liked TIH.

[atp]

Which flopped more: SR or MoS?