Weekend Boxoffice Chart [Archive]

Evil Avatar

07-17-2006, 11:38 AM

Johnny Depp's hit Pirates of the Caribbean sequel ruled the waves at the North American box office for a second weekend, while two new comedies were in a tight race for the distant No. 2 slot.

Here is the Weekend Boxoffice Chart for the weekend of July 14th to July 16th.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $62.1/$258.2
Little Man $21.7/$21.7
You, Me and Dupree $21.3/$21.3
Superman Returns $11.6/$163.6
The Devil Wears Prada $10.4/$83.5
Cars $7.5/$219.6
Click $7.0/$119.7
The Lake House $1.5/$48.9
Nacho Libre $1.5/$77.1
A Scanner Darkly $1.1/$1.7
An Inconvenient Truth $1.1/$16.9
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift $1.0/$59.7
FYI: A Scanner Darkly opened on only 216 screens.

bapenguin

07-17-2006, 11:38 AM

God...Little Man just looked horrible.

tombofsoldier

07-17-2006, 11:41 AM

Hey Hollywood, stop making crappy movies! I still don't think they have this yet, as both Cars and Superman were way too long and not nearly as good as they could have been. Yet Hollywood executives are probably sitting there scratching their heads.

John Mirra

07-17-2006, 11:42 AM

God...Little Man just looked horrible.

Maybe it's like Click. The commercials make it look like a terrible comedy with a dumb premise, but it is actually a drama that hits home on quite a few levels.

Oh wait. . . Wayans Brothers? Sorry. My mistake.

Evil Avatar

07-17-2006, 11:46 AM

God...Little Man just looked horrible.

Yes, and it will be a success for the company. It made $21 million its first weekend and cost only $64 million to make. So, by the time it finishes up at the box office, does international, pay-per-view, tv rights and DVD sales it will have been a nice little profit generator for the studio.

There might be a God, but if there is he has no taste in movies.

Harlan Hoyt

07-17-2006, 11:52 AM

I saw A Scanner Darkly last night at a great theater -- psychedelic headtrip films are better when you've had a few double Jameson's before the movie, and one sitting in your armrest. At any rate, I thought it was a great film, and did justice to the book. Definitely the best Dick adaptation outside of Blade Runner. I even thought Keanu did a good job. The animation was great, lots of interesting things going on. Thought provoking cinema, indeed.

I saw Pirates last week, and I've got to say that I loved it. In the realm of huge pirate movies, it reigns supreme.

Khash

07-17-2006, 11:53 AM

I saw Scanner and my buddy and I were the only ones in the theatre. Kinda sad, really.

Savok

07-17-2006, 11:53 AM

Talking cars, Little Man... have they all lost their minds?

And why the hell has Cars outdone Superman? Jesus

Zanzibar

07-17-2006, 11:54 AM

'Click' was one Adam Sandler away from being a really good movie. The only parts I didn't like were the parts where Sandler did his angry guy/gross-out schticks. God forbid he actually try to expand his range by ACTING instead of shoe-horning in his trademark stuff into a script that wasn't written to be a schtick vehicle.

GOD DAMN Kate Beckinsale is hot.

I'll say that again. Because as hot as everyone knows she is, it still needs repeating.

GOD DAMN Kate Beckinsale is hot.

Savok

07-17-2006, 11:56 AM

GOD DAMN Kate Beckinsale is hot.

I'll say that again. Because as hot as everyone knows she is, it still needs repeating.

GOD DAMN Kate Beckinsale is hot.
This is true

fahrvergnugen

07-17-2006, 11:56 AM

markster3000

07-17-2006, 11:56 AM

An Inconvenient Truth $1.1/$16.9

Al Gore sure has some legs!

Skytram

07-17-2006, 11:58 AM

I highly recommend A Scanner Darkly, Phillip Dick story with good acting and interesting stylization.

Salesmunn

07-17-2006, 12:02 PM

Scanner Darkly who?

Roc Ingersol

07-17-2006, 12:07 PM

'Click' was one Adam Sandler away from being a really good movie. The only parts I didn't like were the parts where Sandler did his angry guy/gross-out schticks. God forbid he actually try to expand his range by ACTING instead of shoe-horning in his trademark stuff into a script that wasn't written to be a schtick vehicle.
Try SPANGLISH. He's more than capable when he needs to be.

The problem is that your average film-goer wants to see Billy Madison retread when they pay $10 for a Sandler flick. /shrug

torrefaction

07-17-2006, 12:07 PM

I think I'll go see A Scanner Darkly tonight.

As a matter of fact, I've never read any Philip Dick, although his work seems right up my alley.

Maybe I'll go to the bookstore after the movie :D

Evil Avatar

07-17-2006, 12:13 PM

Harlan Hoyt

07-17-2006, 12:18 PM

wow, a $51k/screen take on Scanner? That's amazing, and improbable.

Are you sure it wasn't 2160 screens, or that the 216 number was the preview release and was tied to the $600k number in the total ($2888 / screen), and not the $1.1 of this weekend?
Nope, 216 screens. Not sure where you're getting $51k per theater, though. Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scanner_darkly/numbers.php) has it at $5486.

At any rate, I highly recommend it. Suport interesting cinema!

BloodPack

07-17-2006, 12:23 PM

I read a Scanner Darkly, but when I saw the trailer it had a very different premise then what I pictured in my mind, but it looked like a very good movie to me. But with the limited release, there isnt a showing anywhere within a 100 miles of me, and I live just north of Toronto, so that sucks, gotta wait for the DVD.

PS. there is going to be a wider limited release on July 27th for a Scanner Darkly.

thecrazyd

07-17-2006, 12:25 PM

I dug A Scanner Darkly. Totally not what I was expecting at all. My only real (spoiler-less) problems:

1. The Sci Fi schtick was kinda unnecessary, and added some distance to the story. I would have liked it more if it took place in modern times.
2. Why did they have to make the characters look like the actors? Having an animated version of an actor, especially a well known actor makes it even more apparent (to me at least) that they are actors. This also distanced me more from the movie.

Beyond that, I really dug it.

Odyzen

07-17-2006, 12:25 PM

wow, a $51k/screen take on Scanner? That's amazing, and improbable.

Are you sure it wasn't 2160 screens, or that the 216 number was the preview release and was tied to the $600k number in the total ($2888 / screen), and not the $1.1 of this weekend?

Your math is wrong.

200k early showings

390k opening weekend (17 screens at 23k/screen)

1.185m this weekend (216 screens at ~5500/screen)

~1.7m

fahrvergnugen

07-17-2006, 12:26 PM

guh, I'm a dumbass. Put one too many zeroes into my division.

$5100 / screen, not $51k / screen.

Drinking_Buddy

07-17-2006, 12:26 PM

And why the hell has Cars outdone Superman? Jesus

Jee, I dont know. Maybe it's because Cars has Paul FUCKING Newman!

Or the fact that it has been out longer in theaters and is a really good kids movie.

I dont know.

BleedTheFreak

07-17-2006, 12:34 PM

Jee, I dont know. Maybe it's because Cars has Paul FUCKING Newman!

Or the fact that it has been out longer in theaters and is a really good kids movie.

I dont know.

If appeals to a big number of folks. Superman, as anyone who would post in a forum for a web page called "Evil Avatar" knows, is much more interesting subject material. But, don't forget, there is that whole "rest of the planet" that also consists of (*gasp*) girls/mothers/sisters who don't give a rats @$$ about Supes, but boy do they love them some Pixar!

WileE.Coyte

07-17-2006, 12:35 PM

GrinR

07-17-2006, 12:36 PM

I'm already bitter about the failure of Superman.

I'm mostly bitter by how many people I know who would love it and haven't "gotten around" to seeing it. They'll watch it on DVD and won't get the epic feeling at all.

It's like idiots who watched LOTR on their shitty TVs. Pathetic.

Orosco

07-17-2006, 12:40 PM

Well, I'm just glad "You, Me and Owen-Wilson-in-the-same-exact-movie-role" wasn't number 1.

Doctor Setebos

07-17-2006, 12:43 PM

1. The Sci Fi schtick was kinda unnecessary, and added some distance to the story. I would have liked it more if it took place in modern times.
2. Why did they have to make the characters look like the actors? Having an animated version of an actor, especially a well known actor makes it even more apparent (to me at least) that they are actors. This also distanced me more from the movie.1. I don't know that you can call it a "schtick", really, since the scifi elements are from the film staying faithful to the original telling of the story by Philip K Dick.

2. The animation wasn't done to "look like the actors" -- the actors were actually acting in the movie. They filmed the movie live-action, and then ran that through Rotoshop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoshop) to automatically apply a rotoscoping effect to the film. Pretty cool, actually.

Drinking_Buddy

07-17-2006, 12:43 PM

If appeals to a big number of folks. Superman, as anyone who would post in a forum for a web page called "Evil Avatar" knows, is much more interesting subject material. But, don't forget, there is that whole "rest of the planet" that also consists of (*gasp*) girls/mothers/sisters who don't give a rats @$$ about Supes, but boy do they love them some Pixar!

Paul Newman > Superman.

jacktion

07-17-2006, 12:47 PM

Cars looks like drek. I am the biggest Pixar fan ever but I have absolutely zero interest in this movie. Pixar is rapidly becoming the new Disney. Big, bloated, conventional and dull. They are no longer a cutting edge small interesting studio. Not that they were ever that cutting edge but you know what I mean.

Zanzibar

07-17-2006, 12:51 PM

Try SPANGLISH. He's more than capable when he needs to be.

The problem is that your average film-goer wants to see Billy Madison retread when they pay $10 for a Sandler flick. /shrug

Hmm. Never saw Spanglish.

But yeah, it's really sad that good scripts get flushed in order to bring in the low-brow morons.

Savok

07-17-2006, 12:59 PM

Jesus Christ could be in Cars, it's still talking fucking cars.

Evil Avatar

07-17-2006, 01:05 PM

2. The animation wasn't done to "look like the actors" -- the actors were actually acting in the movie. They filmed the movie live-action, and then ran that through Rotoshop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoshop) to automatically apply a rotoscoping effect to the film. Pretty cool, actually.

Kind of a shame that Rotoshop isn't available outside the studio. I would put my own money into making a film if I could use that software.

Evil Avatar

07-17-2006, 01:10 PM

Jesus Christ could be in Cars, it's still talking fucking cars.

There is a little Jesus in my car, does that count?

(The Buddy Christ, of course.)

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 01:11 PM

Well at least something good is staying at the top. But Superman Returns 4th after 2 weeks? Tut Tut. Glad to see A Scanner Drakly doing so well, despite it opening on minimal screens. A cult film if I ever saw one. Click only did well, as it has been stated, because Kate Beckinsale is hot.

GrinR

07-17-2006, 01:11 PM

Hmm. Never saw Spanglish.

But yeah, it's really sad that good scripts get flushed in order to bring in the low-brow morons.

What about Punch Drunk Love??? That was Sandler's best non-Sandler movie.

captainstrombosis

07-17-2006, 01:16 PM

Kate Beckinsale is hot.

Needs repeated.

Now, I loved Superman Returns. I think the whole "Doesn't kill people" side of Superman doesn't appeal to most. There was some douche bag behind me in the theater bitching ...And I quote... "Why doesn't he just rip the arms off Lex Luthor, Superman is a joke!"

Most adults are just idiots that want to see some violent 2 hour long one liner fest.

EternalGamer

07-17-2006, 01:23 PM

Punch Drunk Love, I think, was more of testiment to P. T. Anderson's talent to make Adam Sandler be 500% less Adam Sandler-like. But I'll admit, it's one of the few Sandler flick where he doesn't grate your nerves with the schtick aptly characterized by Zanzibar above.

Spanglish wasn't too bad, either, but it certainly wasn't in any way a demanding role for him. Basically it worked solely because the didn't ask him to do much, just avoid his typical schtick/rant.

Hieremias

07-17-2006, 01:25 PM

The problem with A Scanner Darkly is that people don't want to try anything different. I'm going to see it alone because my wife and brother are not willing to even give it a try. God forbid if something is different. It sucks that I have to sit through the crap they watch.

No, the problem with A Scanner Darkly is that it looks like utter shit. The trailer and the 24-minute preview at IGN have completely, totally destroyed any interest I may have otherwise had in the movie due to its creative animation.

That creative animation is the one and only thing the movie has going for it, and it's not enough to make me want to watch the whole movie. Hell, the 24-minute preview was painful enough. I do not understand what people see entertaining in this crap.

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 01:25 PM

Needs repeated.

Now, I loved Superman Returns. I think the whole "Doesn't kill people" side of Superman doesn't appeal to most. There was some douche bag behind me in the theater bitching ...And I quote... "Why doesn't he just rip the arms off Lex Luthor, Superman is a joke!"

Most adults are just idiots that want to see some violent 2 hour long one liner fest.

Well you should read Kingdom Come. Superman doesn't even kill The Joker after he goes on a rampage killing dozens, and Lois. It's then ushers in a new age of hero's that do that. It's an amazing book.

Zanzibar

07-17-2006, 01:28 PM

Mmm. Imagine if Kate Beckinsale played Lois Lane.

I'd probably have seen the movie like 20 times by now.

Wyrm

07-17-2006, 01:34 PM

Superman was one of my favorite movies I've seen in a long time, and I dont understand why it hasn't made more money. Everyone should get to the theater and see it right away. If you've been oon the ropes about going to see this one, I'd suggest that you go see it tonight, because it's worth it to view it on the big screen.

Valkyrist

07-17-2006, 01:34 PM

A Scanner Darkly was very good, highly recommend it.

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Mmm. Imagine if Kate Beckinsale played Lois Lane.

I'd probably have seen the movie like 20 times by now.

Hell yeah. But am I the only one who prefers Kate Bosworth as brunette? She just can't do blonde, even though that is her natural hair colour.

GrinR

07-17-2006, 01:38 PM

Hell yeah. But am I the only one who prefers Kate Bosworth as brunette? She just can't do blonde, even though that is her natural hair colour.

Kate Bosworth was SHIT for Lois Lane.

My pick? Jennifer Connelly. She'd have that role sewn up in no time.

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 01:39 PM

Kate Bosworth was SHIT for Lois Lane.

My pick? Jennifer Connelly. She'd have that role sewn up in no time.

Oh I never said it she was good for the role. She wasn't who I pictured at all. She's not agressive or overpowering enough. I just liked her a brunette.

Banacek

07-17-2006, 01:44 PM

No, the problem with A Scanner Darkly is that it looks like utter shit. The trailer and the 24-minute preview at IGN have completely, totally destroyed any interest I may have otherwise had in the movie due to its creative animation.

That creative animation is the one and only thing the movie has going for it, and it's not enough to make me want to watch the whole movie. Hell, the 24-minute preview was painful enough. I do not understand what people see entertaining in this crap.

It called an artistic vision. I didn't think it looked like shit at all. It does look better on the screen then on your monitor or tv, I thought. And the art isn't the only reason to go see the movie. The story is good too. I would recommend everyone here go see the movie if you can. Really solid flick.

Dr.Finger

07-17-2006, 01:56 PM

Kate Bosworth was SHIT for Lois Lane.

My pick? Jennifer Connelly. She'd have that role sewn up in no time.
Perfect choice. She's beautiful, but also seems to have a brain in her head, unlike Bosworth. I'm sorry, Mary Jane can be played as an airhead, but Lois Lane can't be.

GrinR

07-17-2006, 02:00 PM

Perfect choice. She's beautiful, but also seems to have a brain in her head, unlike Bosworth. I'm sorry, Mary Jane can be played as an airhead, but Lois Lane can't be.

When Bosworth is complimented on the PULLITZER PRIZE she's won, she flips her hand and says "oh well, you know that thing" and looked like someone on MTV getting a Movie Award. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Long hours and harrrd work go into getting one of those, and it warrents more than her pathetic acting displayed. That one moment ruined it for me. Lois Lane wins a PP and she's just acting like Lindsey Lohan? Bleh.

torrefaction

07-17-2006, 02:05 PM

When Bosworth is complimented on the PULLITZER PRIZE she's won, she flips her hand and says "oh well, you know that thing" and looked like someone on MTV getting a Movie Award. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Long hours and harrrd work go into getting one of those, and it warrents more than her pathetic acting displayed. That one moment ruined it for me. Lois Lane wins a PP and she's just acting like Lindsey Lohan? Bleh.

I don't know. Lois Lane did always act with integrity. I think it came across as her feeling like she wrote the story out of spite. Not very long at all after he came back, she realized maybe the world DID need Superman. Maybe she felt like she didn't deserve the PP at that point (Which was my feeling on it.)

Mr. Lake

07-17-2006, 02:07 PM

1. The Sci Fi schtick was kinda unnecessary, and added some distance to the story. I would have liked it more if it took place in modern times.

The thing about Richard Linklater is that his "choice genre/time period" has for the most part been the 1990's. When Philip Dick wrote his novels back in the day, it might have seemed to him that the 80's and 90's would be the time periods in which his stories would take place to make sense. Linklater could be inturpreting Dick's approximation of what he thought the future (which is our present) to be like based on what was written in the book. I think it's a very good and true adaptation.

torrefaction

07-17-2006, 02:08 PM

I don't know. Lois Lane did always act with integrity. I think it came across as her feeling like she wrote the story out of spite. Not very long at all after he came back, she realized maybe the world DID need Superman. Maybe she felt like she didn't deserve the PP at that point (Which was my feeling on it.)

I'd like to follow this up with a second nomination for Jennifer Connelly in the post-humous Lois Lane role. I didn't actually know who she was by name.

She's fucking Emma Murdoch! And Alicia Nash! Amazing damn actress.

thecrazyd

07-17-2006, 02:32 PM

1. I don't know that you can call it a "schtick", really, since the scifi elements are from the film staying faithful to the original telling of the story by Philip K Dick.
I realize that. Regardless, it was unnecessary, and detracted from the movie in my mind.
2. The animation wasn't done to "look like the actors" -- the actors were actually acting in the movie. They filmed the movie live-action, and then ran that through Rotoshop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoshop) to automatically apply a rotoscoping effect to the film. Pretty cool, actually.
I realize that as well. Once again, my point stands.

PixelSamurai

07-17-2006, 02:32 PM

I knew You, Me and Dupree was a chick flick, but I actually gave women some credit thinking even they would avoid this turd. I hope the guys they dragged along at least got some action.

Magnanimous Gnome

07-17-2006, 02:34 PM

Glad to see The Devil Wears Prada still doing well. That was definitely the best movie I've seen so far this summer.

niakori

07-17-2006, 02:37 PM

Wow, I feel like the only person in the world that haven't seen dead man's chest. I did see Superman, and I have no qualms with it, I actually enjoyed it. I also had no problem with Bosworth as Lane, except the chick got beat around a bit.
And Blur Studios > Pixar.

Zanzibar

07-17-2006, 02:41 PM

Glad to see The Devil Wears Prada still doing well. That was definitely the best movie I've seen so far this summer.
Y'know, I gotta agree. In addition to hot chicks roaming around for 90 minutes (Hellllooooooooooooooo Anne Hathaway (http://server5.uploadit.org/files/theDUD3-AnneHathaway.jpg)), Meryl Streep plays easily the most evil villain since Sauron. And, she never raises her voice. Not once. Chilling and scary as hell. She should get an Oscar nod for it.

thecrazyd

07-17-2006, 02:54 PM

The thing about Richard Linklater is that his "choice genre/time period" has for the most part been the 1990's. When Philip Dick wrote his novels back in the day, it might have seemed to him that the 80's and 90's would be the time periods in which his stories would take place to make sense. Linklater could be inturpreting Dick's approximation of what he thought the future (which is our present) to be like based on what was written in the book. I think it's a very good and true adaptation.
But my point was not that it was not a true adaptation. My point was that it was unnecessary and distanced me from the movie. It could have easily taken place in modern days, and I feel that it would make the movie feel way more real.

ÜberJumper

07-17-2006, 02:55 PM

I've seen Superman twice in Imax so far, and each time the theatre has been fucking PACKED. I'm not quite sure what's up down in America land, but up here in Canada, on at least the two occasions I've gone, Canada loves us some supes.

Ps. Totally want to see The Devil Wears Prada. Saw a preview and the acting looked amazing..

Mr. Lake

07-17-2006, 02:57 PM

But my point was not that it was not a true adaptation. My point was that it was unnecessary and distanced me from the movie. It could have easily taken place in modern days, and I feel that it would make the movie feel way more real.

If "the 90's" aren't modern to you, then you aren't old enough to get in to see that movie. =)

thecrazyd

07-17-2006, 02:58 PM

If "the 90's" aren't modern to you, then you aren't old enough to get in to see that movie. =)
The movie said it takes place 7 years from now, not in the 90s.

Magnanimous Gnome

07-17-2006, 03:56 PM

Y'know, I gotta agree. In addition to hot chicks roaming around for 90 minutes (Hellllooooooooooooooo Anne Hathaway (http://server5.uploadit.org/files/theDUD3-AnneHathaway.jpg)), Meryl Streep plays easily the most evil villain since Sauron. And, she never raises her voice. Not once. Chilling and scary as hell. She should get an Oscar nod for it.

Definitely. I'll be disappointed if she doesn't at least get nominated for the role.

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 03:57 PM

Glad to see The Devil Wears Prada still doing well. That was definitely the best movie I've seen so far this summer.

I heard little about it, and then saw a trailer for it. I must say it looks rather good. And recently anything with Stanley Tucci (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001804/) has been rather awesome.

Jonathan

07-17-2006, 04:15 PM

Hell yeah. But am I the only one who prefers Kate Bosworth as brunette? She just can't do blonde, even though that is her natural hair colour.

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0098378/bio), she's naturally a brunette.

SexualChoc

07-17-2006, 04:17 PM

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0098378/bio), she's naturally a brunette.

Thanks. But then why dye it? I mean she looks so much more natural. I can only assume she either prefers it like that, or it is perhaps for a new movie role.

GunnyMo

07-17-2006, 04:21 PM

I thought Cars was an excellent film. I've yet to see a bad Pixar movie. I guess there will alway be haters. :)

Draft

07-17-2006, 04:28 PM

This is for Reanimated. Watch Bryan Singer fall to pieces when someone asks him what he thinks about Pirate's box office plundering of Superman.

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1676445

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.

Spigot

07-17-2006, 05:44 PM

On a side note about Superman, wasn't that thing in development hell for years? That had to have some effect on the final price tag. Given that Singer showed that he can definately direct a great Superman flick and that Routh is quite a good Superman, that would have to shave off a significant portion of the budget of a sequel.

They went through so many directors/scripts/actors in the eons-long development of Returns that there's no way the price tag would have been anywhere close to sensible.

Spigot

07-17-2006, 05:45 PM

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0098378/bio), she's naturally a brunette.
Must resist... must resist... ah... The spirit of Kelegacy compels me!

"I wonder how they found out that she's naturally a brunette..." :eek:

Savok

07-17-2006, 08:37 PM

Mmm. Imagine if Kate Beckinsale played Lois Lane.

I'd probably have seen the movie like 20 times by now.
http://www.savok.rolandscavern.com/kate1.jpg
http://www.savok.rolandscavern.com/kate2.jpg

This would of created a problem with the name of the film as Superman would of never left.

Metal Khaos

07-17-2006, 09:04 PM

Nachoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

TheEpicOfTyler

07-17-2006, 10:58 PM

I don't understand why people are calling Superman a failure, isn't $163.6 million alot of money?

Banacek

07-17-2006, 11:03 PM

I don't understand why people are calling Superman a failure, isn't $163.6 million alot of money?

Not when it cost $205 million (at least) to make.

Evil Avatar

07-18-2006, 04:20 AM

Not when it cost $205 million (at least) to make.

Including pre-production costs for all the delays, rumors have the movie at $300 Million.

That buys a lot of Kryptonite.

Roc Ingersol

07-18-2006, 06:28 AM

Wife dragged me to see THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA and I was pleasantly surprised. I liked it better when Kevin Spacey and Frank Whaley made it though.

But that Anne Hathaway sure is purty.

Roc Ingersol

07-18-2006, 06:34 AM

Including pre-production costs for all the delays, rumors have the movie at $300 Million.

That buys a lot of Kryptonite.
250ish. But almost a hundred of that had already been sunk in development hell before Singer even signed. I'd be surprised if the Studio hadn't already written that off on their taxes multiple times, abandoning and restarting the project on paper every now and again.

Besides, there's still a ton of bank locked up in merchandising.
Why do you think they subtly redesigned the big S?
New S, new trademark, nice clear distinction between movie merchandising and existing merchandising.