EXCLUSIVE: Super ($200 Million) Man or Else?

From Claude Brodesser-Akner's City of Industry blog

Will Hollywood blockbuster budgets continue to fly "up, up and away?" Not necessarily.

At least, not at Warner Bros. Pictures. After a $225 million "Pirates of the Caribbean" sailed into port, taking the wind out of "Superman Returns'" $205 million Spandex, Warner Bros. executives are said to be circumspect as to whether the Man of Steel will fly again.

Talent agency insiders with ties to the film tell TMZ that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark domestically. What's more, the studio plans to shave millions - many millions - off any "Superman" sequel's budget. (Amusingly, in the current "Superman Returns," Lois Lane pleads with Lex Luthor, "But millions will die! " It turns out she was right on the money.)

As Variety's box office guru Ben Fritz noted last July 4th, "Superman Returns is off to a strong start, albeit not as fast as a speeding bullet. Warner Bros. superhero tent pole grossed a solid $52.5 million on its opening weekend and $74 million over the five-day Fourth of July frame. Since its Wednesday opening, the Bryan Singer-helmed franchise restart has taken in $106 million."



Talent agency insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insist that Horn is so concerned about being burned financially by ionospheric "Superman" special effects costs that any sequel's budget would cost far less than Bryan Singer's quarter billion dollar baby: a meager $150 million. That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost. So much for a getting a raise.

However, no one could blame Horn for being cautious. Despite opening at No. 1 in all its territories, overseas, the Man of Steel is starting to look just a bit rusty. The just-ended World Cup meant that Warner Bros. took a pass on European and Latin American territories, and its second weekend in release overseas, "Superman Returns" dipped 55% to take in $9 million from 1,800 prints in 14 markets.

We're bracing to hear how director Bryan Singer will react to this newfound fiscal restraint.


Our guess: Not well.

Says one executive involved in the production and financing of "Superman Returns," "They can try and spin it as 'There are certain economies of scale that come from the making of the first one, blah blah blah. But the reality is, it's harder to play in a smaller sandbox and still push the envelope."

Calls place to Horn were not returned, and a studio spokeswoman declined to comment on the fiscal retrenchment.

Tags: Alan Horn, AlanHorn, Superman

Relevant Posts

Reader Comments

(Page 7 of 9) Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

91. "1. I don't think it will have a problem passing 200 million -- I think it's sad because Pirates 2 sucks as a movie (boring and too long and not nearly as good as the first one) -- Superman Returns is the movie to see and people who wait for DVD will regret not seeing it on the big screen. This is one amazing thrill ride and people who have seen pirates twice already should see Superman Returns -- they won't be disappointed." I think this is the marketing vp over at Warners bitter at the performance of Pirates...lol....

Posted at 2:26PM on Jul 13th 2006 by Film Doc.

92. Superman Returns is by far the best movie I've seen this summer because Singer took the subject matter seriously. If, as previous commentors have mentioned, the purpose is to use wink-wink humor to play to the crowd, we would get more movies like the first four Batman disasters (Batman Begins is the only real Batman movie, in my opinon) or the current Pirates of the Carribean idiocy that is currently all the rage in Disney-fied America. The only problem with Superman Returns is that expectations were way too high. As long as Superman Returns makes a profit, and it will, there should be another one, and hopefully Singer will direct it.

Posted at 2:54PM on Jul 13th 2006 by T

93. You can knock the writers of Superman Returns if you desire; however, the development of the story in a new direction was genius. New is what keeps movie goers interested....

A few points to make on your comments:

1) WB already DID abandon the franchise once.

2) The very writers you laud have already decided that Superman should no longer stand for "the American Way."

3) If "[n]ew is what keeps movie goers [sic] interested," it seems to me that, at least by voting with their wallets, the audience has shown the changes in Superman have pretty much invalidated that approach. Plus, newness certainly wasn't on Bryan Singer's mind when he made such a slavish homage to Richard Donner's films.


Thank you for making it very clear ,for these fanboys
even i am i know when to lay down the cape

Posted at 3:02PM on Jul 13th 2006 by ernie

94. I believe that everyone here is right about the movie. Bosworth was totally wrong for the role of Lois ( played it way tooo cold blooded towards Clark). The Plot was soooooo boring and done before. Why are we still keeping with Lex Luthor. Fine Lex is Supes arch enemy but enough already bring in Lobo, bring in Darkside. A DIFFERENT ENEMY! A REAL CHALLENGE. We are tired with LEX. He is on the TV show, and was in 3 of the movies. Superman should of returned and found a real challenge. I liked Kevin Spacey's Lex though really good acting I thought. But we need to move on. The kid was a shock because in the 2nd movie Lois slept with clark not superman. (people superman gave up his powers to sleep with lois the kid should of had Kal-el's alien powers not superhuman strengh when you really do the math here. He is not from out of space. Superman gets his strengh from the sun traveling from another planet!!! The kid was born on earth!!!! Never was on another planet???? ) Singer really should of stuck to X-men. But u know what maybe he did a good thing cause X-men was AWESOME. Too many loop holes left unanswered though. But Routh should come back as Superman. the kid can stay but with another story line, Lois needs to be recasted, and a new villian must emerge. And not for nothing but Superman is NOT the only krytonian left remember SUPERGIRL????? Even that would of been better then the kid. Come on we need a comic consultant on these comic book to the big screen projects.

Posted at 4:10PM on Jul 13th 2006 by Kevin

95. I thnk that for the sequel, Bryan Singer should get $100 for each line that Superman had in the first movie. That way, his operating budget should be around $1,200.

Posted at 5:05PM on Jul 13th 2006 by Jaime

96. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS MOVIE IS THE FOOLISH DIRECTION THATH BRIAN SINGER BRING TO A MOVIE LIKE THIS .
WHO WRITE THIS SCRIPT, SINGER.
WHO TRY TO MADE A COPY OF THE DONNERS FILMS , SINGER.
WHO BELIVE THAT THE WORLD IS FULL OF IDIOTS, BRIAN SINGER.

HE TRY TO MADE A SEQUEL OF DONNERS FILMS BUT THE TRUHT IS THAN THAT MOVIES WORK IN 70S THEY ERA NOT FOR TODAY , NOBODY WANT SEE LEX LUTHOR AS A CLOW.
THIS MOVIE DESERVE MORE .
BRING KEVIN SMITH ON ESCENE

Posted at 5:41PM on Jul 13th 2006 by RAUL ALEJANDRO VARGAS

97. Superman was a great movie. Like any person there were things I would change but thank god it wasnt like Pirates 2 which sucked royally. Hell I slept though the first one because it was so long and boring but this one was the worst movie of the summer by far with xmen 3 coming in a close second.

Posted at 7:18PM on Jul 13th 2006 by ty

98. I THINK BRANDON ROUTH DID A GREAT JOB TO SAY THAT IT WAS HIS VERY FIRST MOVIE. THE PROBLEM THAT OCCURED FROM BEING BORED AND FINANCIALLY DISGUSTED FROM VEIWING THE MOVIE CAME FROM THE BORING STORY LINE AND THE EMOTIONALLY MISREABLE KATE BOSWORTH.
THE ORIGANAL SUPERMAN, SUCH AS MY HERO CHRIS REEVES WOULD HAVE NEVER SINK SO LOW TO HAVE EMOTIONAL GRIEF AFTER LOIS LANE.
HE WAS ALL ABOUT SAVING THE WORLD. BRANDON ROUTH'S CHARACTER WAS PORTRAYED AS A STALKER PEEKING THROUGH WINDOWS, AND A DEAD BEAT DADDY WHO ONLY ABANDONED LOIS AND THE KID FOR FIVE YEARS. THE SCRIPT WAS SO FAR FETCHED FROM REALITY. SINGER PLEASE REVIEW CHRIS REEVES FILMS AS THE REAL SUPER"MAN"., AND IF YOU DO DECIDE TO TRY THIS AGAIN, PLEASE CREATE BRANDON'S ROLE AS A MAN, NOT A DEPRESSED BOY WHO'S DOWNING OVER THIS ICE QUEEN WITH FRIED HAIR AND IN REALITY SKIN AND BONES. BRANDON DID A GREAT JOB FOR HID FIRST MOVIE, BUT SUPERMAN FROM THE COMICS AND OUR HISTORY OF FILMS DID NOT TAKE OFF TO FLY LIKE A STEALTH PLANE AND A SONIC BOOM. KEEP IT REAL FOR GEORGE AND CHRISTOPHER REEVES.

Posted at 8:12PM on Jul 13th 2006 by MONICA

99. SINGER, I HOPE YOU'RE DIGESTING THESE HARSH COMMENTS AS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENTS. MAYBE, PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT THE REEVES EXCELLENT WORK AS SUPERMAN TO BE CREATED INTO SOMETHING SO UNREALISTIC AND DRAMATIC. I 'M SURE ALL OF US WANT TO BE CRITICS WILL BE THE FIRST ONE'S IN LINE TO THE SEQUEL. IF ALL OF US CRITICS DID'NT FEEL IT WAS ROOM FOR MAJOR LOUIS LANE RECAST AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A MORE CLASSIC SUPERMAN ACTION MOVIE, THEN WE ALL WOULD'NT BE POSTING THESE COMMENTS. WE WANT TO SEE BRANDON ROUTH ," NOT THE BOY" AS SOME CALL HIM FOLLOW HISTORICALLY IN THE REEVES FOOTSTEPS. FOR EXAMPLE, LOOK HOW THE MOTION PICTURE OF THE HULK WAS CREATED INTO THIS COMPUTER UGLY MORE MONSTEROUS CREATURE, THAT WAS SO SAD AND SO DISRESPECTFUL TO OUR LATE BILL BIXBY. DUKES OF HAZZARD IS ANOTHER ONE, ALL THESE REMAKES OF FUN ACTION HEROS, SUPERHEROS AND VILLANS IS WRONG AND A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE HARD MUD SLINGING PAST ACTORS WHO ORIGINATED THESE SO UNREALISTIC REMAKES. IT'S LIKE LINDA CARTER I N THE FUTURE VEIWING THE NEW WONDER WOMAN MOVIE AND SEEING PARIS HILTON PORTRAYING HER FINE WORK AS AN RECOVERING FORMER CRACK ADDICT WHO'S NOW " WONDER WOMAN". AGAIN, KEEP IT REAL. OLD TIME CLASSIC SUPERHEROS AND TODAY'S REMAKES ARE TOO DIFFERENT ANIMALS.

Posted at 8:59PM on Jul 13th 2006 by TANYA

100. Superman should have been played by Tom Welling, he's already playing him on the small screne in Smallville, I just hated the new Superman, why did they not cast Tom Welling, I hope if there is a next one they do the right thing and casted him!!!!!!!

Posted at 10:02PM on Jul 13th 2006 by Lavelle

101. I have a better Superman that I am writing right now...a restart of the whole thing, because, quite frankly, Brian Singer's Superman Returns is nothing but a bad movie. Warner Brothers can spin it all they want, through publicists and bought movie critics, but there are serious problems with Superman Returns!!! First, there was no need for this film to cost somewhere between 210 to 300 million dollars...After all...it was shot on the cost saving HD digital format and in Australia to boot...The latter I assume to save money...but the so called special effects...were less than special...and one might say the original Chris Reeves film version had better fx. Next, Superman Returns had a nearly 3 hour running time with little to no character development. Kevin Spacey was miscast as Lex Luthor...Lex' criminal plot would have been better and made more sense if a 3 year old made it up...Further, the script featured a creepy Superman secretly misusing his x-ray vision and super hearing to stalk Lois Lane and her new family. We were treated to a scene where Superman's 5 year old kid kills a thug as he, the criminal, is moving to rape the child's mother (Lois Lane) right in front of him with a knife...and latter, we witnessed Superman brutally beaten to the edge of his life by Lex Luthor and his group of thugs...a scene that played like Superman was in for a prison like gang rape by Luthor and his men...but one that got interrupted by Lex' plans to finish growing his Kryptonite continent...And I'm not kidding or being sarcastic about it...it just played really strangely...disturbingly so!!! But that's not nearly the end of all of the problems here...The movie was tediously...painfully...slow, and could have used a healthy editing. They could have cut an hour and 20 minutes out of the movie and you wouldn't have missed a thing!!! This, plus the fact that all the best scenes are shown in the ads...if you seen them, you don't need to see this film...because the rest of it is just plain bloatedness in all it glory...but not bloated action...No, we didn't get that lucky...just alot of boring scenes featuring Lex Luthor, and or, the much talked about side plot featuring Lois, her kid and a new husband...a b story that paints the future of Superman into a corner...where it is trapped with no place to go!!! In other words, if fans don't like it...which they don't...how do you easily write yourself out of this messy storyline...The answer is simple...you can't!!! Even worse...save for two quick flashes...there are no minorities who have any dialogue in this film...In fact...there is less than half a paragraph of dialogue between them!!! Which makes you wonder...if the Nazis won World II...this would be their Superman...and if the South won the Civil War...yes...this would be their Superman. And at a time when Superman Returns could have used extra attendance from minority audiences thanks to its unexpectedly low box office...this was a real blunder on the part of studio planners...who seem to have forgotten the rule of Murphy's Law...Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong!!! Now...if you add in the costs of all the restart versions of Superman which have been in development at Warner Brothers over the last 10 years...the price, including the budget of Superman Returns, comes to about 300 million dollars. Add in the cost of advertisements, publicity, film prints, and distribution...you are conservatively talking another 150 million dollars extra...on top of the production budget!!! And if this film manages to take in 300 million dollars world wide...it'll still be 300 million dollars in the money loss column. Why? Because movie theatres receive half of all ticket sales. With after market sales of the film waying in to tv networks...globally, to cable, satelite, pay per view, dvd sales/rentals and video sales/rentals....this film will probably only make 10 million million dollars off of its ten years of production development and final production and release of the resulting film...Superman Returns. Why? The studio would have actually made tons more cash, off of interest alone, if they had just left their money in the bank instead of making this movie in the first place!!! Simply said...this film suffered from too many people being involved. Too many executives trying to justify their hefty salaries by meddling in the film making process. Too many melded scripts....too many gimmicks...too much over thinking!!! A lesson for Hollywood...you don't need 200 chefs to cook a single great meal...all you need is one great chef...like Mario Puzo, the writer of the Godfather...and the original Superman film...and one great waiter...like Richard Donner, the Director of the Chris Reeves Superman....to serve that great meal!!! Now, all you've done is wound up with an over dressed and over spiced mess that is completely inedible!!!

Posted at 10:28PM on Jul 13th 2006 by MetalWater

102. "Maybe Superman should have stayed away from the Polictics. Americans like the american way. I won't spend my hard earned american dollar on it. And I know alot of others who would agree."

If you want to make money these days you don't make movies for "americans". YEAH - it's a BIG BIG WORLD out there, with LOTS OF CINEMAS and OTHER people with MONEY. No wonder no one likes you people. After all thats happened, still got your head up your butt"

Posted at 10:43PM on Jul 13th 2006 by cyn

103. superman returns will easily pass the £200 mark. its only now coming out in the uk and is going to be watched by every super hero fan in the uk!!!!

Posted at 4:03AM on Jul 14th 2006 by simon

104. Hey ,people, people sup didn't suck but it was close. it was not a good movie.And please oh please quit hating on x3 .The dude from rush hour made a good flick,not great,good.Now next to superman it look like the god dam godfather.I too am a cool ass nerd,but some of you nerds got to bite the speeding bullet and man up that singer screwed up!He took control of the whole thing 2years went by of the gent hyping it up.I read everything he was doing and thought"hey i don't like he left xmen ,but with what he did with those films he would make a kick ass movie"WRONG!! He wasted money and time .Like i said he got greedy,wanted the more iconic movie .Instead of finishing what you started the greed took over.then he got sloppy.he didnt read the books the true fans around the world read the books !akot are on here writing like me.We know superman we know he has a wide history,like x men is easy to catch up and know ,which is cool,But when it comes to superman you got to do your homework.Like at school singer tryed to cheat on his homework project,instead of putting the research into the paper and read the books,he rented the movie..

Hey all you unfaithfull comic fans ,x3 sucked so much it is still killing super man .And I DO NOT WANT TO HERE THE EXCUSES THAT X MEN IS MORE SETTLED .B.S SUPERMAN IS THE HUGEST ICON IN THE COMIC MEDIA IT HAD 4 FILMS BEFORE IT ,TV SHOWS AND YOUR PAPI LISTENED TO IT ON THE RADIO.iT AS BEEN HYPED UP FOR DECADES.AND DONT GET ME WRONG SUPERMAN DESERVED TO BE BETTER THAN X MEN ,SAME WITH BATMAN.THOSE ICONS DESERVE IT ,tHESE HEROES PATH THE WAY FOR ARE HEROES!BUT WHEN YOU PUT OUT NOTHING WOTH WATCHING ,THERE IS SOMTHING ELSE TO WATCH...

no SEQUEL ,REDUE!!!

MOST FANS ARE WITH ME ,IF YOUR NOT CROSS THE LIN

I AM OUT

Posted at 4:41AM on Jul 14th 2006 by ERN

105. Can't believe people are lining up for POTC2 and leaving Superman hanging. SR is by far the best film of 2006. Anyone who disses SR is obviously a Bush Supporter who should be put out of their misery.

Posted at 5:36PM on Jul 14th 2006 by ALINEFX

Previous 15 Comments | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments