Superman Sequel confirmed: Singer to Direct

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's confirmed. See comicbookresources.com and other sources. And the film, while it is nostalgia-heavy, certainly does advance the mythos.

 

[Hand of Evil]

You seem pretty hung up on that.

I want a good Superman movie, I remember BS's comments from the 2005 ComixCon, what he said to the fans as they worshipped at his feet and he stood there in a superhero pose and a silly grin on his face.

 

[Morrus]

For the record, I read the above as a confirmation. I can't see how it can be read another way.

 

[Hand of Evil]

For the record, I read the above as a confirmation. I can't see how it can be read another way.

I know, I really am being an ass about it, should hear me go on about not getting a flying car at the turn of the century.

 

[Mistwell]

I was hoping the "Superflop" would move the studio in that direction.

The movie has made $291,118,165 in 4 weeks. And that is before the massive amount that is going to come in from licensing rights and DVD sales and remaining weeks in theatres here and abroad.

On what planet could that in any way be described as a "Superflop" in terms of the studio's outlook, given the movie cost about $200M to make, excluding the prior decade of development hell that was already sunk before this movie was greenlighted? Even if you count the prior decade of development stuff, the movie has STILL already made money in the first four weeks of just the theatrical release.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I know, I really am being an ass about it, should hear me go on about not getting a flying car at the turn of the century.

...Randal?

 

[Vigilance]

The movie has made $291,118,165 in 4 weeks. And that is before the massive amount that is going to come in from licensing rights and DVD sales and remaining weeks in theatres here and abroad.

On what planet could that in any way be described as a "Superflop" in terms of the studio's outlook, given the movie cost about $200M to make, excluding the prior decade of development hell that was already sunk before this movie was greenlighted? Even if you count the prior decade of development stuff, the movie has STILL already made money in the first four weeks of just the theatrical release.

Well, the movie hasn't broken even yet, since only 55% of the money goes to the studio (the rest going to theaters) but they ARE in fact tacking on another 50-60 million dollars of the "Superman Lives" debacle onto Superman Returns' budget, so the studio knows I'm sure that this movie will take a little longer to hit the green than it should.

The studio also knows the movie will by no means be a flop and that they have a top-notch director and writing talent at their disposal.

I seriously doubt any of the previous creative teams attached to the project (Tim Burton, McG, Brett Ratner) could have done better and WB knows that.

Despite the lack of official word on the matter (for now), something tells me Bryan Singer *might* know a little more than us. He also hardly needs to beg for work, so the idea that he's trying to "create buzz" doesn't wash either. When Fox and WB are squabbling over which big budget franchise you'll run, you ARE buzz.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Also, to Hand of Evil, I'm not sure what your problem is with the fact that this movie cost more than 150 million, but you're just going to have to get over it if you plan on watching a lot of summer "event" movies.

X-3 cost 210 million, King Kong 207 million, Spider Man 2 200 million, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 225 million...

It's just what movies featuring a ton of cutting edge CGI cost anyone who's name doesn't begin with George and end with Lucas.

Chuck

 

[Hand of Evil]

Also, to Hand of Evil, I'm not sure what your problem is with the fact that this movie cost more than 150 million, but you're just going to have to get over it if you plan on watching a lot of summer "event" movies.

X-3 cost 210 million, King Kong 207 million, Spider Man 2 200 million, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 225 million...

It's just what movies featuring a ton of cutting edge CGI cost anyone who's name doesn't begin with George and end with Lucas.

Chuck

Because event movies breed event movies, if Hollywood can get away with making bad movies at a high cost, soon the market is filled with bad summer movies and good movies are pushed into non-profit zones. You get people directing and/or producing and/or screenplaying movies who really should not be and you get bad customer support.

Cost is a number game, it is also the only effective standard that Hollywood has to use in rating a movie, I would perfer seats sold but...

I apologize.

 

[Vigilance]

I'm not saying event movies are good or bad, just pointing out that the 260 million dollar budget of Superman Returns isn't really any different than many other recent big, CGI-heavy movies, when you realize that 50-60 million dollars of the budget was inherited from the Superman Lives production debacle.

Hollywood executives have said that the summer blockbuster has saved studios. High risk, high reward. In the case of Batman Begins for example, the studio's decision came down to two very different origin story pitches: one with a 50 million dollar budget by Joss Whedon and a big budget spectacular.

The studio went with the big budget movie.

One last point, I have NO IDEA how George Lucas made Revenge of the Sith for 113 million dollars. In my perusing of big budget spectaculars to give you a list of summer blockbusters, I was shocked at how "low" that movie's budget was.

I suspect it's a combination of Lucas preferring a cheap actor to a good one (if you look at some of the other high budget movies, most had a lot CGI *and* a high-priced actor or two). Then again, Maybe Lucas just knows the technology that much better than other directors.