Uh oh, Man of Steel plummets at box office

[jools&jim]

 

It will either prove to be a popular move or not. Either way there are still plenty of other versions of the Superman story already out there, more than enough to keep everybody happy.

 

Out there? Sure. But mostly in movies, cartoons, and comic books produced 30-70 years ago or more. At the local multiplex, today? Not so much.

 

Our largely post-historical culture does a lousy job of transmitting its heritage to younger generations: my FIOS cable TV gives me access to hundreds and hundreds of channels, but I haven't yet found a SINGLE re-run of the old Adventures of Superman TV show, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, etc.

 

Yeah, I can (and do) track all this stuff down on DVD, or via pay-per-view, or whatever, for my kid...but swimming against the cultural tide requires an expenditure of will, time, and effort which many parents simply don't have.

 

So for younger would-be fans & viewers, systemic exposure to the older material is non-existent, or limited at best.

 

The newer stuff, on the other hand, is obviously where the action is, and its grim, "realistic" visage is everywhere: TV commercials, fast-food tie-ins, product cross-promotions, and (in a case of "edgy" modernism cynically wanting its cake and eating it, too) toy lines which ARE marketed to children, based upon movies which clearly are not.

 

With few exceptions, there is NO widely available contemporary alternative to the dominant modern aesthetic for mainstream, A-list superhero movies (e.g., Batman & Superman), which--as you rightly point out--are produced for, and marketed to, adult audiences.

 

But why does it have to be either-or?

 

Superman the Movie was NOT made exclusively for children, nor marketed solely to them: Richard Donner has said many times that his intent was to bring verisimilitude to the material, along with some weightier themes courtesy of Tom Mankiewicz's overhaul of Mario Puzo's -script.

 

It was assumed, of course, that kids would want to see it, but it's also fairly clear that the producers wanted adults in the seats, too: back in '78, my sister and her fiancé (both in their late 20s at the time) went to see it before I did, and they loved it. I did, too, of course, despite Lois Lane's diaphanous flight of fancy through the clouds to the tune of "Can You Read My Mind", which eventually became an "adult contemporary" chart (semi-)hit for Maureen McGovern.

 

It was all artfully done, a lot of fun, and the effortlessness with which Donner and Co. pulled it off most certainly belies the difficulty of making a film which shouldn't have worked at all, let alone worked as well as it did for such a diverse audience.

 

It's no easy task, I know, especially these days. But maybe at some point a truly visionary film-maker will see the wisdom in producing a super-hero movie featuring an iconic character which appeals to a wider selection of tastes. There is no necessary impediment to combining imagination, humor, and conceptual simplicity with impeccable plotting, narrative sophistication, and a full repertoire of modern, big-league film-making techniques.

 

Whether or not anyone wants to do it, or sees it as profitable, remains to be seen I guess...

 

 

 

[Logan510]

It will either prove to be a popular move or not. Either way there are still plenty of other versions of the Superman story already out there, more than enough to keep everybody happy.

 

Out there? Sure. But mostly in movies, cartoons, and comic books produced 30-70 years ago or more. At the local multiplex, today? Not so much.

 

Our largely post-historical culture does a lousy job of transmitting its heritage to younger generations: my FIOS cable TV gives me access to hundreds and hundreds of channels, but I haven't yet found a SINGLE re-run of the old Adventures of Superman TV show, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, etc.

 

Yeah, I can (and do) track all this stuff down on DVD, or via pay-per-view, or whatever, for my kid...but swimming against the cultural tide requires an expenditure of will, time, and effort which many parents simply don't have.

 

So for younger would-be fans & viewers, systemic exposure to the older material is non-existent, or limited at best.

 

The newer stuff, on the other hand, is obviously where the action is, and its grim, "realistic" visage is everywhere: TV commercials, fast-food tie-ins, product cross-promotions, and (in a case of "edgy" modernism cynically wanting its cake and eating it, too) toy lines which ARE marketed to children, based upon movies which clearly are not.

 

With few exceptions, there is NO widely available contemporary alternative to the dominant modern aesthetic for mainstream, A-list superhero movies (e.g., Batman & Superman), which--as you rightly point out--are produced for, and marketed to, adult audiences.

 

But why does it have to be either-or?

 

Superman the Movie was NOT made exclusively for children, nor marketed solely to them: Richard Donner has said many times that his intent was to bring verisimilitude to the material, along with some weightier themes courtesy of Tom Mankiewicz's overhaul of Mario Puzo's -script.

 

It was assumed, of course, that kids would want to see it, but it's also fairly clear that the producers wanted adults in the seats, too: back in '78, my sister and her fiancé (both in their late 20s at the time) went to see it before I did, and they loved it. I did, too, of course, despite Lois Lane's diaphanous flight of fancy through the clouds to the tune of "Can You Read My Mind", which eventually became an "adult contemporary" chart (semi-)hit for Maureen McGovern.

 

It was all artfully done, a lot of fun, and the effortlessness with which Donner and Co. pulled it off most certainly belies the difficulty of making a film which shouldn't have worked at all, let alone worked as well as it did for such a diverse audience.

 

It's no easy task, I know, especially these days. But maybe at some point a truly visionary film-maker will see the wisdom in producing a super-hero movie featuring an iconic character which appeals to a wider selection of tastes. There is no necessary impediment to combining imagination, humor, and conceptual simplicity with impeccable plotting, narrative sophistication, and a full repertoire of modern, big-league film-making techniques.

 

Whether or not anyone wants to do it, or sees it as profitable, remains to be seen I guess...

 

 

 

[Maccai3]

It will either prove to be a popular move or not. Either way there are still plenty of other versions of the Superman story already out there, more than enough to keep everybody happy.

 

Out there? Sure. But mostly in movies, cartoons, and comic books produced 30-70 years ago or more. At the local multiplex, today? Not so much.

 

Our largely post-historical culture does a lousy job of transmitting its heritage to younger generations: my FIOS cable TV gives me access to hundreds and hundreds of channels, but I haven't yet found a SINGLE re-run of the old Adventures of Superman TV show, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, etc.

 

Yeah, I can (and do) track all this stuff down on DVD, or via pay-per-view, or whatever, for my kid...but swimming against the cultural tide requires an expenditure of will, time, and effort which many parents simply don't have.

 

So for younger would-be fans & viewers, systemic exposure to the older material is non-existent, or limited at best.

 

The newer stuff, on the other hand, is obviously where the action is, and its grim, "realistic" visage is everywhere: TV commercials, fast-food tie-ins, product cross-promotions, and (in a case of "edgy" modernism cynically wanting its cake and eating it, too) toy lines which ARE marketed to children, based upon movies which clearly are not.

 

With few exceptions, there is NO widely available contemporary alternative to the dominant modern aesthetic for mainstream, A-list superhero movies (e.g., Batman & Superman), which--as you rightly point out--are produced for, and marketed to, adult audiences.

 

But why does it have to be either-or?

 

Superman the Movie was NOT made exclusively for children, nor marketed solely to them: Richard Donner has said many times that his intent was to bring verisimilitude to the material, along with some weightier themes courtesy of Tom Mankiewicz's overhaul of Mario Puzo's -script.

 

It was assumed, of course, that kids would want to see it, but it's also fairly clear that the producers wanted adults in the seats, too: back in '78, my sister and her fiancé (both in their late 20s at the time) went to see it before I did, and they loved it. I did, too, of course, despite Lois Lane's diaphanous flight of fancy through the clouds to the tune of "Can You Read My Mind", which eventually became an "adult contemporary" chart (semi-)hit for Maureen McGovern.

 

It was all artfully done, a lot of fun, and the effortlessness with which Donner and Co. pulled it off most certainly belies the difficulty of making a film which shouldn't have worked at all, let alone worked as well as it did for such a diverse audience.

 

It's no easy task, I know, especially these days. But maybe at some point a truly visionary film-maker will see the wisdom in producing a super-hero movie featuring an iconic character which appeals to a wider selection of tastes. There is no necessary impediment to combining imagination, humor, and conceptual simplicity with impeccable plotting, narrative sophistication, and a full repertoire of modern, big-league film-making techniques.

 

Whether or not anyone wants to do it, or sees it as profitable, remains to be seen I guess...

 

I think you are forgetting (or overlooking) that this is DC's platform for the Justice League. This isn't just Superman's universe anymore. Batman wouldn't have fit into Donner's Superman universe, i'd go as far as saying that Batman is the main reason that this film is darker than any Superman before it.

 

 

[jools&jim]

 

I think you are forgetting (or overlooking) that this is DC's platform for the Justice League.

 

I see your point. To fans like us who follow such things, yes, that's true.

 

But to the rest of the world, it's a Superman movie.

 

 

[etanick]

Is it even possible in this day and age for a movie to bomb?

Yes, it is. Here's an example:

 

Oz The Great And Powerful (2013)

 

Production Budget: 215M

Marketing Budget (est.): 105M (roughly half of the production cost, which is average for blockbuster films)

Total Costs: 320M

 

US Gross: 235M

US Net: 129M (55% of the gross)

 

Foreign Gross: 257M

Foreign Net: 51M

 

Total Net: 180M

 

So, this film needs to make almost 140M net in DVD sales just to break even. To understand what this means, Marvel's The Avengers has made 95M gross in the US so far, which translates to roughly 60M net in the US and probably 2 times that in the rest of the world (which is arguable).

 

So, the Oz movie will need to make close to Avengers numbers in DVD sales in order to break even or be slightly profitable. I'm guessing It won't.

 

And this is only one example. There are many...

 

the biggest problem with doing movie accounting is the budget number. This number is hardly the true cost. Only the bean counters at the studio really know and like any business, it is all about making money so I tend to try to not look too deep in what they put out in the press...lot of fuzzy math. Sure, the gross revenue is real but the cost is not known for certain so as long as we see big studios funding big movies, they are making money regardless of the math that is thrown around because the true accounting = profit.

[JAM_NYC]

Is it even possible in this day and age for a movie to bomb?

Yes, it is. Here's an example:

 

Oz The Great And Powerful (2013)

 

Production Budget: 215M

Marketing Budget (est.): 105M (roughly half of the production cost, which is average for blockbuster films)

Total Costs: 320M

 

US Gross: 235M

US Net: 129M (55% of the gross)

 

Foreign Gross: 257M

Foreign Net: 51M

 

Total Net: 180M

 

 

So, this film needs to make almost 140M net in DVD sales just to break even. To understand what this means, Marvel's The Avengers has made 95M gross in the US so far, which translates to roughly 60M net in the US and probably 2 times that in the rest of the world (which is arguable).

 

So, the Oz movie will need to make close to Avengers numbers in DVD sales in order to break even or be slightly profitable. I'm guessing It won't.

 

And this is only one example. There are many...

Interesting stuff. To be honest, I've never seen net used when talking about movie box office. My amateurish google research shows the same #'s. Oz cost $215M to make, and pulled in almost $500M worldwide. The DVD just came out 2 weeks ago in the US, and hasn't been released yet across the pond. Can we factor in whatever money the film will make from digital distribution, Netflix, redbox, etc?

I guess it depends on your definition of bomb. I brought up Cutthroat Island, because that movie ended careers and marriages. Movies like Oz and John Carter may have been disappointments, but they will bounce along in perpetuity. They'll show up in movie 3 packs at the big box stores, they'll show them on airplanes, teachers will make kids watch them when it's raining during recess. You would think that eventually, these films would have made a profit. Or at least mitigated losses to the point that studio execs can shrug their shoulders and say "whatta ya gonna do?"

[Aman619]

DVDs income arent what they used to be just a few years ago. Hollywood is searching for the next cash cow to replace it, with few options so far.

[Aman619]

heres the way DEADLINE covered the weekend grosses. No need tp guess at what it all means when the professionals do this to EVERY movie EVERY weekend... so MOS is spoken of as just another film release, minus most of the personal tastes and hopes of fans and the studios.

 

 

stick around and read the comments too! wow! some seriously angry people there.

Especially interesting is a detailed breakdown of how licensing monies are divvied up. Basically the studios/producers get only about 10%. And whats good about Deadline is that many of the commenters are professionals, and ex-professionals in Hollywood no longer under a vow of silence to their former employer who share info like this online.

 

plus. a lot of wacko people who like to argue online too!

 

 

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-speeds-to-345-6m-worldwide-box-office-in-first-9-days/#more-527430

[aggr1103]

DVDs income arent what they used to be just a few years ago. Hollywood is searching for the next cash cow to replace it, with few options so far.

 

PPV/On Demand? Digital sales?

[Aman619]

pennies so far compared to the millions that DVDs were bringing in for a decade or more.

[Aman619]

VOD is the Great Whire Hope at this point, but the jury is still out. It seems the exhibitors just dont like competing with peoples bigscreen TVS at home! And the studios need to devise a way to have their cake and eat it too w/o pssssing off the exhibitors.

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

From Box Office Mojo.....

 

In third place, Man of Steel added an estimated $41.2 million. That's off 65 percent from last weekend—68 percent if you roll in grosses from the Thursday ahead of opening day. The 65 percent decline is worse than The Incredible Hulk (60 percent) and only slightly better than notoriously front-loaded comic book movie Green Lantern (66 percent), which is not a flattering comparison. Still, at $210 million it's already topped the final tally of Superman Returns ($200 million); if the bleeding slows down next weekend, the movie could still ultimately wind up with over $300 million.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Well, let's hope the "bleeding" slows down.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

Interesting reading on how the box office $ is divvied up.

 

[studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.]

 

[ leaked financial statements showed that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had allegedly lost $167 million, despite $967 million in global revenues. ]

[sakaridis]

Is it even possible in this day and age for a movie to bomb?

Yes, it is. Here's an example:

 

Oz The Great And Powerful (2013)

 

Production Budget: 215M

Marketing Budget (est.): 105M (roughly half of the production cost, which is average for blockbuster films)

Total Costs: 320M

 

US Gross: 235M

US Net: 129M (55% of the gross)

 

Foreign Gross: 257M

Foreign Net: 51M

 

Total Net: 180M

 

So, this film needs to make almost 140M net in DVD sales just to break even. To understand what this means, Marvel's The Avengers has made 95M gross in the US so far, which translates to roughly 60M net in the US and probably 2 times that in the rest of the world (which is arguable).

 

So, the Oz movie will need to make close to Avengers numbers in DVD sales in order to break even or be slightly profitable. I'm guessing It won't.

 

And this is only one example. There are many...

 

run those #'s on Green Lantern or John Carter and you'll see what a real bomb looks like

Like I said, there are many examples. GL and JC are two very "obvious" bombs. I just wanted to use one that is less so.

[sakaridis]

 

Foreign Gross: 257M

Foreign Net: 51M

 

 

why the low net?

After all costs are figured in, 20% is about the best a studio can get from foreign ticket sales.

[Gsims718]

Speed Racer bombed spectacularly.

[sakaridis]

the biggest problem with doing movie accounting is the budget number. This number is hardly the true cost. Only the bean counters at the studio really know and like any business, it is all about making money so I tend to try to not look too deep in what they put out in the press...lot of fuzzy math. Sure, the gross revenue is real but the cost is not known for certain so as long as we see big studios funding big movies, they are making money regardless of the math that is thrown around because the true accounting = profit.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at it. The big studios are making big movies because many (most) of them are profitable. That doesn't mean all of them are!

And if it was so simple ("make the big movie, put it out there, start counting the money coming in") then why have there been so many studios that went bankrupt in the past couple of decades? And I'll guarantee you that there will be others in the future.

 

Ask yourself another question: if making money in film was such an easy business, then why did most studios in the last 15-20 years end up being acquired by large conglomerates?

 

BTW, I don't disagree that in some cases the numbers might be a bit inflated, but that is much rarer now than in the past (and certainly not in the same degree).

 

I guess it depends on your definition of bomb. I brought up Cutthroat Island, because that movie ended careers and marriages. Movies like Oz and John Carter may have been disappointments, but they will bounce along in perpetuity. They'll show up in movie 3 packs at the big box stores, they'll show them on airplanes, teachers will make kids watch them when it's raining during recess. You would think that eventually, these films would have made a profit. Or at least mitigated losses to the point that studio execs can shrug their shoulders and say "whatta ya gonna do?"

Nothing can be compared to Cutthroat Island! Cutthroat Island is the stuff of legends, the cinematic incident/disaster that has people writing books about it! One of the most fascinating cases of Hollywood hybris EVER!

 

It's a category by itself. (thumbs u

 

(But I still maintain that there won't be any time in history when John Carter will be in the black, even though I personally liked the movie. Oz may manage it, in a couple of decades. )

[Bronty]

speaking of hubris, buy the movie poster artwork for a mere $140,000!

 

http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=745&mp&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=mp&gs=1

[Bosco685]

Speed Racer bombed spectacularly.

 

I really wanted this movie to rock.

[sakaridis]

speaking of hubris, buy the movie poster artwork for a mere $140,000!

 

http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=745&mp&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=mp&gs=1

Damn! Now I actually want this!!!