In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen.

i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.

They are hardly a comparison. I make Gigli jokes as well, yet I'd judge it fairly if I saw it. Why don't you pick something in the same RT/IMDB/Metascore range as X3?

Just thought I'd wander in and say if you haven't seen it you can't implicitly bash it. You can say "I hear its awful" or "I think i'd dislike that movie so I'll pass". But bashing ANY MOVIE without watching it first is illogical by its very nature.

I mean I can't stand Adam Sandler but Little Nicky and Click are the the only 2 movies I can really rip to shreads since i've seen them. The others are off limits to a direct tirade.

Yes, it is. It's a special case.

ok. time to thow the phantom menace into discussion.

well what would you call a fair reaction when i see awful previews for a movie? is it ok to say that it looks awful? can i say that it has bad directing and acting when i see entire scenes?

You have to see the whole movie before making a full judgement. Yes its far to say the scenes you see are good/bad but the critiique can't encompass the full movie.

There have been quite a few movies I've seen with shoddy trailers that turned out to be very enjoyable when I got to see the full movie.

Althou I really wish i'd gone with the feeling of shitfest I got from watching the Ultraviolet trailer and avoided it like the plague instead of being a gimp and actually seeing it.

Argos likes Led Zeppelin and Bryan Singer, the former for their music, the latter for his luminous films.

Well, i've heard rumors that they're considering a complete unknown (to most) for Bruce Banner (that guy from the TV show Prison Break i think). Yeah, i know, Supes was an unknown as well, but at least they had familiar faces in supporting roles, Kevin Spacey above all. I doubt Hulk 2 will get such a cast. Plus they're dropping the all CGI Hulk in favor of a body suit (or CGI/suit combo). Sounds cheap to me...

Yes, I would mind it.

You can say it looks awful, but you can't just claim that it's laughable to say Superman is a worse film than X3 if you haven't seen X3. At least Nazgul9 has seen it (I think/hope).

I creep begging on my knees. Please, no more Hulk-movies. The one we've had was clearly enough.

Um...okay...have you heard any "rumors" about Hulk 2's supporting cast?

But even Joseba liked it!!!!111

I have.

X3 is not a catastrophy by any means, but very underwhelming non the less. Superman Returns on the other hand is grand cinema right there!

I will fill you in when i hear something.

Surely, but even Joseba can err once.

In the studio's eyes, it's not wrong. It's $50m lost. It's not like they're blaming Singer for that $50m loss, but nonetheless, another $50m WAS lost on the Superman project overall.

It's not gonna happen and it's all Damage Control and quite frankly, it's old now to..WB and Singer will simply never admit that this movie jkust didn't do as well as what they thought and still think people really care about this character in this day and age..

Lector, as according to the last studio announcement, in a theatrical run, the studio gets 55% of what a movie makes. And as far as marketing goes. It for the most part pays for itself with tie ins. Superman had huge tie ins with Burger King, Pepsi, and some cell phone( I cant remember which one) to name a few. In many cases, such tie ins have resulted in almost more than 30 million that a company will pay to have it in the movie. And when you have multi billion companies like Burger king and Pepsi, one has to think that such deals are very possible. Its actually quite crazy how much money these companies pay for stuff like that.

For most blockbusters, Pirates, Superman, Xmen, its sometimes very reasonable that there could be upwards to 10 big tie ins. Although such statistics cannot be released for security issues, many times films are very much paid for before they are released, mainly on promotional tie ins alone. So technically Marketing gets cancelled out many times before a movie is even released.

And While many of you do not not to exclude the 50 million, its also not reasonable. Superman had been in development since about 1995. Tim Burton's project alone had already spent close to 30 million before it was scrapped. the other 20 million came from other ideas from say Kevin Smith, Mc G and Brett Ratner. They were all different projects, and had nothing to do with the current film that was released. So its safe to assume that since WB had been very very prosperous in the years leading up to 2006, its very safe to assume that the 50 million had long been paid off from other big hits like the Matrix, Harry Potter.

Wasnt the whole article about that they thought it didnt do as well as they though?

And whoever wrote the whole "I lost $100" its very different in the business world. Spending 50 million dollars on revamping a project when you've made more than 1 billion profit that year, is a very reasonable thing. The pre-preproduction cost was paid off long before Superman Returns started production.

Its really hard that not too many people understand the inner workings of a studio, but its really funny when all in all, just because they dont see all the sources of revenue, they see bomb. The only film this year that doesnt look to make profit is Poseidon, but even that could be grey, depending on how it does on DVD.

In the

U.S.A.

NOT INTERNATIONALLY

How much clearer do you want me to make this till it gets to your head?

Thanks, I didnt read close enough, but do you have a source for that? I've never read anything that. But I'll take your word, but can you be more specific. Is it like 10% or 45%?

I'd imagine its pretty difficult to nail down those figures. They vary from country to country.