MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Some Better Super News

I finally got onto Box Office Mojo and looked up some numbers… and the news is a bit better for Superman Returns today than it was a few days ago.
The 10 day comparison based on Superman Returns‘ 10-day $127.2 million estimate doesn

Be Sociable, Share!

27 Responses to “Some Better Super News”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    What is currently the biggest money-loser of all time?

  2. EDouglas says:

    Thanks for the analysis, as always, David. (Jeff: I’m guessing the Adventures of Pluto Nash or Thunderbirds.)

  3. palmtree says:

    Probably Pluto Nash although Cutthroat Island (a Pirate movie from a different era) deserves an honorable mention in that category.

  4. anghus says:

    im pretty sure it’s Pluto Nash, though it was so invisible, i think most people think it’s Cuththroat Island still.
    I see another 2 solid weeks of Superman Returns box office analysis. The international is really the make or break point for Warners.

  5. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Ugh, Men in Black II makes me dry heave.

  6. David Poland says:

    Currently…
    1. Pluto Nash
    2. Town & Country

  7. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I knew there was another one and it that it was completely odd. How on earth did Town & Country become so expensive. The bits I’ve seen weren’t exactly overflowing with visual extravagance.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, just a lot of high-priced talent and complete reshoots for Town and Country. (Thunderbirds? A Bill Paxton movie with an IMDB budget figure of 50-something million?)
    Thanks, DP. I wonder what the answer is when numbers are adjusted for inflation.

  9. Nicol D says:

    Dave,
    When calculating the biggest money losers of all time, how do older ones like Heaven’s Gate stand up in the modern era?
    If we allow for change in the value of the dollar, does something like Heaven’s Gate still stack up to the Pluto Nash’s or has the cost of modern blockbusters skyrocked to the point where they really are the most expensive films of all time?

  10. Martin S says:

    Cutthroat Island is still the biggest, IMO, because it sank Carolco. T&C, Nash, these were plagued productions released for the write-off. Kassar thought Cutthroat was a better choice than Schwarzenegger’s Crusade. oops.
    What’s weird is if Kassar did Crusade, he wouldn’t have gone under and been able to finance Cameron’s Spider-Man. But because he chose Cutthroat, Carolco imploded, the Spidey rights went into arbitration when Carolco was sold, so Cameron decided not to wait around and pitched Titanic early.
    Regarding SR, Singer is supposed to be at SDCC in a few weeks. With or without a deal, I’m sure he’ll show, but what’s he going to talk about if it’s not locked? Too bad the majority of fanboys are sackless in person. They’ll kiss his ass instead of asking him why he felt it was alright co-opting the Genesis Device subplot from Wrath of Khan for SR. And does that mean he would swipe V’Ger from ST:TMP for his version of Brainiac.
    Jeffmcm – Supposedly Ari’s going to have the new Hulk director at the Marvel PR stunt, excuse me, “slate launch”.
    If I was Arad, I’d cool every theater project except Spidey and Wolverine, bump up the TV quotient, and throw in with Cameron on the 3D thing. I mean, if you’re honestly going to F’in produce an Ant-Man movie, make it worth it or else just call it ‘Honey, I Shrunk The Kid – Again’. Think of FF2 – Galactus and Silver Surfer. Picture that on 3D Imax…now picture what we’re going to get. It feels like such a waste.

  11. Tofu says:

    Ugh… I just got geek slime all over me.
    AntMan will be a comedy last I heard.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    “co-opting the Genesis Device subplot”
    Are you talking about the crystals? I don’t think the parallels are very strong.

  13. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    *brain explodes*

  14. Cadavra says:

    HEAVEN’S GATE was around $40 million, huge at the time but not unprecedented. However, two decades-plus of video/DVD, TV airings and rep-house runs have made up a bit of the loss.

  15. Nicol D says:

    Thanks Cadavra,
    I saw Heaven’s Gate recently and actually liked it.
    It is certainly flawed but not without merit. I think Cimino is one of the lost greats who could have been.
    Interesting that MGM still has never really seemed to have been able to get out from under it.

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    If we’re going to go back in time and allow for inflation: Would “Cleopatra” be the biggest flop of all time? Or something like “Paint You Wagon,” maybe?

  17. Joe Leydon says:

    Er, that should be “Paint YOUR Wagon.”

  18. Martin S says:

    Jeffmcm – “”co-opting the Genesis Device subplot”
    Are you talking about the crystals? I don’t think the parallels are very strong”.
    A benevolent scientist creates a device that can turn inhospitable land into their utopic vision. After we are shown a small-scale version of the outcome, the antagonist – a longtime nemesis imprisoned and forgotten by the protagonist, waiting years for his revenge – steals the device in hopes of using it to build their own kingdom. In the end, the antagonist uses the device as a way to kill the protagonist, who only survives because of a last second heroic feat.
    I’m just wondering if Singer wants to incorporate Genesis as the K Landmass in a Death of Supes sequel or if V’Ger will be his Brainiac. I’d love to ask him at SDCC if he’s paying any royalties to Nick Meyer.
    This is honestly the reason I hope he’s not given an automatic greenlight. He needs to try something original instead of this bastardized Reese’s Pieces, (“You got your Trek caught in my superhero! You got your superhero caught in my Trek! Hmmm…”), script-writing approach.

  19. Blackcloud says:

    DMC is almost $10 million ahead of SR after only 4 days in release. SR’s second Monday was below Batman Begins’ second Monday. The gap between SR and those other Wednesday releases is going to shrink each day, until it almost closes. It’s even possible SR will fall behind at some point. Not good at all.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    I still think your Star Trek II parallel is a big stretch. Nothing visual in common, little thematic in common. In Star Trek II Genesis was the Macguffin and didn’t serve any actual purpose except to magically bring Spock back.

  21. palmtree says:

    Jeff, that was actually Star Trek III. II was about Montalban using Genesis as the ultimate weapon.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    I know. Which means that the Genesis device serves absolutely no purpose in STII except to blow up.

  23. Cadavra says:

    “Would “Cleopatra” be the biggest flop of all time? Or something like “Paint Your Wagon,” maybe?”
    Believe it or not, CLEOPATRA did make its money back, though it took a long time to do so. WAGON was indeed an outright stiff, though again, as with GATE, ancillaries have made up some of the deficit.

  24. Martin S says:

    The guy blatantly steals the ending of WOK for X2, but in SR’s case, he just happened to come up with the exact same sub-plot and antagonist motivation found in Khan.
    If it was only half the scenario I outlined, it could be any film. But it’s all of them to a tee. Whether it was conscious or subconscious, I could care less.
    If Genesis was a Macguffin, that would automatically mean it doesn’t have a thematic as its sole purpose is to propel the story. And what does visuals have to do with anything? I’m talking plot.

  25. jeffmcm says:

    See, the ripoff of the X2 ending I can agree with. The alleged ripoff of the Genesis device requires stretches and leaps to make sense. In Trek, it’s a technology that Khan wants that forces the crew to need to stop him. In Superman, Superman doesn’t even know that it’s been stolen until after it’s been set off. There’s no suspense, just a bad rock that he gets rid of. There is no plot connection, no thematic connection. It doesn’t kill anyone or bring anyone to life. It’s just a similar ‘technology’ and that’s it.

  26. Martin S says:

    I see the difference you’re showing, of when the antagonist learns of the device, and it’s valid, but that strikes me as being about story structure. WOK is a submarine film, SR is wannabe epic. Meyers reference to the TV show is early, quick and done in the first act. The only other time it’s mentioned is by Kirk to his ex in an off-hand manner. Singer does the opposite, continually referencing Supes I & II as a way to propel his story. WOK is condensed, SR is sprawling. In that sense, the use of the device for the story structure, they are different. But that doesn’t change what I wrote before.

  27. Martin S says:

    Dave, What do you think?
    http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/10/exclusive-super-200-million-man-or-else/
    There’s word Singer’s going to SDCC about Wolverine.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon