Grab Your Pens and Paper!

Over the past few weeks, as rumors of Singerman's demise or a potential sequel have been going back and forth like some ritalin-induced game of Pong, we've spoken to a number of concerned individuals who have been looking for a way to make their voices heard by the guys who hold the purse strings up at Warner Brothers regarding their views on the Singerman franchise and how they should proceed handling the actual Superman.

In the past we've supported that notion although we've deferred this type of thing to other websites who were solely focused on doing just that, but I'm not sure how far things ever actually got there? As a decision about Singer's future on this franchise seems to be looming in the next few months, there seems to be a renewed interest in voicing our collective disdain with said franchise's direction. Since this site has been the "flag-bearer for the cause" (your words, not ours) over the past 13 months, we thought we'd get the info out to the people once again, and focus some of our efforts on making sure you know who and where to direct your fervor. After conferring with some of our "moles" on the "inside" about what gets read and what gets deleted by people at the Studios, we've decided that the best way to go about this is a two-pronged attack.

First and most important, real letters need to be sent. A stack of letters on someone's desk has much more of a visual impact than a full email inbox. A physical letter also says that you really care, and took the time to write it, print it, and mail it. They're tangible and an executive can literally hold your disappointment in his hands, as opposed to it floating out in cyberspace. While sending an email can't hurt, I'd say do that as a follow-up to writing your real letter. Below I've put together a bit of an FAQ about the letter writing campaign. If you still have other questions, list them in the comments section.

1. What do I write?
You've got to voice your displeasure but you've got to say it in terms that relate to the Studio execs. The Studio head most likely doesn't care that we think giving Superman a bastard kid was a horrible creative decision that goes against the spirit of the character. What he does care about is how some of Singer's decisions may have alienated various parts of the potential audience and how it adversely affected the box office results, or how poor word of mouth led to the film being the slowest ever to reach the $200 million mark, while similar recent big budget films are doing that kind of business in 1 week. Let them know why you care about the character but don't go overboard in that regard either. Focus more on how Singer is wrong for the franchise, and how a better-suited director could make the franchise more successful.

Just as important as what you write is the tone of how you say it. If you bring up good points but come across like you're yelling at the execs, they'll tune you out and chalk you up to being some crazed fanboy. Your letters should have a reasonable and even tone to them. You should sound sympathetic to the studio's financial goals, and be constructive in your criticisms about why Singer blew it. Brevity is also a bonus. Say what you have to say on 1 or 2 pages and then be done with it. These people read enough scripts as it is, dont send them something of a similar size.

If you've already written a letter and think others could use it as a template for their own, send it into us here, and we'll post it up. We're putting together a few generic ones of our own that we'll post up shortly that people can change as they see fit.


2. Who do I send them to?
These letters should be targeted at the guys who write the checks and have final say on any films. Warner Bros. Entertainment President and C.O.O., Alan Horn and Warner Bros. Pictures President of Production Jeff Robinov.

3. Where do I send them?
Send all letters and emails to either:

Mr. Alan Horn
President and C.O.O. Warner Brothers Entertainment
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, Ca. 91522
alan.horn@warnerbros.com

Mr. Jeff Robinov
President of Production Warner Brothers
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, Ca. 91522
jeff.robinov@warnerbros.com


The other prong of the attack involves getting the word out and getting as many people as possible to send letters. This site gets a sizeable amount of hits a day but thats not going to be enough, its still going to be up to you to spread the good word. Print out letters for your friends and family to sign. Link to this post on the various internet message boards you frequent, link it to your website or blog, make a Youtube video, etc. Do whatever you can regardless of what the small minority of vocal aplogist sheep think. Granted the studios pay people to scour the internet to gauge the public's opinions on things, but a proactive campaign like this does get noticed. Just ask the fans of the TV show Jericho

Horn Doesn't Sound So Sure of a Singerman Sequel

Say that title 5 times fast....

An interesting report from today's Hollywood Reporter was just brought to our attention. In the piece they talk about how the movie studios are in search of the next big property to turn into a successful film franchise. In it they also give updates on the more recent big time franchises like Spider-man, Shrek, Ice Age, etc. and their plans for the future. At one point in the article they get to talking about Warner Bros.' properties. and Singerman comes up with a quote from studio head Alan Horn:

"The future of the studio's recent comic book adaptation, 2006's "Superman Returns," is somewhat more dubious. That film cost $209 million (even after various tax rebates) and marketing costs sent expenses upward of $300 million, but director Bryan Singer's Man of Steel picture made only $201 million domestically. While insiders say the movie was profitable, the studio mandated major cost cuts before proceeding with a sequel."IF we do a sequel to 'Superman,' we want it to be less expensive," Horn acknowledges. "I have to see a screenplay before I say yes to anything. But the studio would be willing to spend as much as $175 million if the screenplay and other factors warranted it."Still, Singer has announced that he plans to direct a second "Superman" project."

Interesting. Not exactly a vote of confidence for the continuation of the franchise when the studio head is using terms like "IF we do one" or "we'd need to see a screenplay before we say yes." You'd think he'd have a little more confidence in a director in an already established franchise if it was doing as well as some would have you believe. Obviously a script must be turned in before any film is greenlit, but you would think he'd be talking in a lot less uncertain terms about one their alleged big movie franchises

Even if it does get approved that's gonna be a REAL tight budget for a director like Singer who allegedley wants to up the action in a sequel. It also seems that Singer and his cronies (and his worshippers over at IESB) may have gotten a little ahead of themselves with talk of doing a sequel because the "money man" doesn't seem so sure right now.

Speaking of money, Michael Bay did quite a nice job updating an iconic character franchise from the 1980's, no? And for the cost of only $150 million (and that's with heavy CGI). Now there's a guy who gets the most bang for his buck. Just pair him a decent writing team and script supervisor to keep him in check and you're good to go apparently.

WB: 'Hey We had Cheaper Flops Too!'

Today's Defamer takes a humorous look at an article from today's New York Times about Warner Bros.' awful summer box office, where WB execs, Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov, use some REALLY odd logic when trying to explain why WB is sitting in sixth place for total box office this year, when just months ago they appeared to be primed for a second straight summer of big box office grosses. In the Times story, Robinov and Horn lament that people have harped on their higher-profile disasters, while ignoring all the money they've proudly lost on lower-budgeted projects??

"Studio executives say it will make a profit. But in bringing in only $389 million at the worldwide box office, “Superman Returns” failed to live up to prerelease expectations. If Superman had done twice what it did, the whole summer would havelooked different," said Mr. Robinov. "It's as much about perception as reality.Even with the failure of a movie like 'Poseidon,' we've had much smaller movieswe've lost as much on."

Mr. Horn agreed. "I've seen movies that cost $15 million lose as much as $20 million,he said. "But when event movies don't perform well, it is very high profile."

And IF the Queen had balls she'd be King, Jeff. And what are these guys really saying? That it's easy to lose a bundle on supposed "can't miss" superhero franchise like Singerman, but only a select few individuals like themselves can lose big time on a much lower budgeted film?? With people like this making the call on the Singerman franchise, no wonder we got the film that we did. If you own any Time Warner stock, now might be a good time to sell those babies.

WB/Legendary Still Showing their Poker Faces

"Everything is going excellent, we have no weaknesses, endless sequels and virgins will be ours, the comic-reading infidels will be crushed!"

As Vincent Chase learned recently on Entourage, people in the business of Hollywood, often say one thing and do another, and never EVER admit to anything that doesn't put them in the best possible light. We've heard the rhetoric from Lord Singer, Alan Horn, Jeff Robinov, and now the people that co-financed Singerman, Legendary Pictures, are joining the "everything is a-okay" fray. In a recent Variety article, the trade paper speculates:

"If Legendary is unnerved, it isn't showing. Like Warners, Legendary insists it will turn a profit on "Superman Returns," and has given all indications that it's on deck to co-finance a sequel."

Some comic movie sites around the web seem to be putting a lot of stock in this statement, that it's the smoking gun for a sequel. However, they're not taking into account that Legendary is on the hook for half the cost of Singerman like WB, which makes this just as much "fluff" as WB's earlier comments.

While the film is still in theaters both here (just a few) and abroad, and with the DVD a few months away, they're going to say whatever they can to try and salvage their investment. They're not exactly going to say they're not on board for a sequel right now, it would be counter-productive to say about a project they invested in with the inclination it was going to be a feature film franchise. What they do in the boardroom come next year after the film and DVD are nothing but a bad memory, will tell you how they truely feel about things.

And like we said earlier, Singerman in the long run will most likely be "profitable." However, that's a relative term. If your revenue exceeds your costs by $.01, techincally it's "profitable," but the key is just HOW profitable will the film be? Will the profit margin justify a continued investment in this project? These are the decisions made by the money people in Hollywood, not the PR reps and spin meisters.

"Like Legendary, all the funds argue that they won't be made, or broken, by just one pic. By investing in a slate of pics over the course of several years, they're virtually guaranteed a return of 10%."

And I agree with this 100%, its whats called "investment diversification." You cover yourself by having your "eggs" in multiple "baskets." Although I hope for Legendary's sake they haven't been invested in the rest of WB's Summer 2006 slate, because that portfolio would be getting kicked in the teeth right about now. That being said, if you invest in something and it blows up in your face, do you dump money back into another project managed by the same people just because in the end you'll come out 10% ahead? Would the Enron stockholders have invested in Ken Lay's next business venture? I think you know the answer to that. NO! People adjust portfolios all the time, especially if they've made a mistake, they seek to minimize their risk and cut their losses. Don't be surprised if Legendary wants a little more input in any potential sequel discussions.

Dave Poland has an interesing take on all this in his Hot Blog. Ironically enough he finds an interesting analogy in the Tom Cruise/Paramount fiasco:

"Mission:Impossible 3 cost a lot (at least $50 million) less than Superman Returns and made more at the box office and should do similar numbers in Home Entertainment.

Paramount won't re-up thier deal with Cruise/Wagner.

Warner Bros. is claiming that they will make $50 million in Superman Returns

The difference in gross point dollars being paid out is about $40 million.

Who do YOU thnk is lying?

Oh, but wait... it's about jumping on couches and arguing with Matt Lauer. My bad.

Or to put it in Anne Thompson terms... who would you rather have fronting your next $250 million (including P&A) investment, Tom Cruise or Bryan Singer?"

Is Tom Cruise available to direct? At least we'd get something "original."

Tale of the Tortoise and the Hare

It doesn't take a genius or a friendship with Jeff Robinov's personal secretary to know that Warner Bros. was hoping Singerman would be the number one film of 2006. When they greenlit the film back in 2004, they were hoping Singerman would see "Spider-Man numbers." They in fact needed that. But reality kicked in before Singerman opened and most execs realized it not only wasn't going to make huge dollars, it probably wasn't going to be the #1 film either.

Early tracking indicated POTC:DMC was going to be a monster. Warners pushed up Singerman's release date to give the film a better head start. When Warner's own tracking data showed an ambivalence among general audiences, they rushed a new version of Singerman's broadcast trailer into circulation, recut to emphasize more action beats and to bury the retarded woe-is-me characterization that dominated all previous versions. They also needed to "butch" him up a bit.

Basically, they put lipstick on a pig and hoped audiences wouldn't notice.

It's almost poetic justice to see the one film that had Warners in such a reactionary tizzy for the last four months accomplish what they so wanted and needed from Singerman: become the #1 film of the year. As of August 25, 2006, 50 days into its release, POTC:DMC has grossed more than $404 million dollars at the domestic box office, effectively breaking Spider-Man's record for the same. Not only did it double Singerman's domestic sales, it beat its combined worldwide tally with just its domestic box office sales alone. We're talking a slaughter of epic proportions here folks.

Although it was a mixed bag critically, audiences are still eating up POTC:DMC like the cannibals in the flick itself, and the film is still pulling in million-dollar days at the box office. As of this writing, it is the sixth highest grossing film of all time on the domestic charts (Singerman is #75), and it's expected to become only the third film in history to break a billion dollars worldwide (behind "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King") within the next few weeks.

We here at Singer's Superman Sucks would like to remind our loyal readers that "Pirates of the Caribbean" is what Hollywood would call a successful film franchise. Despite the protestations of film critics everywhere, audiences don't seem to care if a film is based on an amusement park ride or a comic book, provided it has a charismatic cast in a compelling or entertaining story that tickles their fancy. Singerman apparently had none of the above, which is unfortunate considering it was a film supposedly about Superman.

WB and Singerman's Bad Summer

An article in today's LA Times, shows just exactly how bad of a summer that Warner Bros. Studios is having. Pretty much everything they've put out this summer has flopped or been a "disappointment." (Hey, there's always Beerfest) In it they talk to Studio head Alan Horn who seems to be doing a bit of damage control, at least when it comes to Singerman :

"Horn declined to divulge figures, but a person familiar with the studio's internal projections said Warner's cut of the "Superman Returns" profit was expected to be $50 million to $60 million. The film cost $209 million to produce and more than $100 million to market worldwide."

Well there's yet another confirmation of Singerman's astronomical $100 million marketing budget that we've been saying for weeks. As for the "expected profit," this cost $309 million to make. Assuming it somehow makes $400 million worldwide, the Studio only sees 1/2 of that, the other 1/2 goes to the exhibitors. They've still got another $109 to cover before they're out of the red. Can they really be projecting another $220+ million in ancilliaries with the film's disappointing box office? Remember half of the profit for Singerman goes to co-financer Legendary Pictures, so for WB to see $60 million in profit, the film's got to make $120 million in profit.

Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins."

OK, so Horn says he's expecting the film to gross $400 million worldwide. My question is, where the hell is that figure coming from? It's basically a done deal the film won't cross $200 million domestically. A fair estimate has the film ending up with around $196 million. Therefor, you'd need to get over $204 million from the international box office. Currently Singerman is sitting at $155 million international. The only major territories it's set to open in are Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Using Batman Begins as some kind of gauge, we can see that it made $166 million internationally in its run. Will Singerman beat that like Horn says? Probably. Will it beat it by almost $40 million to get to $400 million worldwide? Very doubtful. In Germany, Italy, and Japan, Begins made $24.8 million. Add that to Singerman's current worldwide total, and that puts you only at $179.8 million, or $24.2 million short of the mark they'd need internationally to make it to $400 million worldwide. I can see another possible $10 MAYBE $15 million over that for Singerman based on how it's trending internationally but that's at a maximum. Our best guess? Singerman ends up around $191 million internationally, and about $388 million worldwide.

"Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.
"I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "

Now let's look at the comments here. In one sentence Horn admits the film fell AT LEAST $100 MILLION SHORT of his expectations. In the very next one he says its "very successful." Umm okay Alan so what you're saying is in the best case scenario, the project is bringing in 20% less revenue than expected, but it's still somehow considered a success?? Do your shareholders feel the same way? I don't. This is reminiscient of the Iraqi Information Minister saying that the US Army was getting crushed by Iraqi forces, as Baghdad was crumbling behind him. Companies tend not to set unrealistic revenue expectations for themselves. They tend to do a bit of research on these things, and set attainable goals for themselves. Otherwise they look bad in front of their stockholders. If they miss their mark by $100 million (roughly 20% of their expected take), no one is going to consider that a success.

"We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

Ah! Now we're on to something here! Horn seems to recognize one of the many flaws of Singerman, though it's in a real non-committal way. But will he really do something about it? Like say, get a hold of a director who can do an action movie?? One who's initials arent "BS" perhaps? God I hope the WB lackeys that are forced to read blogs like this, pass some of this stuff along.

"Still, he's betting Warner has firmly reestablished the "Superman" franchise and is planning another installment for summer 2009."

Ugh, just when you thought we were making some kind of progress with this guy. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call "damage control." Horn sort of, kind of recognizes a weakness in the film, but then follows it up with the "everything is a-okay, nothing to see here" line. The truth of the matter is with Singerman still stinking up a few theaters in the US, and set to open this weekend in places abroad, Horn still has to present the movie in the best light possible, since it's still being "sold" to various publics. If he has any hope of this film hitting $400 million WW, he can't come out and say anything other than "the franchise is strong" and "sequels are coming." No one wants to support a dying franchise. We heard the same thing from Universal Studios execs when The Hulk was in theaters back in 2003. We'll find out how Horn and Co. truely feel about the financial viability of this "franchise" when it's not in theaters any longer, and they've had time to assess the actual return on investment. In the meantime, file this one under F for "Fluff."