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 9 of 9) Previous 15 Comments

121. They have to make a sequel. I want to take my son. Sure Lois was a bit weak (but she's great to look at) and they used a bit too much of the Reeves era stuff but you can see and almost feel the potential. Better script + same level special effects - campy cheese = big $$$ at the box office. You must make another. Please.

Posted at 2:23AM on Jul 21st 2006 by JJ

122. That's a bum rap if, as I'm sure I've read, some of this massive budget was credited to the late 90s aborted reboot of the franchise with Time burton, Nic Cage, McG etc.. Awesome movie. More action next time along with a shorter running time and stupid lame pirate movies will be sunk.

Posted at 5:51AM on Jul 22nd 2006 by Nick

123. The main problem is Singer and his hack writing team. They brought us a meek Superman with a ridiculous Lois Lane, and inert Perry White, and lets no forget an idiotic Lex Luthor. If you want to make a Superman movie then make a SUPERMAN movie. The plot was terrible, as Lex would of killed billions and to have the remaining masses live in a land which is full of radiated space rocks which can also kill us but at a slower rate. They completely ruined Superman by giving him a child, which was the worst part of the movie. Singer knows nothing about Superman and has succeeded in ruining Superman. I hope the movie is recieved as a failure so Singer and Co. can be removed from any future projects. I watched Superman 3 and 4 and i felt more alive than watching this crap. Give me Nuclear man or Superman vs. Clark above this mess any day.

Posted at 5:04PM on Jul 22nd 2006 by nemar wells

124. more complaints about this movie....It has nothing to do with the idea or story telling of Superman. you could of made up some stupid hero named Captain Heroman and had a movie. Kate Bosworth is no Lois Lane, she makes me appreciate Margot Kidder all the more. Lois is STRONG and caring, she comes across as weak, rude, and meaningless. She gave no reason as to why we should even like her. Routh had the trouble of dealing with a director who really only had one good movie (Usual Suspects) i hated X-Men 1 and 2. Kevin Spacey played an barely functioning mental patient instead of a brilliant criminal genius. Lex Luthor was more of a common thug who stole from old ladies and the big S instead of a brilliant mastermind who uses his mind to combat the Man of Steel. This is why i give credit to Superman 4, at least they got Lex Luthor right! Also just because Singer and his hack writing team prefer to join the company of the same sex, they shouldn't bring those desires into a Superman movie, the new outfit was completely homoerotic, also why is a real man-woman relationship never explored in Singer's movies?? You can't talk about what you don't know huh? here's my idea for a new plot:
Superman DOESN'T leave earth and battles Braniac who was unleased to the world after Lex's meddling in the fortress, also throw in a side story with the Parasite for good measure and a slap out brawl with the Man of Steel. Also Lois should start to have a relationship with Clark and a good cliffhanger at the end would be him revealing himself to her.

Posted at 5:25PM on Jul 22nd 2006 by Nemo its me again

125. Superman Returns suffered from many downfalls. They should have steered clear of trying to convince the audience that this is the same character from the Christopher Reeve era. Afterall Christ Reeve did not try to be the same Superman as George Reeves. This should have been a new beginning, possibly updating the story to the current comics. Make Lex the corporate billionaire...make Superman the disquise and Clark the true person....we all go see superhero movies to see them as that...superheroes, not people with personal problems they cant solve....we are those people..not our heroes. We dont want to spend money seeing Superman as just another guy with a kid out of wed-lock and child support on his shoulders. We want a hero who knows what to do..we want him to save the day, fight bad guys in a never ending battle. We want a SUPER MAN.

Posted at 10:12PM on Jul 22nd 2006 by BRUCE T

126. It'll be awesome if they DON'T make a sequel to this lousy, boring movie. It was one of the worst movies I saw this year. It deserved to get its ass handed to it by POTC:DMC, which was AWESOME.

Nice to know that sometimes, even in Hollywood, justice is served!

Posted at 4:22PM on Jul 24th 2006 by Keelah Rose

127. Can anyone be honestly be surprised by the lackluster performance of a movie directed by a man,(Singer), who states in interviews that he didn't read comics as a kid, he was more a sci-fi geek. History tells us that Hollywood has little respect for comic books and even less respect for those who shell out hard earned dollars each month for books that will never get the Hollywood treatment. Singer and his cronies made Superman an absentee (albeit an unknowing one) father. GIVE ME A ^%(*^^%%^$ BREAK!!! All the special effects in the world won't force me to see it on the big screen. Give me a real story. Give us a real Superman.

Posted at 11:12PM on Jul 24th 2006 by Mike

128. I don't know if this movie will make $200 million here in the U.S. If it does make it to that magic number, I think the bean counters at Warners will be a bit more cautious about greenlighting a sequel. It just seems that Superman just can't get a break. He gets the big Byrne revamp in 1986. Six years later DC kills him "to prove to the world that Big Blue is still relevant." Meanwhile the Batman francise kept rolling along, unil Joel Schumacher. If the revitilization of this film franchise is dependent on this film, Kal-El just got screwed again.

Posted at 11:40PM on Jul 24th 2006 by Mike

129. It took this movie to get this 'baby boomer' to buy a ticket & see a new release on the big screen for the first time in 5 years. I got as big a kick watching my grandson's face light up as I did over 20 years ago when I took my son to see the first one. It was GREAT! My only problem was Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Once I saw him I couldn't get the serial killer from the movie 'Seven' out of my head. Where did they get Christopher Reeve's DNA to clone the new guy right down to the voice.

Posted at 3:35PM on Jul 26th 2006 by Suzie

130. What's most important is the impact on children who need good role models and the excitement that lights up their little faces when they see their heroes on the screen. The shame is the ratings this movie & other PG-13 'hero' flicks get when the target audience for the action toys is under 10 years but they aren't old enough for the movies. Try explaining to your 5 year old with his Superman action figure, Batman Begins' bat mobile, Spider-man motorcycle & Black Pearl ship surrounding him that he can't go see the movie he just saw advertised on TV.

Posted at 4:12PM on Jul 26th 2006 by Big D

131. Superman Returns was a blatant bore. Who wants to see a lovesick, pouting superman for any length of time. And Singer turned him into a super peeping tom, who gets beat abd does not fight back. And to that extent he did not fight anyone. Where was Brainiac, Doomsday, Darkseid?!?! A word of advice for you Singer or anyone making movies based on the comic book characters. USE THE COMIC BOOK STORYLINES!! THEY ARE THERE AND ALREADY WRITTEN!!

Posted at 10:30AM on Aug 18th 2006 by craig

132. Lots of BS in this article. Alan Horn, WB and Legendary Pictures have confirmed a sequel. They say they will turn a profit.

As a re-start, SR has earned about as much as Batman Begins domestically and it will beat BB worldwide. Leave the bean-counters to figure out financing for the next one.

As for the film itself - it's all about personal opinion. The majority of reviews are very positive. Anybody expecting a typical action fest will be disappointed - that's no reflection on the quality of the movie. Personally, I prefer a real film with heart.

I feel that a lot of people have allowed their particular vision of the character to cloud their judgement. You don't have to like it but try not to nitpick. Admire the quality.

It's a success. Not a massive one commercially (it was never going to do POTC2 or Spidey figures) but big enough. There was scepticism from the public as to whether SR would compare well to the first two Reeve movies. Superhero films are so regular nowadays, the freshness has gone. SR will continue to make its mark on DVD and TV.

Posted at 12:07PM on Aug 30th 2006 by Matt

133. hmm....for me i think Routh did a great job portraying as Superman and the movie was absolutely great! i dont care what others would think but for me he did well. The actors did an great performance although they should limit the budget. But actually last i heard was they spent $204 million making the movie? and around $50 million to reboot the franchise?

Posted at 11:29AM on Sep 15th 2006 by Eiko

134. I did not watch the movie when it opened because I thought it wouldn't be as thrilling as the original. I saw the movie last night on a dollar cinema with my daughters and they loved it. I liked the movie very much. My daughters can appreciate movies like this and they know it's fiction. Children should have some imagination because you can use it as the foundation of values. No wonder children nowadays do not have values because of those people who shuts down fantasy movie and making press releases as corny movies or boring movies.I just pity those who thinks that Superman Returns is lousy or boring. The movie is perfect for children. What storyline are you talking about that's so boring for you? The story doesn't have to be so complicated to understand so you can appreciate it. What if Superman has a child now out of wedlock? Thought you want reality? I really like the story of Superman being a father. It is something new and I have something to think about or look forward to in the next movie. Having a child is a big accomplishment of Superman for himself. It's the only thing that made him alive and continues to live (in the last part of the movie). You probably have missed the point of the story. Again, I hope all of you will have the time to watch this amazing comeback of Superman. It really feels like the original because the last time was a long time ago.Plus, the new Superman (Routh) gave a very clear justice to the character and the film. It's the best movie I have seen so far and it surpassed the last HP movie I've seen (although it's also good) but i love the book mind you. I'm waiting for the sequel.

Posted at 1:27AM on Oct 8th 2006 by Noemi

Previous 15 Comments