Author Topic: Superman Returns Breaks $200 Million Domestically (Read 1253 times)

Cheebs · « **on:** October 24, 2006, 02:17:11 PM »

It broke it this weekend. People forgot about this film but in August-October it had a very leggy strong "dollar theater" type of run bringing up its total to break the 200 million barrier. WB promised a Singer directed led it it eventually broke 200 million(though the president of WB confirmed a Singer sequel late in the summer already).

Everyone forgot about this at the boxoffice after its initial weak numbers but somehow it has proved to be very leggy in its intake.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:18:26 PM »

It deserved $300 million imo. What a great movie

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:19:06 PM »

Wow, what an accomplishment. Not.

Cheebs · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:24:30 PM »

Quote from: Willco on October 24, 2006, 02:19:06 PM

Wow, what an accomplishment. Not.

Your getting a trilogy of Singer directed movies. Aren't you excited?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:24:57 PM »

Not if they're anything like Superman Returns. Even CrystalGemini thought it was "meh". Letdown date flick.

Cheebs · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:25:41 PM »

You'll see both of the next films in the trilogy opening night.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:29:12 PM »

Probably.

Solo · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:39:24 PM »

As I said at GAF, its still a major disappointment (both the box office, and ESPECIALLY the piece of turd movie) no matter what way you spin it.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:52:22 PM »

Yes, it was a poor preformance. The movie simply could not attract a young audience, which has moved beyond Superman and towards Spiderman and others.

The movie was not able to get the MTV crowd; instead it got the AARP crowd. When I went to see it, most of the audience were older couples. And when the Spiderman 3 teaser played, a bunch of little kids went crazy.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2006, 02:57:38 PM »

It just wasn't very good. It's not that Superman isn't cool, because he's very hip with the younger generation. Hell, he's idolized by urban role models like Shaq. Sure, he's probably third on the totem pole of comic book heroes, but he's a huge draw.

It just wasn't a very good film. And why would people spend their hard earned money on that when they could enjoy a matinee of Dead Man's Chest instead?

Cheebs · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2006, 03:01:21 PM »

I think II could make vastly more money than Returns. Singer implies he wants it to be very action packed and go "Wrath of Khan". As he showed with X-Men he had a kinda average first film with a decent in take($150 mill~) to a great sequel with great box office results(over 200 million with X2).

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2006, 03:04:04 PM »

That wouldn't kill the movie's box office potential. There were many terrible movies that made more money come on.

It was a case of people not being interested in Superman. The public has moved past him, sort of like Captain America and other cookie cutter heroes. Obviously Cap has made huge leaps as a character recently, but the public still sees him as that 60's goodie two shoes. Meh

Spiderman transcends generations in ways Superman doesn't. Consider the slight backlash Superman Returns got for revealing Superman's illegitimate son lol. People expect Superman to live up to a certain morality, one which we don't expect of ourselves. Spiderman, on the other hand, is far more human and "regular" than Superman. He has to pay his bills, find a job, compete with the jocks, etc.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2006, 03:04:13 PM »

The first X-Men was a lot better than Superman Returns.

Bacon · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2006, 03:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Willco on October 24, 2006, 02:57:38 PM

It just wasn't very good. It's not that Superman isn't cool, because he's very hip with the younger generation. Hell, he's idolized by urban role models like Shaq. Sure, he's probably third on the totem pole of comic book heroes, but he's a huge draw.

It just wasn't a very good film. And why would people spend their hard earned money on that when they could enjoy a matinee of Dead Man's Chest instead?

You might have a point if bad movies never did well at the box office.

Returns was an excellent film. If something hurt the sales, it was probably due to people talking about the length rather than the quality.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:02:52 PM »

Superman was not very good. Public concensus agrees. It's not a matter of a good film that got shafted, it's just that you're in the minority.

Bacon · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:08:53 PM »

Rottentomatoes tells me it's fresh.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:12:28 PM »

Quote from: Bacon on October 24, 2006, 04:08:53 PM

Rottentomatoes tells me it's fresh.

Rotten Tomatoes tells you it's not very good. Looking at the scores, it's mixed across the board and ranks very mediocre. Sure, mediocre gets you a fresh rating, but doesn't mean you're a good film.

In terms of good/bad, it's not bad, so it wouldn't deserve a rotten rating - but it's not good.

Bacon · « **Reply #17 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:15:51 PM »

It's an enjoyable film. Everyone I know agrees.

Even my mom liked it, and there's no way she would sit through X-Men 3.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:15:59 PM »

baby jesus cries

The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment · « **Reply #19 on:** October 24, 2006, 04:40:50 PM »

I'll probably see the sequels on opening night, and then spend the next week or so talking about how mediocre they were. $:-\$

We need a hardcore, balls-to-the-wall Supes on screen, not a rehash of the Donner version.

News:

Author Topic: Superman Returns Breaks $200 Million Domestically (Read 1253 times)