Re: Superman Returns: The sequel....may not happen


selaboc wrote:
Leo wrote:
Perhaps, but again one (BB) will still likely end up being bigger than
the other.

possibly. But not by much (in gross numbers). As I point out elsewhere,
what makes SR look bad in comparison is it's bloated budget.

it doesn't make it "look" bad; it IS bad....

In comparison to the bloated budget it is. As a boxoffice number by
itself, no it isn't. If you were told a movie made around $200M gross
as the box office without knowing it's budget, you'd consider that a
decent number. It's only when you consider the bloated budget that a
otherwise decent showing at the boxoffice looks like a poor showing.

i don't see why you keep comparing SR's performance to BB's.

Because it makes for an decent yardstick for gaging SR boxoffice gross.
Both movies have grossed in the same ballpark.

the point
of comparison of SR's gross thus far is against its own production
budget, not BB,

Not really.

you just can't say BB is "not much more successful" than SR in terms of
"mount of money it grossed". you don't measure any film's profitability
against just how many actual dollars it made, but by comparing how much
it made to how much it cost. that's fairly elementary.

first, as both movies will end up in the black when all revenue streams
are added up, profitability really isn't an issue. second, there's
many types of success, profitability is only one measure of success.
another measure is getting bums into theatre seats. Both movies succeed
it getting roughly the same number of bums in seats judging by by close
their grosses are.

and you claim SR has now become profitable by comparing its cost to
worldwide gross. you may be right; fair enough. but you completely
skirted my point that it has not broken even with its domestic gross,

which is irrelevant. The question is/was did SR make a profit. To
answer that question, you need to look at ALL revenue streams, not just
domestic. You don't just look at cost compared to one revenue stream
when there are more than one revenue streams. that's fairly elementary.

as every other tentpole genre film i listed did. and you ignore the
fact that Warner's gave SR an extremely liberal (like $70 million
liberal) to hit $200M domestic, which almost certainly will not happen.

whoops. dropped a line. make that "an extremely liberal (like $70 M
liberal) mandate to hit $200M domestic", etc.

Which it came close to doing.

just because you like a film doesn't mean you should be blind to the
reality of the situation.

I'm not. But just because you don't like a film doesn't mean you should
be blind to the reality of the situation.

i'd like you to attempt to find a single instance where i said anywhere
online that i didn't like Superman Returns.

right. you can't. i never did.

"don't try putting words into MY mouth, thanks".


a great number of my favourite films were not
profitable playing first run theatrically. i don't feel the need to
knee-jerk defend their quality to anyone based on that.

That's irrelevant to what we are discussing. At the end of the day,
when ALL of SRs revenue streams are totalled, it will have made a
profit (no matter how small) that's not a "knee-jerk" reaction, that's
the reality of the situation.

then again, i can cite a film i don't like (detest actually) that made
an enormous, record breaking profit based on its cost versus its gross:
The Blair Witch Project.

So?

it'd be interesting to see if Superman is
capable of such a feat.

Not likely. I seriouly doubt there'd ever be a superman movie made on a
blair witch budget that could then gross the kind of money Blair Witch
did.

you say $200M is nothing to sneeze at; correct.
neither is $140M,

I agree. And that would still be true if Blair Witch cost $100M instead
of $1M.

you may say how
can a blockbuster film be expected to make the kind of money it would
take to be that profitable (or you may not..).

Don't try putting words into my mouth, thanks.

that's the point; there
has to be some kind of reasonable ceiling on skyrocketing production
costs.

Agreed.

if the studio is willing to spend a record breaking amount of
money on a film, they need to do everything they can to make sure they
make a record breaking profit.

All they need do is make a profit (they are in business to make money).
It's up to the bean counters to determine if a small profit makes the
"skyrocketing" budgets worth it when they could put those resourses
into cheaper to produce films that would make larger profits.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ford-GM merger?
    ... The gross income of either Ford or GMC already is greater than ... When evaluated from a profit generation standpoint, ... and becomes a "dis economy of scale." ... sales measured as per cent of gross sales. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Superman Returns: The sequel....may not happen
    ... really that much more successful in the amount of money it grossed. ... Batman in the foreign market by a few million. ... But not by much (in gross numbers). ... make a record breaking profit. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: Superman Returns: The sequel....may not happen
    ... But not by much (in gross numbers). ... In comparison to the bloated budget it is. ... as both movies will end up in the black when all revenue streams ... The question is/was did SR make a profit. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: 8% Fees Seems High For Stores
    ... There is no way in hell that you are going to make a profit at $3 gross per transaction on eBay. ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)
  • Statistically Twilight was bigger than Dark Knight and other movie #s
    ... If only Wall Street had bet on Twilight. ... grossed about eight times its $11 million budget; ... the big-boat movie, then maybe it really won't ever be sunk as ... the $130 million Australia ($44.3 million gross), ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)