August
23
The Moral of the Summer Season
The summer movie season is pretty much over, and the pundits are weighing in about what went right and — more emphatically — what went wrong. The lightning rod in all this is "Superman Returns" and what its failure to live up to the world’s lofty box office expectations means for comicbook pics and the movie business as whole.
“Superman Returns” got mostly positive reviews, but despite hopes for worldwide b.o. in the $400 million to $500 million range, is still inching toward the $200 million mark domestically and has cumed about $350 million worldwide. Given a production budget that WB says is $209 million and others peg as high as $270 million, and $100 million in marketing costs, that’s not so super. WB prexy Alan Horn admits to the L.A. Times that the b.o. was about $100 million short of expectations. Figuring out what went wrong — if anything — is a game being played all over town.
What’s interesting to watch is the way the studio, the film itself and Singer are largely escaping blame. Instead, blame falls on inadequate marketing or overall softness in box office attendance. But at least some of the blame appears to come from WB believing its own press releases. The company made the revival of the Superman and Batman franchises a top priority after watching other studios make big bucks on comicbook movies such as “X-Men” and “Spider-Man.” Those DC icons are thought, quite correctly, to be as near and dear to the hearts of comicbook fans their Marvel counterparts. They also are among the best-known characters in the world, so a big-budget Superman movie seems like a slam dunk on all counts. That quite understandable point of view may have made it easier to justify so expensive and esoteric a movie as “Superman Returns,” even as it defies common sense about what makes the character appealing in the first place. That the same studio managed to get everything so right last year on “Batman Begins” makes it hard to believe that more people aren’t blaming the quality of “Superman Returns” for its disappointing performance.
On the other side of town, “X-Men: The Last Stand” was by almost every measure a success for Marvel and Fox. The pic overcame the loss of Singer, who many saw as essential to the franchise, and turned out a pic that satisfied auds and finished off the trilogy on a high note. The film has grossed $234 million domestically and has a worldwide cume of $441 million, putting it way ahead of “Superman Returns.” Estimating the profitability on the film is just as hard as on “Superman Returns,” though in every instance the margin on “X-Men” between the budget — estimates range from $168 million to $210 million — and the gross is far greater than on any similar numbers for the Man of Steel.
But the industry and journalists are overlooking the film’s success, seemingly because most people admire Singer a lot more than they do “The Last Stand” director Brett Ratner. Articles in The Hollywood Reporter and on the website Hollywood Wiretap write off the “X-Men” franchise as played out, its future cut short by an uncaring studio and second-rate director. This ignores the obvious, which is that while critics generally preferred “Superman Returns,” audiences were much more interested in “X-Men.” And in a summer when the business is worried about its future, it’s surprising that the qualities that led the mutants to b.o. success over the Man of Steel are being so completely overlooked.
Those qualities amazingly enough reflect the differences between the Superman and X-Men franchises in the relative microcosm of the comicbook industry. Marvel has always successfully cast itself as the hip, cool underdog to DC’s classy but old-fashioned and often stodgy heroes. Superman was the first superhero, but the character’s popularity as measured by comicbook sales has been a rollercoaster ride the past 25 years, with deep lulls punctuated by high-profile events such as the “death” of Superman in 1992. X-Men on the other hand grew into its longstanding role as the best expression of Marvel’s underdog, outsider image. Coming back from cancellation in 1970 to consistently dominate comicbook sales the past quarter century, X-Men as a concept has a depth to its appeal and a commercial track record that has far outpaced the Man of Steel in recent times.
So while people seem willing to give Singer a pass on criticism for “Superman Returns,” it may once again be Marvel Studios and its expertise at downplaying and then exceeding expectations that will have the last laugh. Not only is a “Wolverine” spinoff film a near certainty with “Magneto” right behind it, the X-Men franchise is flexible enough to be revived in any number of forms. A new film would only need to keep one or two familiar (and expensive) actors in their roles and then draw upon a cast of relatively cheap newcomers to play any number of the comicbook’s dozens of well-known and time-tested characters. A “Young X-Men” movie has already been mentioned as a possibility a few years down the line with screenwriter Zak Penn a attached to write and direct.
The future for the new Superman franchise is much murkier. Any sequel would have to address the controversial and depressing storyline of Superman unknowingly fathering a child with Lois Lane. It also would need a lot more action than “Returns” had – a problem when any sequel’s success seems tied to reining in costs. Singer’s record on “X2” indicates that he can make a superior sequel and his comment at Comic-Con that he wants to get all “Wrath of Khan” on the pic also is encouraging, referencing another series where the second installment was much better. That doesn’t change the high probability that “Superman Returns” disappointed because it was not what auds wanted to see. It will be interesting to see how well “Spider-Man 3” does next summer and if the excuses being trotted out in defense of “Superman Returns” now will hold any water if the film is successful.
What’s essential to “Superman” flying higher in a sequel is whether WB and Singer can be honest with themselves about the film’s excesses and failures. If they fail to see where the film fell short, the end result will be no different the next time around.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Great overview and analysis, Tom. I totally agree with your take on things. The spinning that's gone on around Superman Returns has been laughable.
Posted by: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | August 23, 2006 at 02:26 PM
I had high hopes for Singer's "Superman Returns" but the film failed to live up to it. The entire enterprise seemed murky and depressing with little of the same wit & energy that so propelled Richard Donner's (great) "Superman" (& for that matter Singer's own "X-Men" films). I thought Kate Bosworth was miscast as Lois Lane (too young) and Spacey never came alive as Luthor. I did like Brandon Routh as Superman/Clark Kent. Also, and this might have something to do with its lack of energy, the film never once felt like it was in New York City (Metropolis). Donner's "Superman" had that wise-cracking energy in spades. "Superman Returns" felt trapped within its New Zealand soundstages. Now, how much that had to do with its underperforming at the box office is any one's guess.
Posted by: akabob | August 23, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Tom -
Thanks for picking up the thread of the last comments on this subject, and exploring it further. I think "the problem" lies not in making Superman relevant to today (single parenthood, revised costume, etc..), but in going back to the qualities that have made the character an icon for over 65 years, and simply "rethinking the implications" of a super-being/protector who lives amongst us to inspire us to be better.
Certainly relevant to today's culture where many people are looking around and asking, "Where are our heroes?"
Grant Morrison is currently doing a superb job with that in the ALL STAR SUPERMAN title. Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale did it with SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS. Bruce Timm and Paul Dini did it with the SUPERMAN ANIMATED SERIES. Each take is unique, but firmly grasps the inherent "hook" of the character.
Singer and Co. grabbed at the character so hard that they let those qualities slip right through their fingers...
Posted by: Bill Cunningham | August 24, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Yes, Grant Morrison's "All-Star Superman" is amazing. One of the best reads out there. Great art and story. His run on "Batman" just got off to a fantastic start. The animated Superman series was superb as well (WHY didn't Timm & Dini get a crack at the Superman movie? The script anyway.)
Posted by: akabob | August 24, 2006 at 04:02 PM
I'll repeat the "hint" I gave Hollywood in a posted reply I just made in The 'Sequel to RETURNS' Thread:
A GREAT SCRIPT DOES NOT COST 200 MILLION DOLLARS!
To have a Story that engages you as the reader/audience, puts you on the EDGE of your seat & THRILLS you(even enough to want to PAY AGAIN to see it!) DOES NOT HAVE TO COST a Bazillion DOLLARS!
GETTING IT RIGHT SHOULD NOT & DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPENSIVE!!!! Whenever fans say, " So & so got it Right, Chris Nolan Got BATMAN BEGINS RIGHT, Sam Raimi got SPIDER-MAN RIGHT...What are we REALLY saying?"
WHAT DOES "GET/GOT IT 'RIGHT' MEAN?"
To me, it's simply the Proper Directorial TONE(important word) was given to a GREAT STORY'S SCENE...The actor(s) did their job in accordance to a GREAT SCRIPTED SCENE. When you arrange a bunch of these(GREAT SCRIPTED SCENES) into a 100-125 max page story, You have a MOVIE that GETS IT RIGHT...
That should be the MISSION of EVERY movie...Esp."BLOCKBUSTER SUMMER MOVIES"...I shouldn't be engaged only when Supes is stopping a plane from crashing...I should be GLUED to every frame...Of course, with RETURNS, I WASN'T...Can't blame my A.D.D. this time....
To borrow Tom's line:
"Marvel has always successfully cast itself as the hip, cool underdog to DC’s classy but old-fashioned and often stodgy heroes."
That begs the question:
IS SUPERMAN(as a character, concept, AND a movie) TOO 'SQUARE', TOO OLD FASHIONED, TOO 'STODGY' for today's audiences?
The overgrown boy-scout, the 'truth, justice, and The American Way', the whole "APPLE PIEness" of it all...Nice concepts, all of them, but Tell the TRUTH: WHO(among us as a nation, a world) can relate to them, to HIM, anymore??? In a Post 9/11 world, all those great, noble, iconic ideals feel DATED...almost ANTIQUE. And this is coming from me, a mid-30s self professed(& proud) geek who grew up on Superman, in all his incarnations(comics, George Reeves' TV version, all the movies(though I only claim parts 1 & 2(MY FAVORITE!!!). Truth be told, Superman was never really a favorite character of mine...He's just TOO DAMN POWERFUL...TOO PERFECT...Everything U throw at Superman(excluding Lex luthor & Kryptonite) HAS to be some HUGE GALACTIC MENACE...WHY? He's TOO POWERFUL!!!
Batman was always more my type...No Super Powers, just a PURE WILL TO WIN, Brilliant Detective Skills, Physical Perfection, but FLAWED as a HUMAN BEING
(I LOVED BATMAN during the 'HUSH' Storyline w/Jim Lee. THAT is BATMAN!!!)
But, I digress...SUPERMAN is just not EDGY... WHO always gets the vote for favorite character from Marvel's Much hipper X-men??? WOLVERINE...The epitome of Edginess(which I HOPE will translate into The Wolvy Spinoff...Don't screw it up, boys...I BETTER see some damn NINJAs in there, TOO!)
Think about this: The COOLEST STUFF YOU COULD DO WITH SUPERMAN as a HIGH ACTION Character has ALREADY been DONE...By NEO in THE MATRIX RELOADED...The scene where Neo's flying superspeed to save Morpheus from the Diesel trucks crashing & exploding WAS/IS a KICK ASS Sequence, no matter WHAT opinion you have of The Matrix as an overall series(I know, I know...Too much Philosophical Mumbo Jumbo eventually screwed it up, etc.). At the end of the Burly Brawl, where Neo has whooped up on about 100 Agent Smiths(One of the Best Action Sequences in the last few years), & he crouches in Super-Way & SHOOTS into the Sky...After seeing Neo fly(go back & peep those scenes), weren't you PRAYING The Wachowski's would take a crack at Superman??? Screw you if U didn't...
My solution? Let those iconic Qualities stand(and contrast them against todays society), don't get TOO deep into the Superman Jr plot,leave Lex OUT(or at the most, a small cameo)& let a Hell-Bent, Revenge Seeking GENERAL ZOD escape The Phantom Zone(just Zod...No Ursula or Nonn), kidnap either the kid(if U Do have to explore the kid subplot), lois or Martha Kent & DEMAND a fight to the death with Superman...Maybe a Cliffhanger ending sees Superman having to go INTO THE PHANTOM ZONE after Zod has thrown the kid into the Deadly realm...Perfect Segway to PART 3(which can be shot concurrently or right after part 2 a la' PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN or LORD OF THE RINGS).Think of it: Zod's Free & loose on Earth & Superman has to find & fight his way OUT...With time ticking away...Talk about ACTION & DRAMA...See, what did I tell you: A GREAT STORY IDEA which would make a Great Script...Did it cost 200 million? No...just an Hour or so of sleep from someone whose Beautiful infant daughter will PROBABLY wake up ANY minute & kill any chances of him crashing...
HELL, JUST GIMME THE SCRIPT ASSIGNEMENT!!! I'll Kick SUPES up a NOTCH...
To Singer & co.: JUST PLEASE GET IT RIGHT!!!!
OK, I'm RAMBLING...5 a.m. will DO that to U...
I GO NAP-TIME NOW...
sams_eyes@yahoo.com
Posted by: Astral Anchor | September 10, 2006 at 03:27 AM