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

106. Personally, I hope the sequel will have much more elements that makes a Superman movie a SUPERMAN MOVIE. The previous Superman Returns only have a few things that is right: CGI and cool special effects, Kevin Spacey as Lex, and those are more likely to be it. I agree that TOM WELLING should play as SUPERMAN. But I guess he won't be one, unless the SUPERMAN on SMALLVILLE version comes out to the TV series. Still, I'd like to see Tom Welling plays as SUPERMAN.

Posted at 10:04PM on Jul 14th 2006 by Tommy

107. This article is complete and utter BS! Anonymous sources close to Warner Bros. It's a complete fabrication, the whole article!! The film will easily make $200 million in the US, and is going great guns internationally. Those are the facts, leave the falsehoods behind!!!

Posted at 10:28PM on Jul 14th 2006 by The Wraith

108. who doesn't love bush!!!!!
i Am all about the clam!
.....Oh the president..last time i check ed he had ntohing to do with comic movie failing!

Posted at 11:35PM on Jul 14th 2006 by ern

109. Superman Returns placed second on Friday with an estimated $7.1 million, a drop-off of 57 percent from the previous Friday. Its 10-day total now stands at $127.9 million.

X-Men: The Last Stand pulled in $0.3 million to place 12th, pushing its total to $230.7 million. WOW....numbers do not lie

Posted at 3:31AM on Jul 15th 2006 by Yo MAma

110. As a fan of Superman (the comics, movies, cartoons, etc.), I think Bryan Singer was on the right track in his overall vision & feel of the movie itself, but missed it in the second half of the movie's story. He could have combined the elements of the 1978 Superman films while still incorporating the mythology (and action) of the curent comics and cartoons (ala Justice League, etc.) "Superman Returns" was a decent, emotional film but a bit too emotional. This is, after all, Superman, and the only way to realize his greatness and majesty is to put him up against a strong villian like Doomsday, Braniac or Metallo. It can still be done with the right screenwriter (like Paul Dini). The premise of "Superman Returns" could have had Lex Luthor unleash Doomsday and attempt to control him ( for example, he could have read in the archives of Krypton how Doomsday was imprisoned on earth BEFORE man evolved or whatever in that fashion...) then have Superman duke it out for 60 minutes after his return, straight hardcore action. I hope this movie at least recoups it's cost because there truly is a golden opportunity to make an EPIC Superman film...

Posted at 4:20AM on Jul 15th 2006 by Rich

111. And that's why your America is a joke, with Superman Returns holding a mirror to your faces.

Burn that flag Clark, you know you want to...

Posted at 5:54AM on Jul 15th 2006 by Dah Confederacy Son...

112. I love when tuff guys bleep out there own curses

How cool?

Posted at 1:27PM on Jul 15th 2006 by Yo mama

113. I think it'll crawl over 200 mil, barely. And don't listen to WB. This thing cost 300 million easy.

If they do continue the series they'd have to get rid of everybody. Singer, Routh, Bosworth, the screenwriters, the whole bunch. Ignore the kid, because no good can come of that. A reboot of the reboot.

What I don't get is that if word of mouth is so bad, why do the reviewers love it? It took awhile but I finally found a review of Superman that actually gets it right.... I can't believe the number of gushing reviewers either. This guy sums up my thoughts pretty well.

http://www.toxicuniverse.com/review.php?rid=10006211

Posted at 11:30PM on Jul 15th 2006 by John K.

114. I think you are all nuts. SR was a fantastic movie and I think FAR FAR better written then STM. Bryan Singer took out all that 70's campy crap and left what Superman is suppose to be about...the man, his neverending job and his loneliness.

As far as the kid goes, I am not overly fond of the idea that Superman is a, what did one of you call it...deadbeat dad? :P But I think that the story is told as well as it can be.

Oh, and if YOU slept with superman and he ran out on you (or so you thought) wouldn't you be a tad on the bitchy side? However, I think Kate Bosworth was a bit frosty to Clark and I am still pissed at the reference on the roof about Superman "not knowing" who Clark was!

However, overall, I am thrilled with the movie and I hope they make another one...but not for a few years. We don't want a repeat of the Salkind "let's shoot all the movies at the same time" fiasco.

Posted at 1:09AM on Jul 16th 2006 by SuperJen

115. Oh and who ever said that they wanted to see the Smallville cast on the big screen and that Tom Welling should play Superman because he is a great actor needs to get their head examined. The ONLY people on the ENTIRE SHOW who can act are Lois Lane, Lex Luthor and Chris Reeves (when he did his cameo). Smallville is complete and utter drivel and I can not WAIT until it gets canceled. I mean, Lois and Clark had better acting and writing then some of Smallville's "stories".

Posted at 1:17AM on Jul 16th 2006 by SuperJen

116. I am a big comic book fan and a big movie fan. Superman is one of my favorite characters and when I read what Singer and co were going to do with this story through a script review, I decided to boycott this movie. Boy was I right. If anyone at Warner or DC is reading, this is why Superman is not making money. Because people like me are not going to support this kind of treatment. I am hoping the movie bombs in the box office so that Singer and co do not get a chance at a sequel. They are hacks and have ruined this franchise. Such a pity, I really want to support Superman. Please bring in people who know what they are doing and who will do justice to this character.

Posted at 11:19AM on Jul 16th 2006 by TC

117. The movie was... OK, but, unfortunately, boring. For its length it needed a good bit more action. And a MUCH better plot. Or I guess movie Luthor is just some nutjob with a real estate fetish instead of an evil genius.

The cast was good. Too bad Luthor was portrayed the way he was, Spacey could have done a lot with a correctly written version. (But I guess they had to work with the leavings of the original movie, unfortunately) They should have taken a large hint from the Justice League cartoon and done the character justice (no pun intended)

For this movie to really have been good, it needed a powerhouse villain, someone Superman would actually have to fight, not just someone with a scheme he has to prevent. As it was, it didnt have the dramatic or emotional impact necessary to re-establish a movie franchise. Compare it to Batman Begins.

The entire plot of Superman leaving for 5 years, and Lois having a son to him was just... unnecessary. And gratuitous use of the cliche of adding a kid to a story for cheap emotional exploitation.

Posted at 4:50PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Aaron Litz

118. After watching this movie I went home and watched Batman Begins and Spider Man and I finally came to this conclusion.....Super Man has it too easy, where are the villians. He fights no one! Can I get a Darkseid, Brainiac, or even a Doomsday. This movie just seemed like 2hours of showing of powers and having a crush, wtf?! And then Super Man goes to the hospital, are you serious? The kid thing is cool, hopefully they go somewhere with that, and I liked the flying scenes.

That's it

-1-

Posted at 1:36PM on Jul 18th 2006 by Fame

119. For those of you who thinks that Superman Returns was a great movie, here is something to think about: According to the movie Superman is suppose to be our savior, yet he abandons us for five years to fulfill his curiosity about pieces of his home world that was found by astronomers, simply because he wanted to see for himself. Give me a break! That is totally not Superman people. Superman disappears for five years, Lois lives and finds a good guy that loves her. Superman re-appears and she almost died in a plane and is suddenly torn between her love for two men. What is wrong with this script people? What if Superman comes back only to find Lois Lane dead instead of Lex Luthor being let out since he fail to testify against Lex in court. How lame is that? Here is the answer, Superman kills himself for being selfish and not caring about the lives he sworn to protect. Superman Returns is suppose to be an action packed Superhero movie do to the fact that the first Superman introduces him to the rest of the world and did all the explaination about his existence, which means more action and less talking for the movies following it. I watch Superman 2 and realises that it had way more action scenes then SR. That is so sad folks, the entire reason why most Superman fans were looking forward for SR was because of the cool things we can now make Superman do on the big screen. Yet that was only maybe 15mns of the movie. So sad! Another problem I have with SR is that the creators copied the Hulk (the scene when he fell from the sky after entering space)
Spiderman ( the scene when he got hurt and came close to dying and everyone came to his aid) but couldn't copy at least one scene similar to the last fight scene between Neo and Smith in the last Matrix. Talk about duking it out Superhero Style. Suddenly, I'm having flashbacks of DBZ(Dragon Ball Z). By the way, I saw Superman Returns for the 3rd time because of the special effects and just to see if it would grow on me, but I find myself hating it more and more. It was a chick flick and only chick flick lovers can appreciate it. In other words, Girls. However, I would still like to see a sequel with some exceptions. Keep Brandon Roth as Superman and Kevin Spacey as Luthor, get someone else to play Jimmy (terrible actor) get rid of Kate Bosworth as Lois. Oh, and since we obviously can't avoid Lex, someone came up with the idea that Lex should discover Doomsday and unleash him on Superman. How cool would that be? The chance to see Superman shine as a blockbuster hit. Hollywood, wake-up and get with the program. Do your homework for the sequel Bryan Singer, PLEEEAAAASSEEEE!

Posted at 4:45AM on Jul 19th 2006 by Marc

120. The movie was almost like the original (look at the original to compare!). I agree, the movie should of been alittle bit more, but think of practicality of film, if the film was made any other way the public would of thought the movie was far fetched and would of done even worse at the box office!? Brandon Routh ideal for the role as well as Kevin Spacey but Lois Lane should of been more like from the original.
But great twist in film the way Superboy appears (his kid)

Posted at 4:30PM on Aug 26th 2006 by Sanjeev Kumar

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