I don't think anyone is spinning this thread in hopes of a sequel. Do you really think Warner Bros. would spend 10 years developing their re-launch of the Superman franchise only to make one movie and stop? No fuckin' way.

yeah. If the sequel is a failure then they'll question the process. But as it stands they just kick started the franchise and spent how much on doing so? they wont let it pass by without getting another out.

Superman cost at least a hundred million dollars more than M:I3. Now, production cost and box office don't tell the whole story; a lot of various contracts, deals and tax diversions help dictate which films make money and which don't.

The uncommonly jumbo chunk of the gross that Tom Cruise gets probably makes M:I3 a worse deal for Paramount than the box office take indicates.

But Singer got gross points too; my understanding is that Warner poached him from Fox with an uncommonly generous compensation package. That likely won't be on the table after Singer's massive cost overruns and the film's disappointing performance.

My guess is that the suits at Warners are debating whether this one earned a sequel, and whether they want future "Superman" projects to be associated with "Superman Returns," or whether they want to forget this thing and let the franchise rest and then restart it from scratch a few years down the road with a new director and star.

The argument for a sequel at this point is not that this film's production merits one, but that the costs sunk into this film were sunk in expectation of it spawning several profitable sequels. But the movie business is conservative these days; several big-budget pictures like "Used Guys" and "Believe it or Not" have been canned because the studios would rather cut their losses than risk further investment. Superman might be a similar scenario.

You also have to consider the opportunity cost of sinking $200 million+ into another Superman sequel; Warner could make some other $200 million movie instead, in hopes of a larger back end. There's no reason to expect a sequel will generate more interest than this original, and cause to worry that people who went to "Superman Returns" might not bother to show back up if he returns yet again.

Frankly I think that would be the advisable choice, because the likely alternative is that they'll fire Singer and try to do the sequel in a way that allows them to reap benefits from the investment done in this year's movie while risking as little as possible. What that means is a no-name director who gets no points and can be kept under the studio's thumb, a budget that will leave room for only perfunctory rather than spectacular action sequences, and probably a heavily focus-grouped script and storyline.

2009 can't come fast enough.

Then they'll have to go all out on the sequel and make it a superhero vs a supervillain action-fest which will appeal to the masses (And it'll be tricky since they're gonna have to use a smaller budget than it's predecessor had)

Apparently, this is what the masses want. They'll approve these movies if they're fun, which RETURNS didn't turn out to be (For many)

Your comment of "If you take away the special effects then all you have is Kevin Spacey" doesn't help inject anything but your bitterness into this thread.

I don't get this sentiment. As I've pointed out in this thread before, the movie was just as well liked by people who saw it as POTC2 was.

I completely agree with the above post that Superman was awesome and everyone I know seemed to like it very much. I love following box office tracking and figures, but I hate that whatever a movie grosses now seems to have an overall impact on the legacy of the actual film. I thought Superman Returns was great no matter if it made $200m or $500m, it's the same movie to me. It can certainly be a box office "disappointment" without negatively impacting how I felt about it. I think it's good that I saw it on opening day so that I didn't get to hear the negative publicity and response because it didn't hit a certain dollar figure.

And I've read estimates that upwards of $65 million of that was created before Singer ever signed on. If they dump Singer, they might find themselves in another decade long pre-pre-production process.

That's assuming that they want to make another Superman film at all.

Well, there's the fact that X2 earned more than X-Men, both films that Singer helmed. There's no guarantee of course, but then , there's no guarantee that a completely unrelated Superman film will make even as much as this one did.

Not the "people" I know...who are mostly just regular Joes. Of course, I liked POTC2 more as well.

When SR was the topic of discusion for about a week, it seemed like even the folks who liked it had a caveat. It was good, but...

I never heard anything of the sort with Pirates.

That's anecdotal evidence, and not very objective. Here, read my post where I layed out the difference in public scores of the films:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....18#post7197618

Are you serious? Go read the Pirates 2 Review thread. Opinions in that thread ranged from thinking the film was great, to mediocre, to awful. And there were plenty of caveats, even from people who liked it.

Fair enough, but if you think that there's no selection bias in the reviews at rottentomatoes or here for that matter, you could use a stats refresher. What portion of the REAL population hangs out on either site, and what do you suppose their demographics are?

At any rate, it's not really even fair to compare them as they are very different movies. One is a very lighthearted comedy adventure, and the other is a dead serious pseudo-epic. So yeah, folks liked them both, but I think they liked them in different ways and for different reasons. It's like comparing Tombstone with Schindler's List...same year...both good films...probably similar grosses. But that doesn't really make them comparable in any way.

As for SR....

Unfortunately, all the stuff that was supposed to resonate (the alienation, the god complex, the fatherhood speech) simply didn't for me. I even went to see it again since I had a free pass from the animated series DVD (i.e. the real superman)...and I just couldn't wait for it to be over. I'll buy the DVD out of obligation to support the franchise, but color me VERY disappointed across the board.

I take part of that back...loved the plane rescue!

Thanks! I remember this cartoon from my childhood. I put my order in for season 1 and 2.

They probably spent that much working on "Superman" before they finally got "Superman Returns" off the ground, but I doubt any of those costs are actually included in the production costs of "Superman Returns." It's very likely that they are not included in the $260m estimate, which is why people sometimes say the movie cost $300m.

Of course, all those years and costs were incurred in the hopes of redoing Superman "the right way" and making it a hit franchise on par with "Spider-Man." Now that they see Supes isn't the cash cow that they thought, they probably won't treat him with such reverence (though reverence was part of the problem with "Returns"). A quick-and-dirty sequel could be cranked out relatively quickly.

I think it has been well documented that those costs ARE included. It was probably $300M once promotional costs were factored in.

Ishtar, Gigli... these are bombs. SR is not in the same class. There are people that say the same about Attack of the Clones (a disapointment). Hardly. Just because a (vocal) portion of the audience didn't like it does not make it a disapointment. Superman Returns will... uh... return.

Nothing about what movies cost is well documented. The best you can do is try to separate the lies from the misrepresentations.

I pulled up the wiki on SR, and here's what it had to say about the budget:

Generally, the studio is going to try to claim a lower number. Who the hell knows? My bet is on real 'spensive.

I think Superman will sell quite a bit on home video, honestly, which will convince WB to bite on a sequel with Singer.

Maybe Singer isn't the best choice to continue the Superman franchise.

That line about Universal throwing in the towel on the Hulk franchise is completely false since they just greenlit the sequel.

If they go the Khan route, then part 2 will probably be more successful. More action and more of a threat to Supes is what fans want.

And who is? Singer is a very talented director. I have complete faith in him to turn in a great sequel.

Marvel is actually making and financing the film, Universal is just distributing it.

C'mon WB we gotta one more, please, please, please.... Batman in 08, Supes in 09... it's the way to go.

My theory is this - it'll do better not only by focusing more on action, etc but also by the audiences acceptance of Routh in the role. I think (although he was superb persona wise) he hurt the film's chances because he physically wasn't quite there, thus some people stayed away. Everyone sees it on DVD and likes him... he gets a few yrs older, a little bigger... and suddenly he's more convincing.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2 now has a worldwide total of $855 million. I still think it had a small role in Superman's box office take. Thankfully for Batman Begins, it didn't have to deal with such a monsterous title during its second weekend. Bewitched didn't quite perform as well as Pirates did.

Jeff Wells from Hollywood Elsewhere offers up some requests for the possible Superman sequel:

"Honestly, truly -- if you were Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov at Warner Bros., would you greenlight a second Superman film ? Would you want Bryan Singer to "go all Wrath of Khan-y" on it or would you hire someone else of his general calbire?

If it was my call I'd say yes to Singer but under the following conditions:

(1) He has to bring in a two-hour film -- no ifs, ands or buts;

(b) Kate Bosworth is dimissed as Lois Lane and Rachel McAdams replaces her in a no-big-deal way, like it was when Val Kilmer was suddenly the new Batman;

(c) Sll major plot turns and occurences in the script would have to be submitted to a three-person Logic Review Board made up of Superman movie geeks who would ixnay stuff like Superman falling back to earth from gravity when he's well beyond the earth's gravitational pull;

(d) No special effects sequences that make you want to go for a bathroom or popcorn break the second time you see the film; and

(e) Singer doesn't get his sign off on marketing."

I'm a Rachel McAdams fan. She's done nothing lately and definitely looks the part of Lois. She also has the acting chops.

Physics, my boy. Supes was pushing the "continent" and each force has an equal and opposite force. Once supes passed out, he was no longer countering the "opposite" force in low/zero G, pushing him back into the pull of the Earth's gravity.

I don't want fanboys ANYWHERE near the script to these films.

Every one of those ideas are lame...