Why no sequel?
-
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 02:33 PM)
Actually, BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS at the time were both regarded as "underperformers" relative to other superhero franchises like Spider-Man and X-Men.
This is outright wrong. In a 2006 article from Los Angeles Times Warner President at the time, Alan Horn, regarded Returns as a success but wanted it to gross 500 million as opposed to 400 million. This is just like WB expecting Man of Steel in 2013 and BvS to gross 1 billion and yet both of them falling short of their expectations.
Horn expects Superman Returns to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last years hit Batman Begins. Nonetheless, Superman fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.
source:
http://www.superherohype.com/features/91753-horn-planning-superman-sequel-for-2009#oAI1vqf4QG5CXG0C.99
Superman Returns also topped DVD charts and was considered a best seller in late 2006 and early 2007
WHV, which backs both high-def formats, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, has released 53 movies on HD DVD and 33 on Blu-ray, including
the No. 1 selling title for both formats in 2006, Superman Returns
.
Superman Returns generated nearly $13 million at the rental counter, one of the highest debuts all year.
source:
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/warner-ups-hd-slate-10134
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/superman-flies-no-1-10018
Another factor is that there was no filmmaker outside of Singer's crew that was willing to work on a sequel to SR. Singer's writers Dougherty and Harris were both fired.
Wrong again. They both walked away due to Singer dragging his feet with the sequel. Also the fact that Singer was quoted as saying that the film grossed 400 million and was 100 short of WB's expectations and didn't know what constituted as a 'failure' to the studio anymore most likely didn't earn him points.
"That movie made $400 million! I dont know what constitutes under-performing these days"
source:
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/singer-talks-superman-returns-sequel/
So lack of a sequel is due in part to politics between Singer and Warner. The latter was also dealing with another clusterf##k as they were getting ready to launch a Justice League movie with different actors AND STILL had the Returns sequel in their line up. It wasn't until after the writer's strike in 2007/2008 Warner started singing a different tune and looking at Returns as if it were their retarded child.
So, in other words, Warner was planning to do a JL film with a different actor as Superman and yet still have a sequel to Returns with Routh. This is how stupid Warner is. This is also similar to the nonsense that Zack Snyder was claiming before Warner forced him into Batman v Superman. He was under the impression that his MoS films would be a separate universe from a Justice League movie with a whole other actor in the role of Superman as well.
Returns performed well considering it was carrying baggage from other projects and got a late IMAX release date and still managed to pull in some kind of profit. WB just likes to have the grass is always greener attitude with the property which causes them to butt heads with directors to this day as evidenced by the problems they're running into with the more recent films.
It was the sixth highest grossing film of 2006 domestically and it sits at 9th place worldwide in the same year. That's pretty good for a Superman film that everyone retroactively hates and mis-remembers
more sources:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2006&p=.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2006&p=.htm -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(May 09, 2016 06:18 PM)
I have a trusted source that told me what I had just laid out. Take it or leave it. Also, your summary is inconsistent. If SR was not considered an underperformer, then why did Alan Horn in the quote you posted said he thought the film's performance at the box office fell short of expectations? How is that NOT an underperformer? Why suddenly cancel two other DC projects while setting up that George Miller film after Singer had gone renegade?
It was the sixth highest grossing film of 2006 domestically and it sits at 9th place worldwide in the same year. That's pretty good for a Superman film that everyone retroactively hates and mis-remembers.
Removing the film from the context of where other superhero films were at this point and the enormous budget, yeah, it sounds "pretty good". Of course, that's not true. The studio was looking for SPIDER-MAN numbers, not settling for what BATMAN BEGINS grossed.
As for your second point, just stop with that nonsense. SR wasn't a film that was universally accepted and then only shortly after inexplicably hated and misremembered. This film has
always
had a divided reaction from audiences and fans, that only grew more sour as the years went by. I was deep in all of the discussions in various forums over this, especially right in this IMDb forum. The only ones you can say were more kind to it were critics, but even they weren't exactly glowing over it.
I get that you're a fan of SR, but don't be so dishonest about it. You're more a fan if you can accept SR for all its shortcomings. -
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(May 10, 2016 11:34 AM)
If SR was not considered an underperformer, then why did Alan Horn in the quote you posted
Did someone piss in your cereal today? I'm not being inconsistent. Lol. If anything it's Warner who is. Right here:
Horn expects Superman Returns to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last years hit Batman Begins. Nonetheless, Superman fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.
"That movie made $400 million! I dont know what constitutes under-performing these days" -Bryan Singer
Here are the sources:
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/singer-talks-superman-returns-sequel/
http://www.superherohype.com/features/91753-horn-planning-superman-sequel-for-2009#oAI1vqf4QG5CXG0C.99
(originally from LA Times)
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/warner-bros-sets-bar-high-for-latest-and-priciest-incarnation-of-superman-1200493334/
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batman-V-Superman-Reportedly-Make-Less-Money-Than-Man-Steel-123717.html
Returns disappointed them and yet it had the highest dvd/blu ray sales for 2006/2007.
It's similar to Warner expecting MOS to make 1 billion and it actually falling 400 million short of that. In Returns case it was 100 million short. That's all I'm pointing out. Do you not see the comparison I was trying to make? Superman is always falling short of Warner's expectations that it doesn't mean anything new anymore. You get it? Do you understand?
In other words, like I said in my post above, WARNER seems like they don't know what they want for the property or how to properly gauge their expectations for it. The property is never going to do Batman numbers and have the same audience for it which they can't seem to wrap their heads around. I was attempting to start a conversation about that. Also the studio always tries to hold Superman to Marvel film standards which comes off as stupid on their part. Why hold Superman to Marvel and Spider-Man standards and not Batman? They keep moving the goal post with the property. It outperformed Begins but was not on par with a Marvel property. It's hilarious.
I get that you're a fan of SR, but don't be so dishonest about it.
I'm giving you the links to the articles that state these quotes. I'm not pulling them out of thin air or being condescending and telling you to look them up. You can take your insults and shove them, dude. It's not dishonest for me to provide actual links to the quotes and statistics I'm providing seeing as how they're from actual articles and they're published. So that is quite the opposite of being dishonest. How ass backwards are you?
You're more a fan if you can accept SR for all its shortcomings.
You can piss off with your assumption since I actually do acknowledge SR for its shortcomings. Really, dude. Get f##ked. -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(May 12, 2016 12:17 AM)
Returns disappointed them and yet it had the highest dvd/blu ray sales for 2006/2007.
It's similar to Warner expecting MOS to make 1 billion and it actually falling 400 million short of that. In Returns case it was 100 million short. That's all I'm pointing out. Do you not see the comparison I was trying to make? Superman is always falling short of Warner's expectations that it doesn't mean anything new anymore. You get it? Do you understand?
In other words, like I said in my post above, WARNER seems like they don't know what they want for the property or how to properly gauge their expectations for it. The property is never going to do Batman numbers and have the same audience for it which they can't seem to wrap their heads around. I was attempting to start a conversation about that. Also the studio always tries to hold Superman to Marvel film standards which comes off as stupid on their part. Why hold Superman to Marvel and Spider-Man standards and not Batman? They keep moving the goal post with the property. It outperformed Begins but was not on par with a Marvel property. It's hilarious.
I understand. Superman always falls short because WB keeps making movies that put off audiences instead of giving them something they want to see again and again like other blockbusters do. Because if the movies were genuinely great and gave audiences what they wanted, they would have performed better. BATMAN V SUPERMAN most certainly had a chance to make a billion worldwide just from its premise alone, but it didn't because it was a weak movie that lost audiences after a big opening that normally assured it would do better than it ended up doing. SUPERMAN RETURNS and MAN OF STEEL could have been bigger hits too, but they're weak and experience huge drops too. There's a reason PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN blew that Superman film out of the water that summer: It actually gave audiences what they wanted. I didn't think it was all that great, but when I did watch it when it came out on rental I could easily see why it swayed more audiences back in 2006. You can quote Bryan Singer's bafflement to $400 million being an underperformer and post hyped articles about how great it's doing all you like. In the end, SR did not get a follow up film because too many people simply didn't care for one to happen. That doesn't really support the idea of SR being a "successful". Even when trying to compare it to BATMAN BEGINS, you forget that had a lower budget and lower expectations coming after BATMAN & ROBIN. I remember when it came out I was skeptical because it felt very "been there done that" especially when new superheroes like Spider-Man and X-Men were coming along. SR's expectations being higher was reasonable, because you
should
expect SUPERMAN of all heroes to be a big hit. Of course, that could only happen if the film was any good. If this had actually had the quality of Donner's film, even Lester's SUPERMAN II, it probably would have had a more enthusiastic reaction. Instead, it was a dour loser of a movie that didn't have any of the elements that made those two Reeve films fun to watch.
You can piss off with your assumption since I actually do acknowledge SR for its shortcomings. Really, dude. Get f##ked.
Perhaps you do, but clearly only to an extent.
by glynis23-282-577521
Who's to say SR is better than most versions of Superman or superhero movies?
I don't even think Bryan Singer believes it's on par with most superhero films. -
glynis23-282-577521 — 9 years ago(May 12, 2016 10:13 AM)
That guy talking like he's knows better than anyone else on this board.
I don't even think Bryan Singer believes it's on par with most superhero films.
Would it had been greater if it was on par with others? going pass 600 million? -
thevintagecola — 9 years ago(May 12, 2016 03:00 PM)
You act like I'm saying it's the greatest movie ever which I'm not but for a movie you claim no one cared about you still can't explain why SR was the highest rented film and had the highest sales on blu ray and dvd for the year it was still relevant. If it sucked so much then why the hell did it set records for dvd and blu ray sales? Why would people purchase it? It's still ranked pretty high in 6th place for highest grossing film for 2006 so people were definitely buying tickets regardless of how the film community see it now.
The fact is that the writers' strike and Warner wanting more was what killed it. They had a panel/summit where Warner met with DC and decided to reboot it.
Besides being a somewhat successful brand outside of movies and comics, Superman as a character in a film will never resonate with modern audiences. He's no longer interpreted as something relevant or relatable to viewers. -
tmm_8705 — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 08:54 PM)
Superman as a character in a film will never resonate with modern audiences. He's no longer interpreted as something relevant or relatable to viewers.
That's a lame excuse, so clich trying to put the blame on audiences for not being able to appreciate the character when it's at the fault of the filmmakers. The truth is that the recent films never presented the character as relevant or relatable, or at least worthy of inspiration. Routh and Cavill unfortunately had to work with material that had Superman portrayed as mopey and dull character with little personality and wasn't much fun to watch. I feel bad for them, because they could have knocked it out of the park if they had better screenplays to work with. Cavill was absolutely AMAZING in THE MAN FROM UNCLE. Oh man, had he not been so restrained as Superman and was allowed to be totally charismatic all throughout, might have made helped his rep as a great Superman. Routh in just SCOTT PILGRIM alone showed he can actually be fun to watch, and from what I understand he's been shining in that LEGENDS OF TOMORROW tv show. I'll have to check that out.
Superman can be an inspiring figure that brings a smile to your face while also drawing you in emotionally as we saw done in the first two SUPERMAN films. The problem is that WB doesn't earnestly believe in Superman as a character. Like you, they assume audiences can't appreciate Supes because he's too goody two shoes, that he's not angsty enough or "badass" to be cool. That Superman can only be compelling if they make him question himself on whether he should be a hero or not.
Marvel, on the other hand, has been able to make very successful films with a character that WB probably would have written off as too wholesome and unrelatable for audiences to embrace: Captain America. If Marvel can make that character resonate with audiences, WB should have no issue making an even more successful film. -
thatguy_78757 — 9 years ago(August 17, 2016 12:08 AM)
Part of the reason a movie like this costs so much is the development
multiple scripts, casting, special effects development
If they had made a sequel it would have cost so much less.
They already have most of the cast, have built all the computer model copies of brandon rouh, etc.. -
tbirdman-1 — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 08:14 PM)
We the fans had to wait seven long years for another Superman
movie after "Superman Returns." And a huge slap in the face
to the WB studio execs who decided to reboot the franchise
and replace Brandon Routh with Henry Cavill! The series did
not need another reboot and the people in charge of the WB
did not need to have to start all over again by writing an
all new movie with a new leading man as Clark Kent/Superman!
I really despise the WB for having done this as it was all
so unneccesary! Plus Brandon Routh could have and should
have been retained in the lead role!
Lorenzo Sunny Arizona
Call me a sailor or a swabby just not a squid!!!
I am James "Sonny' Crockett! -
glynis23-282-577521 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 05:13 PM)
There was the lack of action that most people complained about, it it had a little more perhaps would've met expectations. They were saving all the action for the sequel but the problem being if the first film does not make a instant expression they scrap plans for a sequel, similar to a TV series if it's not a ratings smash hit in the first ten episodes they give it the axe so there's no chance anymore to get an audience.
Fans were hoping they would've had a entirely new continuity to the Donner films. -
srb-3 — 9 years ago(October 15, 2016 06:49 AM)
- Why was there no sequel to Superman Returns?
See answer to your question 3. - Why was Brandon Routh replaced by Henry Cavill?
New production, new cast. - Did this movie perform under expectations of the
studio execs?
Yes. - Why did we the fans have to wait seven long years
for Man Of Steel? I really did not care for the film
and it could have been so much better!
Because the WB was not going to make another Superman until the Superman creators' heirs won the 2008-2009 lawsuit which stated they had until 2011 to have another Superman movie appearance, before the Superman movie rights were to go to the Superman creators' heirs in 2013.
- Why was there no sequel to Superman Returns?