They need to wait until 2009 to do another one AT LEAST. Spiderman wraps up in 2007, Batman will have one in 2008, Xmen wrapped up now apparently (not including spinoffs). Hulk won't do well until at least 2013 Superman has more of an opening then. Maybe they should film it now with its $250 m budget, but then not release it until 2009 or later, when the budgets of all films are $200 m +...

Is Spiderman really wrapping up with with Spidey III??? I thought they were making IV aswell.

Yeah, I thought they were making more than 3.

It failed in mid-way through it's third week? If this were week six, than yeah, I would agree with you on that fact. By week six though it should be just shy of $190-$200 million. It's at $150 million now. It'll be at $152.5 tomorrow. If predictions are going to come true it'll be at $163-$167 by the end of the weekend. By the end of next weekend it'll be at $174-$179. You don't think WB is going to keep this in theaters long enough to get it a little past $200 million? They'll probably keep it in theaters long enough to pass Batman Begins by default. And I know you'll be especially glad to hear this, but they'll make up their money eventually and thensome with the DVD's and sequel.

I also agree with you that Spider-Man is today's Superman, simply because it reinvented the genre (Even though it borrowed largely from the original Superman). Superman Returns was never going to top Spider-Man in gross. Everybody pretty much knew that, and as I said before, anyone expecting it to was just getting their hopes up. They're bringing back a character who has been away from the big screens for 19 years. This wasn't going to be gangbusters, because it's new again. It's a new Superman who will take getting used to, both literally and figuartively. Just like Batman.

By 2012, Superman and Batman will be number one and two again, not necessairly in that order.



The next one is on pace for a Summer 2009 release.

I agree and have been saying the same thing all along. It is just not reasonable to think Superman was going to make anything more than $200-$220m - especially with its release date. Im a big detractor of WB, but in a way - this is the loss (even though eventually they will break even) they had to make to bring back the series. Kind of like Batman - but Batman was such a good film - it dug itself out of the hole - and in a way - I think its quality actually helped give audiences a bit of confidence in Superman.

You mean Batman right?

No, Superman. I meant that due to the good job done resurrecting Batman from a dead franchise, some people would have had more hope in Superman Returns being able to do the same for its long dead franchise.

No, he means the fact that a resurrection of Batman was good, people had more faith in one of Superman being good aswell.

Yep thats right.

Yeah, what a waste of faith. Should've stuck with Jesus all the way.

If it's not keeping butts in seats, theaters will dump it in favor of films that will (new releases, in other words). SR already lost some screens due to demand for PIRATES. Starting this weekend it'll start losing more screens -- probably not a drastic amount this weekend but a good chunk the following weekend. The WOM to date is simply not good enough to warrant keeping it in a significant number of theaters after that time.

Furthermore, Warners' efforts right now are not to save SR or turn it into a film with legs... they've lost that fight. Now they've got to make sure they sell LADY IN THE WATER and bring it in for a respectable opening weekend. After that they've got ANT BULLY on the horizon. And you can bet WB's full attention is to have those two films cover the distance that POSEIDON and SUPERMAN didn't.

or mayb they focus on more then 1 film (??????????)

Yeah?? Well according to the Mayan Calendar, the world ends on 2012 so no one's gonna be #1.. And as far as this movie wasn't expected to be gangbusters, try telling that to WB Execs who had other plans in mind and folks have spoken about getting used to a New Superman and the verdict is is that they want a Man of Steel who acts like The Man of Steel like Reeve's did and not some boytoy boxer wearing model who's more focused on emotion like a chick than a guy.. This franchise is finished..

That's exactly my point. WB's mindset is not "let's save SR by spending a ton of time and effort trying to get people to see it". It's more like "OK, looking ahead, let's make sure we concentrate on hitting all the key demographics on the marketing for the rest of our summer releases."

SUPERMAN is old news. It was old news after its first weekend, and now it's buried down in the middle along with everything else "not PIRATES". Once PRADA passes it (tomorrow, possibly) it's even more insignificant. Meanwhile, PIRATES continues to get daily headlines with its run of record-breaking days, and now it's getting ancillary headlines like "wacky writer sues PIRATES". This weekend no one's wondering if SUPERMAN will hold up well; they're wondering if PIRATES will make a run for biggest second weekend ever or how YOU, ME, AND DUPREE will do. And whether they should see PRADA, since everyone is "liking it and it's getting good reviews".

theyllk focus on it a lot cause without it they have no 2009 tentpoloe. they should move superman 2 to december 2008 and and sequel mean it would prbably produce a 60-70 million opening weekend and then hope for good holiday legs.

Im calling it right now, you wont see a sequel until atleast 2010. If the movie did better then yeah, 2009. They arent rushing to get a sequel off the ground.

I don't think I've ever had anyone continue a debate that way.



Based on what, the name Superman? I guess they expected Begins then to make over $300 million since the Keaton Batman's were so popular. To bad we won't see a sequel...........

Quote:

and folks have spoken about getting used to a New Superman and the verdict is is that they want a Man of Steel who acts like The Man of Steel like Reeve's did and not some boytoy boxer wearing model who's more focused on emotion like a chick than a guy.. This franchise is finished..

God forbid that a man has emotions (Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker I forgot, are robots) and still manages to be a superhero. As a matter of fact, I think Superman's emotions were the basis of the first and second movies. I mean he didn't turn time backward in the first one for the hell of it, and he sure as hell didn't fuck her in the second for the hell of it.

As for boytoy boxer model, where do you get that from? Do you have pictures we don't know about or is that just a generalization of an actor we've never seen before and have to get used to like most new actors, especially if they are playing an iconic role. Believe it or not, I'm sure some people in 1978 were having the same problem you're having right now.

And remember, just like in most movies that have sequels, the first one is the setup, the second is the payoff.

Dude, they're looking at 2006, not 2009. Do you seriously think WB has nothing else to remotely consider a "tentpole" that it could insert into the production pipeline... especially one that won't come with the whiff of disappointment from its predecessor?

With the time it's taking to produce the HP films, seems like they'll have a 2009 tentpole just fine.

Are you seeing any new SR TV spots, btw? I'm still seeing the same "action" ones they were running in the days just before its release. The Superman billboards all over LA? Getting painted over for PIRATES and MIAMI VICE. Where are the full-page color newspaper ads? The radio spots? Where is it on Yahoo!Entertainment or Yahoo!Movies? Where are the fluff stories (pushed by marketing departments) in Daily Variety or the Hollywood Reporter?

The marketing dollars have, in large part, been spent and WB isn't going to spent a dramatically increased amount at this point. Why should they? It's the law of diminishing returns.

Who cares if they're new TV spots? If they are still showing them this week, they're still whoring the movie. As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, you usually don't see those after the first week. If you do, it's in a limited amount.

Have you seen many Lady in the Water TV spots by the way? I've seen a couple, but Superman I'd say is outnumbering them two to one. I mean of course, the WB is banking on Lady in the Water to do very well since it cost them an arm and a leg to make it.

Also, apparently this film has NO word of mouth whatsoever. It won't make any money from here on out, unlike Click, Cars or Nacho Libre. I forgot Batman Begins just opened with $205 and just ended.

you idiot telemachos. they are ALWAYS looking at the future and planning ahead. if they were just looking at right nwo they would forget to put movies into prduction for next year.i guess they have no 2007 or 2008 movies?

Excel, get rid of your question marks. There's too many that it's ruining the page.

You mean the same ones that haven't been getting people to the theaters?



Right. Because WB has spent the bulk of its marketing dollars (for the theatrical run, anyway) and there simply aren't enough interesting stories generated by SUPERMAN to keep the media interested.



I've actually seen quite a few lately, though of course it all depends on whatever market you happen to be in. LITW isn't an astronomically expensive film, but after POSEIDON and SUPERMAN you can bet Warners is hoping/pushing/praying for a solid opening so they can finally get some good press and WOM.



Don't be ridiculous. Why the continual comparison to BATMAN BEGINS, other than the convenient fact that it managed to squeak past $200 million? SUPERMAN isn't showing nearly the legs that BB had.... and it won't quite reach that film's domestic mark. If it has a sub-40% drop this weekend, then sure, that would greatly improve its chances. But there's no indication that will happen, so why should we skeptics consider this anything more than a hope?

excel, I edited your post. Please don't do that.

wow i jut spent 10 minutes editing it cause my question mark key locked. wow.

LOL. Dude, my whole point is that they don't need to rely upon Superman to keep them in the summer market for upcoming years. They've got plenty of other films, directors, and possible franchises to plug away with. Sure, they would've loved it if SR hit it huge -- that's why they spent so much. But they're not going to go above-and-beyond the call of duty for a film that's underperformed. Do you seriously think that SUPERMAN is their only hope for future summers?