Man of Steel thread OS

[Neo]

Superman used to be a massive franchise, the original film was in the top 10 of all time when it released, this years Superman will barely make half of an Iron Man film.

 

The year SR was released, an FF film was released and didn't even come close to making half as much as SR. This years FF will comfortably pass MOS. That's excellence.

 

To be called excellent, a film should perform above and beyond what it should have done, a Superman film being the 6-8th biggest film of the year isn't doing that.

What is that?

[A Marvel Fanboy]

What is that?

Fast 

[Tower]

What is that?

 

Fast And Furious...

[Sam]

It's nowhere near an excellent result, but I don't think it's only decent either, so can we just settle for MOS performance as good? It did its job in re-establishing Superman. That is what most important. Too bad it won't become a franchise of its own though. It'll be interesting to see how big of an effect Bat can bring BO-wise to a Supes/Bats team up.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Sam

[Daniel Breidenstein]

It's did better than SR, but that doesn't make it excellent, it's just OK. A Superman film should be aiming for the upper end of superhero films, and this clearly isn't doing that.

 

How was MOS going to do that coming off the disappointment of Superman Returns just 7 years earlier?  MOS did better than Iron Man 1 and 2.  The only reason ASM fared better overseas was the strength of the franchise name from the Raimi Films..  MOS has out grossed all the Marvel films not named The Avengers or IM 3.. 

[Goffe]

How was MOS going to do that coming off the disappointment of Superman Returns just 7 years earlier?  MOS did better than Iron Man 1 and 2.  The only reason ASM fared better overseas was the strength of the franchise name from the Raimi Films..  MOS has out grossed all the Marvel films not named The Avengers or IM 3.. 

Iron Man was unknow, had lower budget and didn't had 3D or expading markets. Much more susseful than MOS

 

Ridiculous, SR did 360 M, MOS 650 +, it is a big success, there's no spinning that.

of couse, with 3D and 7 years of expanding markets   

[dashrendar44]

How was MOS going to do that coming off the disappointment of Superman Returns just 7 years earlier?  MOS did better than Iron Man 1 and 2.  The only reason ASM fared better overseas was the strength of the franchise name from the Raimi Films..  MOS has out grossed all the Marvel films not named The Avengers or IM 3.. 

 

Marvel movies that are not Avengers and IM3 are cheaper to make than MoS.

 

And you're quoting ASM. Aren't people said that ASM didn't make as much as it could have because of Raimi's SM3 awful taste in people's mouth? Now Raimi's name is a strength in ASM's favor?

 

SR was not as bad as SM3 and B&R. Just forgettable and boring. So coming off it was not as such a burden as the other two.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Tower]

How was MOS going to do that coming off the disappointment of Superman Returns just 7 years earlier?  MOS did better than Iron Man 1 and 2.  The only reason ASM fared better overseas was the strength of the franchise name from the Raimi Films..  MOS has out grossed all the Marvel films not named The Avengers or IM 3.. 

 

You're right, it shouldn't, that's why doing so would be excellent. The same way TDK shouldn't have made a billion coming after a film that made less than SR just 2 years earlier. The Avengers shouldn't have made over 1.5B even though the biggest individual film made just 623M. Spiderman definitely Shouldn't have made 821M coming off nothing at all while making double what any superhero film had ever made until then. The fact that these films did that is what makes these films performance excellent, and MOS not excellent. 

[Sam]

Marvel movies that are not Avengers and IM3 are cheaper to make.

I think both TA and IM3 budgets are lower than MOS too. Marvel is sure "cheap" It's a good thing though, they'll turn bigger profit that way.

[dashrendar44]

You're right, it shouldn't, that's why doing so would be excellent. The same way TDK shouldn't have made a billion coming after a film that made less than SR just 2 years earlier. The Avengers shouldn't have made over 1.5B even though the biggest individual film made just 623M. Spiderman definitely Shouldn't have made 821M coming off nothing at all while making double what any superhero film had ever made until then. The fact that these films did that is what makes these films performance excellent, and MOS not excellent. 

 

Yeah, it is performing in line, satisfying for a starter but not "excellent". "Excellent" would be 800+ WW onwards to a billion and over.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Neo]

Fast 

Thought it was Fantastic Four. Fast, should be Fast, Fast 6, F&F.

[messipotamia]

i personally think that being the 2nd most successful reboot is something to be proud of, huge openings yet huge drops made this film's performance uneven but 650 million WW is excellent IMO (I thought it would do 500-520 mill). 

 

You're right, it shouldn't, that's why doing so would be excellent. The same way TDK shouldn't have made a billion coming after a film that made less than SR just 2 years earlier. The Avengers shouldn't have made over 1.5B even though the biggest individual film made just 623M. Spiderman definitely Shouldn't have made 821M coming off nothing at all while making double what any superhero film had ever made until then. The fact that these films did that is what makes these films performance excellent, and MOS not excellent. 

 

You can't be serious with those comparisons, TDK? TA? the original spiderman (not a reboot but the first big budget film about the iconic superhero). The more appropriate comparisons is with rebooted films like ASM, BB, incredible hulk, rise of planet of the apes, casino royale and ST09.

Could the film have mad more? sure (thinking ASM at the very most) but if anyone was expecting this to make a billion, then they're delusional at the very least.

[Ent]

i personally think that being the 2nd most successful reboot is something to be proud of, huge openings yet huge drops made this film's performance uneven but 650 million WW is excellent IMO (I thought it would do 500-520 mill). 

 

 

You can't be serious with those comparisons, TDK? TA? the original spiderman (not a reboot but the first big budget film about the iconic superhero). The more appropriate comparisons is with rebooted films like ASM, BB, incredible hulk, rise of planet of the apes, casino royale and ST09.

Could the film have mad more? sure (thinking ASM at the very most) but if anyone was expecting this to make a billion, then they're delusional at the very least.

But it's not like there have been 10 reboots of supe hero movies.

 

Personally, i think OS numbers are clearly disappointing because very divisive from one market to another one and because though it came after SR, it also had three major incentives  to somewhat erase or belittle the post effect of SR lukewarm  reception and renew faith in that reboot.. 

 

I am disappointed because Nolan's name was a major incentive in the post TDK trilogy.  It acted to create the goodwill that was lackig post SR.  It created huge anticipation resulting in a huge OW.  It basicly increased the GA with people who were not necessary fans of Superman but went there because of being exclusively fans of Nolan. It should have benefitted more from it if it was as good or even slightly under what Nolan produced. 

 

Second it had 3D compared to all past Superman.  Third it benefitted from expanding markets.

 

All in all, it seems to me that admission wise it has stayed relatively flat compared to SR.  And the reason for a reboot is  to increase popularity, hence increase the number of potential consumers.  The other incentives like a famous name attached to it, expanding markets to exploit to the max and 3D are all tools aimed at maximising that increase of admissions.

 

In that  regard MOS has disappointed.  It has disappointed even more when looking the huge disparity between markets.  When a product is so divisive that it seems loved or hated according markets, then you can clearly see that it underperform and lost huge amount of money in many places, especially when those markets are culturally big consumers of that type of product and yet didn't embrace yours.

 

Regardiless of its good overall numbers, you can't deny that it performed like one of the less linear superhero movie abroad.  A very divisive product.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Ent

[Tower]

i personally think that being the 2nd most successful reboot is something to be proud of, huge openings yet huge drops made this film's performance uneven but 650 million WW is excellent IMO (I thought it would do 500-520 mill). 

 

 

You can't be serious with those comparisons, TDK? TA? the original spiderman (not a reboot but the first big budget film about the iconic superhero). The more appropriate comparisons is with rebooted films like ASM, BB, incredible hulk, rise of planet of the apes, casino royale and ST09.

Could the film have mad more? sure (thinking ASM at the very most) but if anyone was expecting this to make a billion, then they're delusional at the very least.

 

There isn't some magical reboot powers that prevent it from making big numbers, Star Trek 09 made made more adjusted then any Star Trek film ever made, it was a reboot but it still caused its franchise to rise to a new level even though it followed a film without good WOM.

 

MOS isn't the second most successful reboot, 2013 is not 2006. Making 600M WW in 2006 was much harder to do than making 650M in 2013. 

 

People were saying that MOS numbers are excellent, TDK, Spiderman and The Avengers were examples of films who's numbers really were excellent, not because these were the highest grossing SH films (their not), but because they destroyed what they were supposed to do. If Superman destroyed expectations like those films did, then it would have made a billion. Instead it's going to make 650M, which isn't bad, but it is average.

[redrahul]

There isn't some magical reboot powers that prevent it from making big numbers, Star Trek 09 made made more adjusted then any Star Trek film ever made, it was a reboot but it still caused its franchise to rise to a new level even though it followed a film without good WOM.

 

MOS isn't the second most successful reboot, 2013 is not 2006. Making 600M WW in 2006 was much harder to do than making 650M in 2013. 

 

People were saying that MOS numbers are excellent, TDK, Spiderman and The Avengers were examples of films who's numbers really were excellent, not because these were the highest grossing SH films (their not), but because they destroyed what they were supposed to do. If Superman destroyed expectations like those films did, then it would have made a billion. Instead it's going to make 650M, which isn't bad, but it is average.

 

I am thinking the big reason that MOS numbers are at this level is because of the bad word of mouth. Rotten Tomatoes grilled this movie while metacritic said it was very average. Also, other known critics such as Richard Roeper gave the film a low score. Therefore, it would be understandable that MOS didn't make so much more money. I can almost guarantee that if the scores were much higher, it would have made it at least 800 mil+ WW.

Edited July 29, 2013 by redrahul

[John Marston]

I am thinking the big reason that MOS numbers are at this level is because of the bad word of mouth. Rotten Tomatoes grilled this movie while metacritic said it was very average. Also, other known critics such as Richard Roeper gave the film a low score. Therefore, it would be understandable that MOS didn't make so much more money. I can almost guarantee that if the scores were much higher, it would have made it at least 800 mil+ WW.

 

I'd say the WOM is divisive more than negative. It was divisive WOM combined with big competition

[Leyla]

 

MOS did better than Iron Man 1 and 2.

 this again :lol:

 

 

more interesting is how Bat/Sup movie will do OS.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Leyla

[messipotamia]

I 

 

But it's not like there have been 10 reboots of supe hero movies.

 

Personally, i think OS numbers are clearly disappointing because very divisive from one market to another one and because though it came after SR, it also had three major incentives  to somewhat erase or belittle the post effect of SR lukewarm  reception and renew faith in that reboot.. 

 

I am disappointed because Nolan's name was a major incentive in the post TDK trilogy.  It acted to create the goodwill that was lackig post SR.  It created huge anticipation resulting in a huge OW.  It basicly increased the GA with people who were not necessary fans of Superman but went there because of being exclusively fans of Nolan. It should have benefitted more from it if it was as good or even slightly under what Nolan produced. 

 

Second it had 3D compared to all past Superman.  Third it benefitted from expanding markets.

 

All in all, it seems to me that admission wise it has stayed relatively flat compared to SR.  And the reason for a reboot is  to increase popularity, hence increase the number of potential consumers.  The other incentives like a famous name attached to it, expanding markets to exploit to the max and 3D are all tools aimed at maximising that increase of admissions.

 

In that  regard MOS has disappointed.  It has disappointed even more when looking the huge disparity between markets.  When a product is so divisive that it seems loved or hated according markets, then you can clearly see that it underperform and lost huge amount of money in many places, especially when those markets are culturally big consumers of that type of product and yet didn't embrace yours.

 

Regardiless of its good overall numbers, you can't deny that it performed like one of the less linear superhero movie abroad.  A very divisive product.

 

 

It doesn't matter if there were 1 or 10 or 20 superhero reboots, you compare with what you got, MOS performed very well when compared to other reboots, you can argue about that all you want but the figures are there and you guys keep saying about 3d and market expansions, but just because STID had 3d and expanded markets it didn't mean that the film performed significantly better than the previous film. 

 

 Do you actually have figures to support the fact that admissions stayed the same?

 

I could careless if the film was divisive in the foreign markets, the final tally of 350 million plus is excellent IMO considering this film is following SR.

 

 

There isn't some magical reboot powers that prevent it from making big numbers, Star Trek 09 made made more adjusted then any Star Trek film ever made, it was a reboot but it still caused its franchise to rise to a new level even though it followed a film without good WOM.

 

MOS isn't the second most successful reboot, 2013 is not 2006. Making 600M WW in 2006 was much harder to do than making 650M in 2013. 

 

People were saying that MOS numbers are excellent, TDK, Spiderman and The Avengers were examples of films who's numbers really were excellent, not because these were the highest grossing SH films (their not), but because they destroyed what they were supposed to do. If Superman destroyed expectations like those films did, then it would have made a billion. Instead it's going to make 650M, which isn't bad, but it is average.

 

You're right there isn't anything magical about reboots, the reason why reboots don't break records is purely logical, the average joe doesn't look at film the way fanboys do, they hear remake and they think "again?!! why can't hollywood come up with something new" and are thus less inclined to be open minded, thats why Nolan's batman had a slow start and had to establish faith with the audiences.

 

When it comes to numbers MOS is the 2nd most successful reboot and easily the most successful reboot domestically even if you want to bring in the adjusted numbers. 

 

In the end guys it's clear that we're going to disagree, we have different definitions of what it means for a movie to excellently, well, bad or being a flop, I think that MOS has been excellent and I am glad that my favorite character is back in the spot light and is making money, you guys can say this film is a disappointment or average and that's your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it. 

Also I can't wait for world's finest in 2015 and while I would've liked for another solo superman film, a superman/batman film can only raise the profile of the next solo superman film and allow the audiences to accept another batman reboot.

Edited July 29, 2013 by messipotamia

[KATCH-2D2]

Superman used to be a massive franchise, the original film was in the top 10 of all time when it released, this years Superman will barely make half of an Iron Man film.

 

The year SR was released, an FF film was released and didn't even come close to making half as much as SR. This years FF will comfortably pass MOS. That's excellence.

 

To be called excellent, a film should perform above and beyond what it should have done, a Superman film being the 6-8th biggest film of the year isn't doing that.

The key word is 'used to be'. Just because our grandpa used to love the character doesn't mean we have to embrace him now. Superman as a comic book character is as iconic as it gets but as a movie character he wasn't relevant for ages. SR used to be hyped up as the grand return of the icon but apart from US audience the rest of the word barely gave a damn. 

 

And people seems to overestimate the appeal of Superman movie based on the fact that it's a well-known character. Being well-known doesn't equal being popular. It's unfair to call MOS BO run as a disappointment just because people just assumed it should've made more.

 

Marvel made their B list SHs look cool and relevant with broader appeal. IM might not be the household name but his character looked awesome as hell on screen. IM movie came across like a sci-fi action thriller. It appeals to GA who might not fond of comic book movies to start with. Thor had fantasy elements to spice it up and Cap used WW background to add it's dept. Batman and Spider man also popular because there're more human elements in their story and they have vulnerabilities that made them more likeable.

 

Superman is THE superhero in every sense of the world and because of that to GA he's the hardest character to root for. GA couldn't relate to Supes the same way they did with Spidey or Bat and no amount of realistic setting could change that. The divisive WOM didn't help either.

 

MOS only made as much as it did because of the cool trailers. Superman himself wasn't that marketable as people would think.

[messipotamia]

The key word is 'used to be'. Just because our grandpa used to love the character doesn't mean we have to embrace him now. Superman as a comic book character is as iconic as it gets but as a movie character he wasn't relevant for ages. SR used to be hyped up as the grand return of the icon but apart from US audience the rest of the word barely gave a damn. 

 

And people seems to overestimate the appeal of Superman movie based on the fact that it's a well-known character. Being well-known doesn't equal being popular. It's unfair to call MOS BO run as a disappointment just because people just assumed it should've made more.

 

Marvel made their B list SHs look cool and relevant with broader appeal. IM might not be the household name but his character looked awesome as hell on screen. IM movie came across like a sci-fi action thriller. It appeals to GA who might not fond of comic book movies to start with. Thor had fantasy elements to spice it up and Cap used WW background to add it's dept. Batman and Spider man also popular because there're more human elements in their story and they have vulnerabilities that made them more likeable.

 

Superman is THE superhero in every sense of the world and because of that to GA he's the hardest character to root for. GA couldn't relate to Supes the same way they did with Spidey or Bat and no amount of realistic setting could change that. The divisive WOM didn't help either.

 

MOS only made as much as it did because of the cool trailers. Superman himself wasn't that marketable as people would think.

 

I disagree superman is plenty popular but the key here is how the character is portrayed, remember that the batman franchise was in decline after batman and robin and until the dark knight came out most people believed that batman's best days were behind him (since the very well received BB only did modest box office so people assumed that batman's box office appeal was gone) but the dark knight changed everything for the character and brought him back into prominence.

Man of steel opened big in many markets telling us that the character still has wide appeal, as for the big drops well that tells us that it is the movie rather than the character that is divisive,

I think if superman/batman is well made it will only mean big things for the character.