The IMAX was my third viewing and it made me feel like I had seen an entirely different flick.

Also, isn't it about time to let this thread die? I would say it's fair to assess SR as a "disappointment", but in the end only time will tell.

The question wasn't whether or not the film itself was a disppointment, but whether the box-office was. Considering that WB was aiming for at least $200 mil, and the film has yet to crack that I think it's fair to say that, while not a "failure", the box-office for the film so far has been disspointing.

Felt the same. Going back to see it there (at the IMAX) when I return from vacation. It's scheduled to play at the one in D.C. through the end of September.

The last one was almost 20 years ago. A big slice of the audience wasn't even born then. While critics were apt to compare Routh to Reeve, for the purposes of most audience members, they were starting "Superman" up anew.

It's possible that audiences didn't want to see "Superman" because he's uninteresting, but certainly not because it's overdone. I think it failed in part because the Clark Kent stuff is what makes him likable and identifiable. I don't want him as a metaphor for God. I want it to look like he's having fun flying. This Superman was a wet blanket.

"Batman Begins" and "Spider-Man" had a lot more humanity to them. "Superman Returns" was cold.

And, yes, Warner Brothers is tremendously disappointed. With "Poseidon," "Lady and the Water," and this as their three summer tentpoles, it's not exactly a banner year for them.

While the last Superman film was 20 years ago, there have been a number of Superman TV series since then; the popular Lois and Clark, and Smallville, which is currently running. He hasn't exactly been out of the public eye for all those years.

Compared to "Poseidon" and "Lady in the Water," Warner execs probably feel like kissing Byan Singer's feet.

I am almost certain that WB was banking on this carrying their summer. Shame. Oh well, all the need do is release another Harry Potter movie and they'll be back in the fold.

A handful of successes do not a studio make. See Disney Studio's recent decision to lay off a bunch of employees adn reduce their film output despite POTC 2's massive success.

I bet they'd trade Wolfgang Petersen, M. Night Shyamalan and Bryan Singer for another Christopher Nolan right now.

Eh, sometimes you swing and miss.

Why? It's not like Batman Begins did significantly more box office than Superman Returns is. In fact, SR has only earned $1 mil less domestically than BB had at this point in its theatrical release. If anything, WB probably just wished they went with a smaller budget. Although, I wonder if the production budget includes the decade-long pre-production costs on the film.

Besides, WB has Christopher Nolan, they co-produced his film The Prestige which is coming out this fall.

The extra $50 million wasted on Tim Burton and others' salaries is added to the budget. Take that out, and the production budget is probably about $210 million, which is in line with King Kong, X-Men 3, Armageddon, and others. Batman will likely only end up grossing a few million more here in the US than Superman, but it seems to be getting a free pass when talking about box office expectations.

I still don't see how it was a "free pass" when the expectations for Superman Returns seemed to be higher then Batman Begins; significantly higher, depending on some.

Also, I'm sure i'm not the only one that gets the impression that between the two films, there's a greater anticipation/interest in a sequel to Batman Begins then Superman Returns. Prospects for a sequel weren't even a question for Batman.

I sincerely hope the make little or no money with the movie. I thought it was not good enough (3 out of 5 which would have been ok with almost any other film BUT THIS IS SUPERMAN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE!!!)

Well, even with $50 million subtracted from the budget, SR still cost $60 million more than BB did, so its not unusual for the expectations to be different.

And it's not like BB hasn't had the label of "disspointment" slapped on it before:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=469508
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....41#post7012641

Yeah, but "Batman" made $4.75 million it's sixth weekend, and "Superman" made 2.1 million last week. "Superman" opened a lot bigger, and then went dead, and you can't just blame that on "Pirates," because there's been no other movie that directly competes for the blockbuster thriller audience released since. Superman's sixth weekend beat Batman's 8th weekend by only about a quarter million dollars. Superman may only be a million bucks behind Batman after week 6, but Superman is at the end of its trajectory. It is very unlikely the movie will cross $200m domestically.

And if they'd gone with a smaller budget, they might have come away with a smaller gross. If you cut $50 million in effects out of Superman Returns, what do you have left? Kevin Spacey.

I think the various failed attempts to get "Superman" projects off the ground prior to "Superman Returns" probably would not be included in the production budget. First of all, the studio would be in no way dishonest to treat these previous deals as discrete projects.

Second, the studio has incentives to treat them as different projects. There were probably various tax writeoffs affiliated with declaring those to be dead deals rather than expenses on an ongoing production, and counting them separately allows the studio to announce a smaller production budget.

The studio always wants to make the production budget to look small, because it makes stupid people think they're making more money. If they had an incentive to make the budget look bigger, they'd certainly include things like marketing.

If you factor in pay-or-play deals and liquidated contract damages as part of the cost of this project, the budget was probably over $300 million.

Hey, we get it! You didn't like the movie. What's the point of even typing that but to bash the film? We're not talking about whether or not you liked it, we're talking strictly about box office.

Stop acting like Bryan Singer raped your childhood and move on.

Also, it has been well established that the budget for the production included all the failed attempts to get it re-started over the years.

I'd also add that a sequel could be of some savings, effects-wise since they can re-use the tools created for the Supes "model" without having to build it all from scratch agaon.

I know this question is off topic, but I figure this thread has many knowledgable fans in it. I want to get my kid (2 yr old) into superman. He still too young for the movies. What are the best Superman cartoons on DVD that a kid could watch (not too much realistic violence)? Pardon my ignorance.

That's what I was thinking, too. A lot of the R & D spent on making Superman fly was a part of the production costs. At the very least, they should be able to save a few million using the already completed CGI techniques, sets, and production designs.

SuperFriends

That same logic could've applied to the Spiderman films, yet each subsequent film in that series has cost more than the previous.

Yeah, Hollywood isn't exactly known for cutting costs unless absolutely mandated by the studios. I don't see how they can make a Superman movie for less than the price of RETURNS, given inflation, increased salaries, and general cost of living. When you go too cheap, you get results like SUPERMAN IV.

I'm just trying to inject some reasonableness into a thread full of people trying to spin this debacle into something that gives them hopes for sequels from Bryan and Brandon.

Heads rolled at Paramount over M:I3, and that movie cost a hundred million bucks less than Superman, and actually had a higher worldwide gross.

SR already has a higher domestic gross than MI3, and comparing worldwide is a bit unfair because SR hasn't been released in all places overseas yet. For example, Japan alone added near $40 mil to MI3's worldwide gross, while SR hasn't opened there yet. Assuming a similar gross in Japan and the two film's grosses are practically identical.

Then there's that Superman is much more merchandisable than MI3, so there's another avenue of revenue that WB can take in from the film.

I'm not saying the film was amassive success, and only WB knows if it was profitable or not, but there's more to consider regarding this film than just the box-office take at the moment.