Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Masters on " Superman" Dough
"Superman Returns was supposed to be the sure thing. But considering the expense of making the picture, it has to do huge numbers just to come out okay. And it needs to do more than come out okay. An event film like Superman is supposed to make up for the other movies that fail. "If what you can say at the end of it all is, 'We broke even,' that's awful," says a top executive at another studio. "It's not why you mount this type of movie. They're so painful, they're so stressful, they use up so much capital and they tie up the infrastructure. You need those to give back and when they don't, it's costly." -- taken from Kim Master's Slate piece on the financial pospects facing Bryan Singer's film. Masters' piece starts out noting that Superman Returns is going to get clobbered when Pirates 2 opens on July 7th, but she fails to mention one small but possibly crucial detail: Superman Returns is about something -- it has a heart and a soul -- and Pirates is about dead fucking nothing. If inner values mean anything to anyone out there, uperman Returns might hang around a little longer than the handicappers are predicting.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 29, 2006 at 4:12 PM
comment #1
NYCBusybody says ...
uperman Returns, Jeffrey? I've heard of Superman Returns.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 4:23 PM
comment #2
NYCBusybody says ...
And I doubt that detail will matter. We popcorn-munching philistines will win this battle, huzzah!
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 4:24 PM
comment #3
Anonymous says ...
It's also worth noting that Pirates 2 cost a few arms and legs as well. It's going to open huge but, when you come down to it, it wasn't a lot cheaper than Superman.
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 4:30 PM
comment #4
Anonymous says ...
That sure didn't stop POTC1 from hitting $300 million.... since when is summer box-office about heart&soul, anyway? (I wish it were, but it isn't).
Obviously we'll have to see how the numbers turn out over the next few days, but if you want to sell "heart & soul" maybe WB would've been smarter to trim $50 million off their budget and release SR over the Christmas holidays, positioning it as a LOTR-type event movie.
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 4:31 PM
comment #5
Zach says ...
I can't wait to see this movie again! I hope it does well at the box office. It's freaking great!!!
Posted by Zach at June 29, 2006 4:35 PM
comment #6
Vallen says ...
The point people keep missing when talking about the movie's huge budget is that it's making up for other directors. The large figure that keeps being pointed out is for Singer's movie, Mc G's movie, Micheal Bay's movie, Tim Burton's movie, and Brett Ratner's movie. Remember all the postproduction that was never used? All of that is part of the final figure. So the $250 million a lot of these idjits are complaining about would probably be closer to $150 mil. Probably over but not by much. What Warner's should really be hitting themselves in the head over is that really awful Poseidon piece of junk. If some idiot hadn't greenlighted it then maybe there would be less pressure on Superman's back. He can't lift EVERYTHING out of the water.
Posted by Vallen at June 29, 2006 4:40 PM
comment #7
Vallen says ...
Pre-production not post.
Posted by Vallen at June 29, 2006 4:41 PM
comment #8
Telemachos says ...
POTC2/3 together cost, what, $350 million or so? I haven't heard any solid figures. I'm sure it'll be close to $200 million apiece by the time Buena Vista is done.... but as obscene as those figures are, $260-300 million is REALLY bloated.
Posted by Telemachos at June 29, 2006 4:43 PM
comment #9
oddDuck says ...
YES. At the end of the Masters article she either writes or quotes somebody saying something like "the second one's [SR sequel] not gonna get any cheaper". Uh, in this case it likely will.
Posted by oddDuck at June 29, 2006 4:44 PM
comment #10
Telemachos says ...
Singer himself admitted his budget was well in excess of $200 million. The $260 million figure also doesn't include the $100 in prints/marketing/advertising.
Posted by Telemachos at June 29, 2006 4:45 PM
comment #11
SeppoIgloo says ...
Just saw Superman, and am recommending it to everyone I know with good taste. I expect many will be doing the same. The Philistine's may have their film in Pirate's, but there must be enough people left who still like some substance to make Superman at least on par with Pirate's pulp.
Posted by SeppoIgloo at June 29, 2006 4:49 PM
comment #12
Cory says ...
No matter the number, every penny is on that screen. That doesn't excuse the ballooned budget but this one of the better looking summer films I've seen in years.
Posted by Cory at June 29, 2006 4:49 PM
comment #13
Telemachos says ...
I haven't seen either film yet, but I confess I don't get the quality/trash argument with respect to a film's box-office. There simply is no correlation -- for every quality film that makes a mint there are 10 trashy ones that do. And it's not as if SR is some spunky little indie-film-that-could. I find it hard caring whether one studio's juggernaut beats the other or not.
Posted by Telemachos at June 29, 2006 5:09 PM
comment #14
Dixon Steele says ...
All this obsessing about budgets misses the point.
The question isn't is the movie worth $200 m, $250 m, etc.
It's is the movie worth the price of a ticket?
In the case of Superman, it's an unqualified Yes.
And I'm guessing the same is so of Pirates. Despite Jeff's fulminations about it's "soullessness", blah, blah, zzzzz.
Posted by Dixon Steele at June 29, 2006 5:10 PM
comment #15
Terry says ...
Agreed Dixon Steele.
Superman was DEFINITELY worth the price of the ticket. I'll probably buy another one and go again this weekend. I was very, very impressed by this film.
(I'll probably buy a ticket to Pirates too. I liked the first one. it's possible to like both Pirates AND Superman!)
Posted by Terry at June 29, 2006 5:26 PM
comment #16
Anonymous says ...
superman returns is a great flick, don't care what anyone says or how much money it makes, I think it will have a long life.
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 5:29 PM
comment #17
NYCBusybody says ...
For what it's worth (to us Pirate fans, but obviously not Jeffrey), Harry Knowles said this after seeing POTC2:
"This series is the single most inventive and vibrant franchise moving forward today."
And Moriarty of AICN said this:
"PIRATES 2 is one of the best summer entertainments I’ve seen in a while, and it manages to improve on the first film in every way. It’s smart, it’s funny, it plays out on an epic scale while still putting character first, and it builds to a conclusion that will have audiences twisting in agony as they have to wait for PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3: AT WORLD’S END next summer. "
I kinda dig them both, especially Moriarty, so I'm even more excited now!
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 5:34 PM
comment #18
Daniel Zelter says ...
If Superman Returns doesn't do well, Warner only has Lady in the Water to look forward to this year. And they've only got 2-3 Harry Potter movies left in them as well...
Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 29, 2006 5:35 PM
comment #19
Walter says ...
Jeff, you're losing credibility man. You heralded "Superman Returns" as a great motion picture. Yet, the picture has turned out to be a big floating turd. There's no traces of any heart or soul on display, it's just an empty mechanical retread that just sits there. It provides no joy or entertainment for its audience. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that it's a huge disappointment (and no, I don't mean financially). Just check out the talkbacks on some other websites, more than half are coming down negatively on the picture. A couple of notes on your coverage of this summer's releases: you originally said "The Break-Up" would bomb (it didn't); you said that "Poseidon" was actually a pretty decent film (it wasn't). Makes me wonder just how completely wrong you are about "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
Posted by Walter at June 29, 2006 5:36 PM
comment #20
NYCBusybody says ...
That's the only problem I've really had with Jeffrey's take on Pirates all along. It's cool that he just doesn't like it, and even that he may really actively hate it. But when so many people, intelligent, discerning moviegoers and critics really enjoy it and find it witty and fun, the fact that he has such loathing not just for the movie but for US...it just seems...weird.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 5:48 PM
comment #21
NYCBusybody says ...
I mean, I saw Poseidon, and talk about an empty, nothing, horrible movie (in my eyes), yet I don't hate Jeffrey and think he's an idiot for having liked it. I may wonder what the hell he saw in it, but to take it so such a vitriolic degree as he has...interesting.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 5:52 PM
comment #22
Anonymous says ...
I don't think Wells has any "hate" or "loathing" for people who like POTC 2. For the movie itself, sure, but not for us. The strongest thing he says in his review is that there is "really and truly something wrong with you" if Pirates 2 brings you "joy" deep down inside. Later in the talkback he mentions someone having an "aesthetic deficiency". Condescending maybe, but not hateful.
Wells' strong opinions about movies are the reason I come to this website. Much more entertaining than a lot of other critics, even when I don't agree with him. Maybe especially when I don't agree with him.
Also, I wouldn't trust Harry Knowles' reviews too much. He gushes like a broken fire hydrant over just about every movie he reviews, unless the consensus is negative, as in X-Men 3. Moriarty, on the other hand, is the best reviewer on AICN. He's the only one there whose opinions I listen to. His review really makes me look forward to seeing Pirates.
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 6:58 PM
comment #23
Ken Y. says ...
Sorry, forgot to sign the above post.
Posted by Ken Y. at June 29, 2006 6:59 PM
comment #24
NYCBusybody says ...
Ken, it's not really this review I'm talking about. For the past month or so, Jeffrey's been, yes, nearly hateful, in many other posts and talkbacks.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 7:01 PM
comment #25
NYCBusybody says ...
Ken, it's not really this review I'm talking about. For the past month or so, Jeffrey's been, yes, nearly hateful, in many other posts and talkbacks.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 7:02 PM
comment #26
NYCBusybody says ...
But I don't really care. Bring on Pirates!
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 7:02 PM
comment #27
Steve C. says ...
Vallen - the figure that seems most credible is about $335M to finally get the big blue Boy Scout to fly again. Tim Burton and Nicholas Cage were play or pay. Factor in the costs for the aborted versions and interest, $335M looks very plausible.
Just got back from seeing it in IMAX.
Underwhelming.... 7 out of 10.
Posted by Steve C. at June 29, 2006 7:35 PM
comment #28
Scott Weinberg says ...
So Superman has "heart" and Pirates is "soulless." OK.
But only one of 'em is FUN, and it sure ain't Superangst.
Posted by Scott Weinberg at June 29, 2006 8:04 PM
comment #29
Anonymous says ...
Why has no one picked up on the fact that Pirates 2&3 are costing well north of $600 million in total production costs alone?! Everyone is too busy saying that Superman is the most expensive film of all time, but no one even mentions Pirates. Corruption, production problems and so much more equal this $600+...and then throw on top of it the gigantic amounts of $$$ that Disney will spend to market them. Anyone out there???????
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 9:18 PM
comment #30
Preston says ...
I don't know about Pirates 1 & 2 costing $600 million + (the number I heard was closer to $400 million), but I can say for certain that this Superman was a rather large blunder for Warner. It's simply not going to have the buzz in middle America that gave Batman Begins legs and saved it from a similar fate. Visually, it works - and Spacey earns some genuine laughs - but the whole kid subplot and the title character's nonchalant attitude towards both his five year hiatus and his role as father doesn't gel with the average American's view of Superman. They could believe Superman could do either, but not without a significant showing of remorse. Moreover, many parents - wrongly so - will hesitate about taking their kids because of the implication of the subplot (Superman had unmarried sex and is an absentee father!). It's silly, but it's how a lot of people out here think. Besides, the nostalgia for the original film just isn't there. The Donner film is well regarded in the memory of the average older filmgoer, but the somewhat well-attended Tuesday night show I caught didn't feature anywhere near the kind of strange dress calamity that accompanied the openings of the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or even the Matrix sequels. I say it finishes under $200 million domestic and around $400 million total.
Posted by Preston at June 29, 2006 9:53 PM
comment #31
Frank Kwok says ...
"Superman Returns"'s problem is that it's too, too reverentially tied to the Donner and Lester films. By all accounts, Singer apparently conceived it as such from the get go, but therein lies the rub: SR works fantastically as the REAL part III, but that's about it. In my heart of hearts I had hoped Singer would have kept I and II as subtle, yet unmistakeable touchstones, and gone the pseudo-reboot route. Not another origin story mind you, but a clear, new direction channeling a different energy to match the times. Instead, we got a hymn to parts I and II, and not too much else. On a positive note, the sequel presents tantalizing possibilities as long as Singer breaks clean from the Donner vibe. (Please, please, please bring in one of the big villains - Brainiac, anyone?)
Posted by Frank Kwok at June 30, 2006 7:25 AM
comment #32
ArchiveGuy says ...
So let me get this straight--PotC2 is about "dead fucking nothing" (DFN), but two films from earlier this year--Running Scared & MI3--also unquestionably about DFN, JW manages to label as "Good, Sturdy, Honorable". Is it the fact that an alleged-DFN film might actually be **successful** is what JW has such a problem with?
I like him better than Poland, but I rarely see DP worked into such an interminable lather over something so petty.
Posted by ArchiveGuy at June 30, 2006 9:56 AM
Post a comment