actually, hows josh hartnett sound to you?

dont worry, the cast of superman will never be the seller. and from the look of things-rouths a presenter at both the globes n oscars, and has several major mag. covers lined up-hell be far from unknown by the time the film opens.

Exactly, it would of made more sense too since the movie was supposedly going to take place 6 years after Superman 2 and he would of been older. Its too bad Bryan Singer let his hormones do the casting for the Superman lead

I did like Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman

One factor IMO is the MIB came 5 years later while Pirates will only have a 3 year wait. Otherwise there is WOM

MIB at Yahoo - B (No 1997 rankings available, however over 50 films tend to get at least a B each year)

Pirates at Yahoo - A- (9th on the all-time list and 2nd in 2003 - only because ROTK was released that same year)

For comparision here are films (generally sleepers) that have had sequels released. I've been able to figure out the exact order for most near the top, but some of the rankings involve a bit of guesswork. I tried to find every franchise with a release this decade:
Silence of the Lambs - B+ (27th all-time)
The Matrix - B+ (1st of 1999 and 31st of all-time)
Shrek - B+ (2nd of 2001 and 36th of all-time)
Toy Story - B+
The Bourne Identity - B+ (5th for 2002)
Ocean's Eleven - B+ (12th for 2001; you could argue this belongs in the anticipated section)
Kill Bill Vol. 1 - B+ (8th in 2003; somewhat anticipated and hyped as well)
The Mummy - B (17th for 1999)
The Princess Diaries - B (17th of 2001)
Rush Hour - B (13th of 1998)
Blade - B (18th of 1998)
Meet the Parents - B (21st of 2000)
The Mask of Zorro - B (20th of 1998)
Saw - B (33rd of 2004)
American Pie - B (28th of 1999)
Miss Congeniality - B (31st of 2000)
Underworld - B (40th of 2003)
The Whole Nine Yards - B (36th of 2000)
Bad Boys - B (exact ranking unknown)
MIB - B (exact ranking unknown; might belong in the anticipated section)
The Santa Clause - B (exact ranking unknown)
Friday - B (exact ranking unknown)
Mission Impossible - B (exact ranking unknown; might belong in the anticipated section)
Bridget Jones's Diary - B- (44th of 2001)
Scary Movie - B- (47th of 2000)

Of 23 films 15 earned more then the original. Of the 4 that were somewhat anticipated only one increased, meaning the success rate was 14 of 19 for the others. Three films had terrible marketing (O12, MC2, and W10Y), all WB releases. I find it interesting that WB has 25% with their only success being the one with a disappointing gross after having the 2nd best WOM on this list. The other studios are 14 for 19 with one film that didn't have time to grow a fanbase on DVD (KB) and another that waited 7 years for a sequel (Zorro). PD2 and SC2 both came extremely close to their originals even though they are mostly aimed at families, and sequels like that tend not to do as well. MIB might be the closest to being an exception, yet, was of course extremely hyped and was far from the sleeper Pirates was. Oh, and thats a film with a B, which is worlds away from 9th of all-time. The top 5 on this list all had sequels explode and POTC is ranked well ahead of any of them.

Not in order:
The Ring - B-
Transporter 2 - B-
Deuce Bigalow - B-
Cheaper by the Dozen - B-
Final Destination - B-
Spy Kids - B-
Austin Powers - B- (It's love or hate. The interesting thing is the massive 80,000+ reviews which is more then anything released since 2003. So many people saw the movie over time due to WOM from those that loved it that it built its fanbase even though a strong minority did not enjoy it.)
The Fast and the Furious - B-
Legally Blonde - B-
Analyze This - B-
Agent Cody Banks - B-
Dr. Dolittle - B-
The Nutty Professor - B-

Daredevil - C+ (35th worst of 2003) - You might or might not count this, athough I think it probably had an effect on Elektra.
Charlie's Angels - C+ (12th worst of 2000)
The Blair Witch Project - C+ (3rd worst of 1999)
Jeepers Creepers - C (6th worst of 2001)

I think this shows what a powerful indicator the yahoo grade can be for a sequel. Compared to almost 70% with films at B or better, movies with a B- outgross their originals less then 15% (2 of 15). However, many are close. The Transporter benefited from having an original with such a low gross (The reason JC2 even got close to JC). Austin Powers is another story as I describe above. I think we will see the same thing with Napoleon Dynamite which also has a B-, yet has become a massive hit on DVD. Given the legs of movies like Bridget Jones, The Ring, Final Destination, Legally Blonde, and Analyze This, I think the Yahoo grade is a better indicator then legs for the fate of a sequel.


Anticipated films:
LOTR: FOTR - A- (1st of 2001 and 8th of all-time)
LOTR: TTT - A- (1st of 2002 and 10th of all-time)
Spider-man - B+ (4th for 2002)
Harry Potter: POA - B+ (13th for 2004; but ahead of COS and SS based on the fantasy chart)
Harry Potter: SS - B+ (11th of 2001, but ahead of COS)
Terminator 2 - B+
X-men - B+ (9th of 2000)
Harry Potter: COS - B+ (8th for 2002)
Blade II - B (31st of 2002)
SW: AOTC - B (44th of 2002)
American Pie 2 - B (41st of 2001)
SW: TPM - B (49th of 1999)
The Matrix Reloaded - B (Outside to top 50 of 2003)
Austin Powers 2 - B-
Scary Movie 2 - B-
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - B-
Next Friday - B-
Tomb Raider - B-
Halloween: H20 - B-
Hannibal - B-
Star Trek: Insurrection - B-
Scooby Doo - C+ (18th worst of 2002)
Stuart Little - C+ (8th worst of 1999)
Spy Kids 2 - C (16th worst of 2002)
Pokemon 2000 - C- (3rd worst of 2000)
Pokemon: the first movie - C- (worst of 1999)

Anticipated films like these that have strong hype, marketing, and usually a massive fanbase, have more trouble producing a sequel to outgross them since they already had so much going for them, leaving less room for improvement for the sequel. Also, the grades here can be helped by fans. So, while increases at the BO are less common for these films, there is still a clear trend correlation with the grades. An A- obviously should mean an increase for the next film no matter what. A B+ can go either way, but the change won't be massive (-25% to +40%; I should note the X-men, with the largest change had a fanbase, but not much hype or marketing). A B seems to mean 50%-75% as much for the next sequel, although ROTS was an exception for obvious reasons. A B- or worse isn't always a bad thing for a second sequel. I guess that the audiences that came back for the sequel are loyal enough to return for the 3rd film even if they did not all like the 2nd. Plus, Scary Movie 3 had a great trailer, and Spy Kids 3 had the 3D gimmick.

people on this site overestimate star power way too much. routh being an unkown wont effect anything. how bout xmen with hugh jackman??hayden christensen in star wars? daniel radcliffe in harrypottter?

all those names are almost as famous as superman and in the same genre n had no trouble finding audiences, depsting hayden n radcliffe sucking.both their films made 300 million. and jackman, who was great, just happened to be discovered by singer, who discovered routh.

The difference is that X-men didnt make 300 million so even a 150 million dollar reach wasnt so absurb while Star Wars has never had that much decline in box office receipts so even having Pauley Shore in the movie wont even hurt it. I just dont know how you still think it can reach 300 million when the franchise has declined over the years and in most people's mind they will still Superman to Christopher Reeve

Routh vs Reeve

While I don't expect to Routh to be good as Reeve, and you will hear people bring this up in reviews, I don't think it's the Achille's heel everyone makes it out to be. Superman has been successfully portrayed in live action before Reeves, and after Reeves. This isn't to dismiss Reeve's abilities...I do think he has probably done the best job of playing an already iconic actor in the last 50 years...but if the Bond franchise can survive without Connery, Superman can survive without Reeve. Of course, if Routh sucks the air around him, we might have a problem. But his not being Reeve will stop coming into theaters.

The Cast

You know know if it will help or not. Chronicles of Narnia had Tilda Swinton as its most famous cast member, and it wasn't the end...but then again, one doesn't need stars when they have talking animals and kids. Right now, the only cast member who's a household name is Kevin Spacey, who I think is inspired casting, and brings just the sort of attention to the project one needs. He's one of those character actors-cum-movie stars, and he's well known for playing villainous sorts, and he brings the project a lot of prestige. He's a well known actor taking on the role of a very famous villain, and yet one that's been protrayed so many times it's almost like doing Hamlet or Dracula. There does seem to be some issues with Kate Bosworth. She's no Kirstin Dunst in terms of popularity, and is way too young to play the role, and in my opinion, is the biggest strike against the production. Batman Begins survived Katie Holmes, but still...I do think Returns needed another reknown actor...Jeremy Irons as Braniac or Daniel Day Lewis as Jor-El or something. I doesn't need to be a who's who like Batman was, but the production does feel sort of empty, especially since Bryan Singer is known for stuffing his movies with great ensemble casts.

Villains

The fact that it's only Luthor doesn't work for or against him. Rogues have never played that much of a role in the Superman mythos...it won't be like Batman where John and Jane public are going to ask if he fights the Joker or the Riddler this time, but by the same token, if he had taken on Metallo or Parasite, it would never have drawn up that much of a stir. I think Doomsday is the only villain that would get people talking. Luthor is not only Superman's number one enemy, but because A) he's a normal guy, he can be shoehorned into any situation and people would buy it and B) He's almost like a supporting character, I think no one's going to moan "Luthor again?". Though some kind of evil robot or superpowered alien would allow a satisfactory exhibition match. But it doesn't matter who.

However, that said, I don't think the movie has breakout potential. People will be curious to see the new Superman in action, but even if the movie's very good, people will be rushing out to see it, or hearing that "It's not like anything you've seen before". Movies that go on to become megahits do so out of sheer excitement, that feeling that they witnessed movie history happen. I think its gross will find itself in the Batman/Kong/Chocolate Factory/WotW center of gravity. Even its mediocre, I think that it's A) Superman, B) Shorter and C) Relatively family friendly can mitigate lower word of mouth.

As for Pirates...it is one of those success that's movie magic. It's not just a popular movie, it's a movie many people consider their favorite. Men in Black was Will Smith playing Will Smith...which, mind you, will make a movie a hit, but it won't make it an event. Jack Sparrow is like Indiana Jones or Hannibal Lecter or Darth Vader (as voiced by JEJ) where people just get excited to see the character onscreen. I don't even think Agents J and K are close to Hugh Jackman's Wolverine as a popular cinematic character.

But I don't think it's going to become a 400 million hit. It might build a little on the second one (Remember, back when the first one was released, it was on the same weekend as the similar League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) I really, really hate Shrek 2 for making the money that it made, and I don't hate hate any movie for becoming successful. Because it really put it into the heads of box-office watchers that any old thing can make become super huge blockbusters without a hint of freshness to it. I'm telling you, it's a fluke. Andrew Adamson or Mike Myers or whomever sold their soul to the devil to make this happen or something, but I'm telling you, movies just don't do that. People who think this will make 500 million, or the next Batman movie will make 300 million or Superman will do Spider-Man numbers...it's just ludicrus.

With Pirates, I don't feel it's a movie people will get as much...obsessed over it. Movies like Star Wars and The Matrix, the fanbases for those were insane. The fanbases for them were like a cult. People dedicating their whole lives for them, having the mega-orgy countdown gatherings and campouts, etc. The fanbase for SW and TM are much more obsessed than Pirates is IMO. I know there's people like tina, but overall it's not up to the same level. That is why I think it'll struggle to 90 million opening weekend, if that.

Actually, PotC IS a cult hit. We've got people holding interactive screenings a la Rocky Horror all over the country. Here in Kansas City, the Nelson museum in 2004 did a Movie on the Lawn summer series. They premiered it with PotC. The entire front lawn (which is HUGE) was completely packed. All the other films following it? Just about no one... And they didn't bring back the film series last summer. It was obvious that people came for the movie, not the concept of movie-on-the-lawn.

You wouldn't believe how many Rumrunners there are out there. And, yes, we *have* actually decided on a name (unlike the fandom of a certain space opera movie that I'm a fan of).

PotC2 is going to amaze one and all. It DEFINITELY has better WOM than Reloaded or the SW prequels. And while we've not actually managed to get a national convention, there are local gatherings all over the country all the time for PotC fans.

We shall be victorious!

Joy

How you figure without seeing it first?

Has there ever been a fanbase that worshipped a theme park ride before?

Oops. I mis-typed that. I meant to say it *will* definitely *have* better WOM. And that assumption is based on everyone's reactions to the spoilers that have been leaking out as well as reactions to the trailer and officially released summaries.

This is not going to be a crappy movie like Reloaded was.

Joy

sure but it will be crappy boxoffice compared to the first one.

I haven't seen it. How does it play out?

Well. Superman was always a bit based on Christian storries or prophet stories in other religions.
I mean its the typical "Person with superpowers comes from heaven and does help people" thing.

As for the teaser...yeah I also think it was a bit overdone with Brandos dialog..but well that was the thing they had

for Dolce:
Stuff like
"They are not bad people they only lack the light to show the right way..for that I send them you my only son"......etc...maybe sounds a bit Christ-like. But then the people who started Superman had perhaps something like that in mind and if not. Well when you have somebody with Superpowers who is extremly good you are pretty fast "Jesus-looking-like".

Ok when they did put in that stuff cause they thought "Passion from Gibson did that well we need something like that too" Than it is a dirty trick. But I dont think so.

just to clarify... the creators of superman were jewish...

he was also canadian

Huh? Well I guess I have to see it, but I'm going on FILMO's quotes, and I must say there's a fine difference between a Messiah-like figure, and Jesus. Which I think is what everyone here is getting at. Interesting comments, and they will affect opening weekend (though legs is debateable).

I was going to say, wasn't he found in a basket? Never-the-less, if that's the way the director, producers, etc wasnted to take it, thet's what they're going to get for an audiance. Their choice, but from the sounds of what people have said in this thread, I probably won't put ten bucks down to support that vision, superman or no.

screw the vision. just watch it for the man in tight and Kevin muthafucking Spacey.

Nope. Like I said, I won't pass final judgement until I see the trailer, but if they wanted me to see this, they should have made a movie about "the man in tights and Kevin muthafucking Spacey," not yet another piece of religiosized babble that further disempowers me. And we wonder why our Presidents now have to campaign/market themselves through a religious discourse rather than a political one. If the powers that be can't figure out how to develope a super character that isn't a direct reference to Jesus, than they aren't trying hard enough, and clearly don't care about my consumer power anyways.

See .. this is somethign i never agree with. We've looked at the trailer and most of us have now decided that its extremely religious. I'm at the moment reading the latest DC story arc and what is being echoed over there again and again is how it takes an alien from space to truly understand a human being as its his quest to be one. at the same time, the constant talk of him being a leader, someone people will listen to.

Both the trailer and the comics point at the same thing. someone who will lead the masses. The only difference is that in the trailer, we have a dead guy talking to his son and hence it sounds like christ. I watched the trailer and all it did for me was piss me off a little bit not because i for one second thought this was religious but because ... bleh ... being a batman fan, i hate it when superman becomes DC's biggest icon.

dolcevita go see the teaser NOW!
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html

I just don't understand some of your reactions. Just because most conservatives are jerks does mean you have to dislike something that has to do with Jesus Christ. In fact Jesus was nothing like the moronic conservatives and if anything was just the opposite with his true compassion for all human beings.

I can see you hating propoganda shit put out by the conservatives like the End of Spear and I completely agree with you on that. This from somebody who is not even a christian.

P.S: Hope Superman Returns kicks ass.

I tried both, couldn't open either. I don't watch trailers on my comp, because I think I'm missing some software. Hence the reason I usually don't go to the trailer forum, etc.

Its ok, I saw it was a teaser trailer, which to me means that they don't have a clue yet as to where they want to take it. I'll wait until the final trailers come out to decide.

bABA - I used to like Tarantino's reading of it. That someone from the "outside" was pretty much being an anthopologist on us. Analyzing our actions, trying to fit in amongst us, and that his Kent is actually the costume. I guess that goes with your alien looking at mankind and trying to help. I don't really have an issue with redemption figures, its almost impossible to make superheroes that don't have that angle, since they are always magical and trying to save mankind from its ugly parts. But there's a difference between redemption and THE Redemption. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. Like I said, its very nuanced, so I'll wait and see and judge on the final trailer myself.


Anyways, last I check Capt. Jack Sparrow is pretty much just Capt. Jack Sparrow. A unique characterization that isn't dependant on being molded from any one historic or religious figure. That's probably why I thought he was so great. I'm sad though, that Richards isn't making a cameo. I was so sure he was going to, and that would have been sweee-eeeet.