Re: Superman Rebooted
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer
That's domestic haul only, and ignores international and DVD sales, Adam. Yes, they made less each time, but they all made money, and lots of it.
|
But how much of that is derivative of the original's success? After
The Matrix's theatrical (and more importantly, unprecedented DVD) success, a two hour movie of Neo taking a dump in real time would have cleared $90 million opening weekend. As it was,
Reloaded was an event that divided audiences. The lack of overwhlming appeal for #2 doubtless contributed to the less stellar $48 million opening mark, but it doesn't explain the staggering collapse afterward, with four out of the five following weekends posting declines far greater than 50 percent. I bring all of this up only to raise questions about assuming that the Wachowskis equal box office gold by default with a popular franchise. As we all know, quality is a seperate (and far more subjective) thing than quality.
Quote:
| You made a tone comment (dark = Matrix) and contrasted that with a filmmaking technique (too digital = Speed Racer). That doesn't make any sense to me. One (tone) doesn't preclude or assume the other (technique). Tonally, Speed Racer followed the source material almost flawlessly, while still being "up to date". It was a brilliant balancing act. It was warm, wholesome, with enough of an edge to be fun, but not to undermine the source material. So they've shown they can probably do Superman (and I'm willing to bet it'll be less depressing than Singer's take). And technically, they have very few peers (in my eyes). |
I didn't intend my point as an either/or proposition; I should have worded it better. Both the Matrix films and
Speed Racer in my opinion are "just plain too digital." I give the Matrix films a bit of a pass, since the world they inhabit is meant to be digital. The color palette for the Matrix films would not work for Superman, which I fear is what Warner Bros is looking for. Whatever else
Speed Racer might be, it's intensely, even garishly, colorful. This at least shows that Wachowskis aren't locked into a single visual asthetic. When it comes to Superman, I would err toward too colorful rather than not colorful enough. However, it still didn't feel like it inhabited a tangible place. Their only "real world" movie is
Bound, which doesn't exactly scream out unparallel technical prowess. The $6 million budget doubtless had something to do with that, but I've seen better looking $6 million films.
I'd actually be far more interested in seeing a James McTeigue-directed Superman film. I liked
V for Vendetta better than any of the Wachowski-directed films (although he was helped by a better screenplay from them than they'd ever given themselves) and he was far more effective at creating a tangible, albeit alternate world with a $54 million budget than they were with budgets many multiples that large. And his second-unit credits demonstrate an aptitude for comic book-style action.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
The problem is, they're on a downward trend. How much money did Speed Racer make?
If a big budget Superman film does "only" $200 million (or less) domestically, it'll be considered something of a failure. Have the Wachowskis consistently demonstrated they can make the big bucks? It doesn't seem like it.
|
Exactly. Warner Bros would be far better off it they didn't insist on dumping $200+ million into future cracks at the character. Part of why
Batman Begins merited a sequel with a $205 million gross and
Superman Returns didn't with a $200 million gross is because it cost Warners over $100 million more to make the latter. There is room for an epic, character-driven Superman movie with a $150 million budget. Instead of remaking the toolset everytime, find innovative ways to use the tools you already have.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TerryRL
WB expected "Superman Returns" to earn at least $250 million domestically when it was released in '06. Superman is among the most well known characters in history and the fact that the movie wasn't as successful as they hoped for really stung. To add insult to injury was seeing "Iron Man" become a major blockbuster while not being nearly as known as the guy with the big S on his chest, earning $318.4 million domestically and $582 million total worldwide.
|
Putting aside objective opinions about the quality of
Superman Returns and the apples-to-oranges comparison of Summer '06 to Summer '07, compare the marketing of
Superman Returns to
Iron Man. Granted, the former didn't have anywhere near the number of money shots, but still. The first trailer announcing the return of Superman to the big screen builds to a crescendo with... the Kent mailbox? And archived audio from a thirty year old movie? Meanwhile, the Iron Man promos use the iconic rock song of the same name and intercut technicolor action scenes with Robert Downey Jr. being hilarious.
Iron Man was definitely the easier product to sell, but Paramount also did a much better job selling it.
Quote:
| If the studio gives the franchise over to the Wachowski duo, trust me when I say that they'll be expecting the movies to be major league blockbusters. Before, they thought that it was Superman and they had a well known director (Bryan Singer) and that the movie would be huge as a result. |
I'm sure you're right. They expect unprecedented success will fall into their if they hire well-known directors and pair them with universally-known brands. Who was it that said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."?
Quote:
| The studio is likely to sink about $500-$700 million in production costs on a trilogy of Superman movies. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the studio gave the brothers a lot of leeway in terms of the plot, but the suits will likely want a dash of "Smallville" here and there. Whatever the case may be, the saga of the making of these Superman flicks has sure made for some very interesting theater. |
When you think of all the problems with the Salkinds and the original movies, and then the mess through the nineties, and now the problems surrounding
Superman Returns this character in the feature format has never been anything
but interesting theater. That $500-700 million production budget sounds like a recipe for repeated disaster.
If studios concentrated on a successful first movie instead of three or four films down the line, I'm convinced we'd see much better blockbusters.
