So WB was the winner in the X3/SR showdown?

And the X-Men franchise is worn out because... uh... it beat Superman Returns domestically, internationally and on opening weekend - against much stiffer competition - by almost double?

And why is anyone doing a Bryan Singer suck up story? Well, I guess they were done sucking up to JJ Abrams for the failure of Mission: Impossible III, whose final numbers will almost exactly match the numbers on Superman Returns... except it cost no less than $50 million less to make and marker.

WORLDWIDE THIS SUMMER
POTC: Dead Man's Chest $860m (and rising)
The Da Vinci Code $750m
X-Men: The Last Stand $441m
Mission: Impossible III $392m
Cars $376m
Superman Returns $348m (with 2 major territories left)
Over the Hedge $300m

And gee... isn't M:I3 the impetus to throw Tom Cruise - who have 5 times as many $200 million-plus worldwide grossers on his resume than Bryan "2 X-Men & A SoaperMan" Singer and 4 $400 million grossers to Singer's 1 - off the Paramount lot?

There is a likelihood that Superman Returns will gross less than Godzilla. God-muthafuckin'-zilla.

Bryan Singer has no history as a tentpole director. He is an arthouse director. And the only reason that there was an X2 was because Bryan was "handcuffed" by Tom Rothman's restrictive budget on X1... or that franchise would have died right there.

And where the HELL did WB dig up Cheo Hodari Coker as The Journalist for Anne Thompson to talk to and to defend Bryan Singer? Is that a joke? Did Anne dial those digits with a straight face?

I love Anne. I think she is pushing a strong, progressive agenda for journalists. But geez, girl…

And shame on WB for throwing three other films and teams of filmmakers under the bus to try to save face on the one film they plan on continuing to try to milk... like milking a rattlesnake.

(According to sources close to the movie, "Last Stand" cost about $168 million after tax rebates.)

From the article




Have to admit I find that line interesting. I'll be treating raw budget figures for movies more sceptically in future.

Please, I've been saying this for so long. Superman was a disappointment, but will still make money for the studios.

the 210 figure is very realistic, as the 50 million from predevelopment was obviously paid for from years passed from other successful films. That would mean that Superman Returns needs to make 400 million to break even. It will be near 375 million by the end of the weekend. It will probably finish around 410 million. And then lets not forget DVDs and merchandising. From the percentage that the studio makes from that. Superman will make over 100 million profit for WB.

Shit, SR would need a heck of a lot more than $500 million to break even. To make and market, it ran, at minimum, $350 mil.

For the hundreds time, Superman will make a profit, not much, but it will. Tax rebates, box office, merchandising, tie-ins, product placements, Videos & DVDs, TV rights etc. will make for that. Do you honestly believe they would already consider a sequel if they had lost money? I don't think so. Many movies deemed flops initially made money in the end. People are so quick to write off a movie (especially if they don't like it) without seeing the big picture...

Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL.

But they also know that a sequel would not gross less than this, but thanks to the existing sets and all, it'd certainly cost less or just as much at most.

I'm not convinced that a Superman sequel would gross more (is that what you are saying?)

And they don't keep the sets, they were all destroyed. Which is typical for almost any movie.

No, it won't just break even, it will make profit. (i can play this game forever )

Hulk sequel greenlit right away? That's news to me. To my knowledge it was greenlit this very year.

the 210 figure is very realistic, as the 50 million from predevelopment was obviously paid for from years passed from other successful films.

So, if you lost $100 dollars, would you say to yourself, "well, I lost $100, but it's okay because a few years ago, I found $20 on the ground! And I won like $50 from this scratch-and-win card back in 1998! Who cares about the $100!"? I hope not.

Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL.

i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh.

No, but i think it's equally wrong to count these $50m spent on previous attempts towards the Singer production.

Let's put it this way, Superman 2 feels more like a sure thing than Hulk 2 did at the same point in time. Hulk was the bigger disappontement of the two. Btw, i'm getting a direct to video vibe from the Hulk sequel (cheap production, unknown actors and director), it surely doesn't feel like a studio tentpole.

You have seen X3?