While we've had some fun the past couple weeks looking at some of the film's ancillary revenue forms, we thought we'd peek in at the numbers that really matter once again. In it's 17th weekend at the domestic box office (i.e. a couple hundred dollar theaters), Singerman took in $173,300 and FINALLY broke the $200 million mark for a grand total of $200,006,305 year to date. Granted we fully admit that before the IMAX totals came out, we didn't think it would break that mark, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a supporter of this film that saw that one coming either.But before Singer and Co. go throw another Halloween party, is their really any significance in hitting the $200 million mark now? Does this latest $173K really make a difference other than being able to say they hit a milestone of a nice round number? In actuality, no, not really, especially not after this length of time. We know there was speculation by some sources that the film hitting $200 million domestic was some "magic number" for a sequel, but that was largely passed off as being inaccurate by certain people in the industry. When you take into account the cost of the film to produce ($209 million) and market ($100 million), it's still glaringly obvious that the film fell well short of expectations (Alan Horn even admitted this). Whether it made $198 million or $202 million the film still has yet to make back it even come close to breaking even. MovieWeb has an interesting look at the situation:
"Superman Returns finally crossed the $200 million plateau! Congratulations. Oh yeah,the bad news. It took 117 days for it to cross that mark, 8th slowest all-time,and, oh yeah, the flick still has $70 million to go before it reaches a profit.Good luck hitting that mark, you idiots."While we're not exactly sure who the "idiots" are, it does bring up a good point. The film still has a long way to go before it even thinks about breaking even, and even though its now hit $200 million it took almost twice along as films like Batman Begins (who it still sits over $5 million behind) and cost almost $100 million more to make and market. And since some of you have been asking, Singerman also took almost six times as long as contemporary X-men: The Last Stand (who it sits over $34 million behind domestically) and cost just slightly more to make and market.
Looking at those factors, I'd say the status of the future of the "franchise" hasn't changed over the last weekend, and still won't be determined until long after Singerman has been collecting dust on DVD shelves.
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222"I should be 7'0 feet tall and dunking over Lebron James, guess what ain't gonna happen. Understand this, No Superman movie in history has ever outgrossed the orginal Spiderman at the BO.
Check the numbers even factoring in inflation he is NO.3 behind Spidey and Batman."
Do you not know how to read? he said "should"
Put the strawman away you fuck.
If this movie was better, it would have crushed spidey. There's no magical fairy stopping Superman from doing so. Just Singer.
Goddam, it's like saying Superman 3 and 4 didn't outgross spidey so it's completely impossible for superman to outgross him. What the fuck are you on?
If you seriously think that if Superman The MOVIE was released for the first time ever TODAY with today's sfx and thousands of theaters, AND with no otis, that it wouldn't be a contender for spider-man, you need therapy. Seriously.
""Your are the one that is acting like an idiot. Do i believe that Superman is the greatest Superhero of all time, sure i do. However the BO data does not support that arguement. Forget SR and BB for a minute, no Superman movie has ever outgrossed any Batman movie before SR outgrossed BB. Check BOM and look at the inflation increases in the two franchises. The first 2 Superman movies were close to the fist 2 Batman movies but did not make as much. The last 2 Superman movies were really bad so i won't count them as much but Batman and Robin was bad and it made good money still. I say again there is a difference between saying Superman is the greatest comic book hero ever and him being the biggest BO draw. Numbers are numbers guys and by the numbers Batman and Spiderman have both consistantly been a bigger draw at the BO than Superman, this is not my opinion it is a FACT.""
You believe superman's the greatest hero of all time? YES THAT'S ALL HE WAS CLAIMING. Spider-man wasn't even out when Superman came in theaters so how in the hell was it supposed to outgross it? You're still being an idiot comparing apples to potatoes.
NO ONE SAID SUPERMAN MADE MORE. THEY SAID SUPERMAN WAS MORE POPULAR. AND THAT IS A FACT. SUPERMAN IS ON A LEVEL OF STATUS SPIDER-MAN WILL NEVER REACH. HE'S AN AMERICAN ICON.
Since when does box office dictate who's the actual American Icon here?
THAT DOESN'T MATTER. SUPERMAN IS STILL THE BEST OF THE BEST SUPERHEROS ON EARTH. If you treat him right and make a movie worthy of his status he WILL outgross spidey. THAT, my friend. IS A FACT.
But the incredibles made more than superman so the incredibles are American Icons!!11
"THAT DOESN'T MATTER. SUPERMAN IS STILL THE BEST OF THE BEST SUPERHEROS ON EARTH. If you treat him right and make a movie worthy of his status he WILL outgross spidey. THAT, my friend. IS A FACT."
No that is your opinion i checked the numbers the other poster was referring to he is correct. Superman 1 and 2 adjusted made a ton of money but not as much as the original Spiderman. You guys need to back off with the whole if a movie is done right it will kick ass at the BO. I thought BB was much better than the original Batman in 1989 and yet it did not make even half of that made WW, when you adjust the numbers for inflation. Spiderman being a Superhero that had never been done before i think helped it at the BO. Batman and Superman have both been done a lot before BB and SR came out. Spiderman was 2 things a great movie and a completely new idea.
"You guys need to back off with the whole if a movie is done right it will kick ass at the BO. I thought BB was much better than the original Batman in 1989 and yet it did not make even half of that made WW,"
You'd be hard pressed to find a Pirates fan that will tell you that DMC was better than the original. Yet DMC made almost twice as much money as the original WW. I agree Spiderman bing brand new had a leg up on the new Batman and Superman movie.
Batman begins isn't as good as people try to make it seem. It's ok for a start, but no where near as good as batman can get.
You mean if they gave batman a son then he'd have bigger box office?
Yes.
And rehash burton's batman movies too.
If you seriously think that if Superman The MOVIE was released for the first time ever TODAY with today's sfx and thousands of theaters, AND with no otis, that it wouldn't be a contender for spider-man, you need therapy. Seriously.
LOL...So to make your point, you are altering the the original movie? Hmmmm..Interesting. Got news for ya, Otis is in the movie, you can't take him out to prove your theoretical arguement.
"LOL...So to make your point, you are altering the the original movie? Hmmmm..Interesting. Got news for ya, Otis is in the movie, you can't take him out to prove your theoretical arguement."
Nor can you take away any of the other Superman movies by saying it was a long time ago so it is as if they never happened. Bottom line Superman 3 and 4 were a joke and hated by even the most loyal of Superman fans. I am not saying that is the main reason SR underperformed because they did come out a long time go but the fact remains Superman is not a new idea. The other poster made a good point, if BB was so damn beloved why only 371 mil WW. That puts it way behind, Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever when you factor the inflation in. It is naive to say, if this is a great movie it will make a ton of money and if it sucks it will not, it is not that simple.
That's true. Hollywood isn't obligated to produce quality films for highest box office return. They can just make anything and then it's completely random whatever happens.
"That's true. Hollywood isn't obligated to produce quality films for highest box office return. They can just make anything and then it's completely random whatever happens."
It is not random but it is also not as simple as this is great it will make a fortune and this sucks it will tank big time.
HBO ran a special about the movie business where they interviewed George Clooney and he basically said "that you can have everything go right..you can have a great script, great director, great actors, and the movie can tank..You just don't know..All you can do is make your movie and hope it strikes a chord with your audience."
He's not talking about blockbuster movies on this scale.
Are you guys seriously comparing a Superman movie to some average George Clooney flick?
Yes he was..He was talking about every movie that gets made..In the end they really have no control over whether people are going to like it or not...
Like it don't like it, I don't care about that. I'm saying popularity of the character the movie's based on is a factor in its success. Some movie about unknowns can't easily sell itself as well as something like superman or Star wars.
The comparison isn't as simple as that. Star wars isn't even classified as a normal ho-hum movie when those prequels came out, just Star Wars.
Like it don't like it, I don't care about that. I'm saying popularity of the character the movie's based on is a factor in its success. Some movie about unknowns can't easily sell itself as well as something like superman or Star wars.
The comparison isn't as simple as that. Star wars isn't even classified as a normal ho-hum movie when those prequels came out, just Star Wars.
That's a good point.
Post a Comment