Dark Superman Debate

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:11 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Monroe wrote:
As I've said in like a dozen threads they had orders from the studio.
I've mentioned it a few times as well. The transporters, phasers and the armour that functioned as shields were mandated by the studio who feared changing things would drive away viewers. I guess they never looked at the veiwing numbers dropping sharply after TNG ended.

Aye. Some of the best shows have been done because studios took risks. Not all risks pay off.. like Super Man Returns... but occasionally a studio will get a LOTR or Star Wars out of it (all three examples of huge risk productions).

Sonic Glitch · Post by **Sonic Glitch** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:18 am

Monroe wrote: .. like Super Man Returns...

Hey, I liked that movie...

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am

me,myself and I wrote:
Monroe wrote: .. like Super Man Returns...
Hey, I liked that movie...

o.O
In a business sense though, it was still a disaster.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:23 am

Monroe wrote:
me,myself and I wrote:
Monroe wrote: .. like Super Man Returns...
Hey, I liked that movie...
o.O
In a business sense though, it was still a disaster.

It made $391 million on a $270 million budget; not great, but hardly a bomb.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:54 pm

Not to mention the $270 figure is a vast overinflation because they included in it the budget of every previous attempt to kick start the franchise. It includes the cost of every single script, meeting, hiring and firing that has been done in the Superman franchise for something like the last 15 years.

The budget of the actual movie is something like half that figure.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:03 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:Not to mention the $270 figure is a vast overinflation because they included in it the budget of every previous attempt to kick start the franchise. It includes the cost of every single script, meeting, hiring and firing that has been done in the Superman franchise for something like the last 15 years.

The budget of the actual movie is something like half that figure.

Which explains why it didn't look like it cost $270 million.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:02 pm

As an example, Tim Burton signed on as director and then signed off again over creative differences. His pay packet for basically doing nothing? $5 million. Nicolas Cage signed on to play Superman, went to one costume fitting, then walked out later on. His fee? A cool $20 million.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:04 pm

I wish I could make that much for doing squat.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:16 am

Tsukiyumi wrote:
It made $391 million on a $270 million budget; not great, but hardly a bomb.

Really? No that's a great profit margin. I was under the impression they lost a lot.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:19 pm

Monroe wrote:
Tsukiyumi wrote:
It made $391 million on a $270 million budget; not great, but hardly a bomb.

Really? No that's a great profit margin. I was under the impression they lost a lot.

The domestic box office was only $200 million, but the foreign releases added $191 million; a lot of articles only mention the domestic takes.

mwhittington · Post by **mwhittington** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:24 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:As an example, Tim Burton signed on as director and then signed off again over creative differences. His pay packet for basically doing nothing? $5 million. Nicolas Cage signed on to play Superman, went to one costume fitting, then walked out later on. His fee? A cool $20 million.

Tim Burton would not have been the right director for Superman. His style is too dark, which is why his Batman movies were (and still are) the best in the franchise.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:00 pm

Apparently they are doing a reboot of the Superman franchise with another movie, and they very much want to do DK style grimness with Superman as "an angry god".

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:27 am

Yech. The only reason The Dark Knight played as well as it did, with its film noir feel, was because of Frank Miller. IIRC, Miller didn't do any Superman books.

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:30 am

Mikey wrote:...IIRC, Miller didn't do any Superman books.

No, but power-suited Batman fought Superman in the same book.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:00 am

The wall of ignorance with them suprises me, they had so many people tell them that what they were doing was wrong yet they did it anyway...

And I think a Dark Knight style Superman wuld be shit, I dont want a a rip off of the Dark Knight in superman form...