Dr. DVD

I know that Batman and Superman go together, but you are probably baffled as to why I put King Kong in that line up.

Basically, both Batman Begins and King Kong (2005) were two movies that went over well with the critics and fans of their respective series (I would classify Kong as a franchise, despite being the same story told again). They took their time to develop character and didn't make the action and adventure the total focus, though when it did it was done quite well in both cases. Both were made by filmmakers and screenwriters with the utmost respect for what they were handling, and both were widely recognized by those who saw them as being good movies.
The movies wound up doing pretty good both domestically and worldwide (though Kong did quite a bit more than Batman worldwide), but due to the high cost of production and promotion, they were viewed as disappointments.
Almost all of the buzz for Superman Returns is positive; apparently Singer knows how to treat this genre and has made a good if not great movie. But, the few complaints I have read in these reviews all seem the same; it's too long and there's not enough action, though what exists is good. In short: the same kind of complaints I heard about the other two movies I have mentioned. I would love for Superman Returns to blow everything out of the water this summer (pun intended for POTC 2, which opens on its heels a week later), but I fear that it might follow the same path as the other two movies I mentioned, and with the price tag rumored to be over $300 million, that seems like a major possibility.
I suppose what hurt the other two was the fact that Batman had some very lackluster installments preceding it, and not many people cared about King Kong being re-made again, much less with a three hour run time (I still think had it been two and a half hours it would have been much larger hit). But as someone who holds movies like this being done well and with respect for their roots dearly, I hate it when they underperform as it decreases the likelihood of someone trying that route again, especially if it's costly and doesn't pay off like they hoped. In the end, I guess it will all lie within how the media wants to spin its numbers.

EDIT: Please don't try and spin this into one of my alleged "this movie is doomed!" threads. Of course it would be ironic if Superman didn't make enough and its low profits were its Doomsday!

PopcornTreeCt

Well, I don't understand your logic with the comparisons of Batman Begins and King Kong. I enjoyed both movies for different reasons. So, uh, I just hope it's good cause I'm willing to spend $7 on a ticket for it.

matrixrok9

I didn't think Batman Begins was a disapointment at the box office. It didn't open big but it had legs. Personally, I thought the movie would bomb, fortunately, I was wrong.

Supermallet

King Kong was actually viewed as a bigger disappointment, but coming on the heels of Return of the King, the second film ever to crack a billion dollars, nothing could have topped it.

Batman was a hit, so I don't know what you're talking about on that one.

needlz

Yeah, I think Batman Begins showed some good legs after a decent opening to get over the $200 million mark with some good word-of-mouth.

But I see where you're going with this . . . this definitely has the potential to be a great film that satisfies the "die-hards", but could be considered as underperforming at the box-office due to the big budget, long running time, and perceived lack of action.

Or who knows . . . it could blow-up as well

Legolas

Does the budget of this film include all the pay-or-play deals (Cage, Burton, etc.) and 800,000 scripts of all the previous attempts to restart this franchise?

clemente

That's the thing, no one is really sure when it comes to movie budgets. The budget of X3 was widely believed to be 150 million until the Wall Street Journal did a piece and revealed the actual number was about 210.

From what Singer had said himself in places, the 200-260 million dollar budget (depending on who you believe) doesn't include the costs incured by having to pay Cage, Burton, and anyone else who tried to bring Supes to the screen.

RichC2

I can see the headline "The 300 Million Dollar Bomb!" popping up on drudgereport.com after it opens with $50m.

Batman Begins had a very strong opening, it made $48.7m over the weekend but $72.9m from Wed - Sunday, which is extremely good. I guess if you don't break $100m in 5 days you're a dud.

Dr. DVD

That seems to be the case with a lot of movies nowadays. Hell, it seems unless you can make $100 million on your opening weekend you're a dud! I guess it's all about how you open compared with how much you take in out of the gate.
What baffles me is studios trying to hide how much they spent on movies nowadays. I remember when Titanic came out they seemed to trumpet its $200 million price tag. I just wonder what truly is the most expensive movie made to date, with inflation adjustments of course!

Terrell

I think it has to do with expectation. Most if not all expected Kong to be a 300 million dollar earner, and was easily a candidate for the top grossing film of the year. Based on expectation, it was a disappointment. Same with Batman Begins. I don't think that makes them duds.

As for Superman Returns, I don't know how it will do. None of the first films were what I'd call huge blockbusters. So we'll see if this follows suit.

B.A.

I would hope Returns is more like Begins than Kong. One was a masterpiece, and the other was a decent movie hidden between too much unnecessary crap.

And Begins had pretty good legs at the box office. Word of mouth helped keep the ball rolling.

Matthew Chmiel

Both King Kong and Batman Begins had some extremely good legs. Both films were able to do four times more than their opening three-day weekend totals. In the current day studio system, that is extremely rare as most films can't usually make more than double their opening weekend gross in terms of box office returns.

I have a feeling Superman Returns may not open with Spider-man like numbers, but will have some amazing legs -- in part due to the film being made available in IMAX 3D.

Supermallet

And as far as expectations go, a lot of analysts are actually predicting this one to be a dud for some oddball reason.

Superboy

A lot of people didn't expect Spider-man or it's sequel to do the amazing numbers that it did, and it pummeled the theaters. I expect Superman to do the same thing. The only thing that hindered King Kong at the box office was the three hour run time.

Kal-El

I like Batman, but the only thing Batman Begins had going for it for the general public was, well...Batman. Outside of comic book readers, who's heard of Ra's Al Ghul? Sure, Alfred was there too, but Rachel? Ducard? Who're those? Even Gordon wasn't commisioner yet. Again, I'm not knocking the film down as I saw it in theaters and own the 2-disc SE DVD. I just think there weren't enough familiar characters in it to make those who normally don't care about the movies take notice.

Whereas this Superman, you've got everybody in the mythos pretty much. Lex. Lois. Jimmy. Perry White. Ma Kent. The only unfamiliar ones are Richard and Kitty. So I think it's more "accessible" to the general public cuz it has the more established characters present.

That's my take on it anyway. So I hope it does better in the BO if for nothing else, so that the sequel can be guaranteed quicker.

FinkPish

I'm still curious why people not directly involved with the movie are so concerned with how the movie will perform in the box office. Why not judge the film on how well it does its job of telling an interesting, fun and well done story, rather than how much money it made in its first 3 days of release?

Kal-El

Um, welcome to DVDTalk?

It's where "Box Office take a good movie does not make" yet we have weekly Box Office Threads

It's where "Ebert has lost his mind" unless he gave a good review of a movie you also liked

It's where "The Academy Awards are a joke" except if they happen to give the Oscar to a movie you liked

Supermallet

Well, for one thing, if Superman flops, say goodbye to any sequels, regardless of how well it tells a story.

Box office take is a reality of the filmmaking world. If we only talked about things that directly affected our income, we would only be talking about our own jobs.

Legolas

I've overheard way too many people equate box office success or failure to the quality of a film, which is quite sad.

"Civilians" should only care about the box office take of movies they want to see more of, or in the case of Uwe Boll, less of.

FinkPish

I completely understand this, as well as everyone else's points, but it is not a reality that has any real impact on most of our lives. True, if the movie tanks we can probably say goodbye to any followups, but what if the movie tanks and it was actually a good movie, just plagued by bad timing and lazy word of mouth (stand up Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang)? Does that make the movie a bomb, even if it did its job in telling the story it set out to tell?

Obviously, you can all see my bias; I really don't care how much a movie made, unless I'm somehow involved in it with something to lose or gain. As a movie-goer and film lover, I care about the movie itself, not how much money the studio made that particular weekend.

Supermallet

Well, another reason for looking at box office is that people like good movies to do well. I'm glad Batman Begins made a lot of money and that they greenlit a sequel, as it's the best comic book film made to date. When so many awful movies make a lot of money, it's nice to see good movies also make a lot of money. When you see crap like X3 making record amounts of money, it's disheartening.

FinkPish

I also completely agree; it pisses me off already that the new Wayans' Bros movie is probably going to have a massive opening weekend. I was just stating that I find it odd that people put so much weight in box office numbers, and using that to either justify or denounce a movie's existence. I remember a time when only the people who read the daily trades cared about opening weekends; now I hear 13 year-olds talking about it everywhere. I personally blame Steven Spielberg and Jurassic Park's massive opening in '93.

Jackskeleton

Frankly, WB was glad to plunk out so much cash for this film and will pretty much consider it breaking even a major success because much like Batman, the whole point of this is to restart a franchise again. Batman's franchise was in bad shape and Batman Begins did a wonderful thing for its franchise. Superman Returns hopes to do the same for Superman.

WB has been sitting on such high potential with its DC all in one package to make films out of the long list of DC characters. So regardless of this films uphill climb to simply break even, it'll still be a success if it generates enough interest and cash to make a sequel and give this franchise new life.

In saying that, I plan on watching it twice on the 27th. I do believe it will have a strong opening and fairly decent legs, though having pirates come out a week later is a little odd.

Supermallet

I've already got my 10 PM tickets for the 27th, and if it's as good as everyone says it is, I will see it at least once more in the theaters. Perhaps fittingly the last film I saw twice in the theaters was Batman Begins.

Matthew Chmiel

I honestly don't think the film will bomb. The first two days of IMAX showings in Vegas are already sold out.

However, that means nothing to me. I'll be trying to find an IMAX theater in NYC playing it...