Man of Steel (2013)

[23Barrettcity]

but using that logic ironman wasnt suppose to do ironman numbers cuz before the movie no one even knew who the fukk he was dont try and distort the argument by bringing up superman returns breh the moment overated nolan was attached to this ppl knew this would be a different tone and were ready to see it do the numbers the last 2 batman movies did if not best them

You don't know what your talking about . Your comparing sequels to a first in a franchise ? Iron man 1 and 2 didn't even do mos numbers neither did batman begins or Thor or cap . If you can't use common sense to see that sequels make more money than idk what to tell you

 

[Kartel13]

no, nicca, this film had a budget of 225 million, to just make 242 is unacceptable, that shiet bombed

Breh, worldwide numbers do matter in films. That's the reason why Pacific Rim even got a sniff at a sequel. It was considered a bomb in the US but made up for it worldwide.

If you want to compare MOS numbers, I'd compare them with Iron Man 2, even Amazing Spiderman.

 

[Kartel13]

but using that logic ironman wasnt suppose to do ironman numbers cuz before the movie no one even knew who the fukk he was dont try and distort the argument by bringing up superman returns breh the moment overated nolan was attached to this ppl knew this would be a different tone and were ready to see it do the numbers the last 2 batman movies did if not best them

This clown still pulling shyt out of his ass.

 

[Jello Biafra]

It was successful enough to get a sequel which is all that matters.
Bunch a clowns in here touting other movie box office numbers like they work for Disney and shyt. Box office had nothing to do with a discussion on the quality of a movie. Iron Man 3 made a ridiculous amount of money and was one of the shyttiest movies of the year. Them Twilight movies made a grip but they were all terrible.
And regardless of how much money it made MOS still stands as the best comic book movie of 2013 so far (haven't seen Thor yet so that #1slot is still in play).

 

[daemonova]

It made movie than 242 Breh, I take it you know nothing about whats considered a bomb
Man of Steel earned $291,045,518 in North America and an estimated $371,800,000 in other countries, for a worldwide total of $662,845,518,[8] making it the highest-grossing Superman film ever, and the second-highest-grossing reboot of all time behindThe Amazing Spider-Man, although it did beat The Amazing Spider-Man domestically.
It's a successful movie anyway you slice it .

 

[Kartel13]

It was successful enough to get a sequel which is all that matters.
Bunch a clowns in here touting other movie box office numbers like they work for Disney and shyt. Box office had nothing to do with a discussion on the quality of a movie. Iron Man 3 made a ridiculous amount of money and was one of the shyttiest movies of the year. Them Twilight movies made a grip but they were all terrible.
And regardless of how much money it made MOS still stands as the best comic book movie of 2013 so far (haven't seen Thor yet so that #1slot is still in play).

I'm only disputing the fact that some clown said it under performed which I think is nonsense. And the only way to refute such a silly statement is to compare them with other comic book films.

And there wasn't a single article online that stated MOS under performed at the box office.

 

[daemonova]

You don't know what your talking about . Your comparing sequels to a first in a franchise ? Iron man 1 and 2 didn't even do mos numbers neither did batman begins or Thor or cap . If you can't use common sense to see that sequels make more money than idk what to tell you

thor and cap didn't have the expectations of man of steel, they were doing the heavy lifting for Avengers, Iron man was not an established franchise, you can compare it to Iron Man 2 since they bacically merged the first two Superman movies into 1

Iron Man 2 - 312 million to your 291

niccas better pray thor 2 don't break 300 million domestic, or I am going to spazz out like rick ross after a double stack

 

[stepbackj34spud]

It was successful enough to get a sequel which is all that matters.
Bunch a clowns in here touting other movie box office numbers like they work for Disney and shyt. Box office had nothing to do with a discussion on the quality of a movie. Iron Man 3 made a ridiculous amount of money and was one of the shyttiest movies of the year. Them Twilight movies made a grip but they were all terrible.
And regardless of how much money it made MOS still stands as the best comic book movie of 2013 so far (haven't seen Thor yet so that #1slot is still in play).

Iron man 3 may have been one of the worst "super hero" movies of all-time.

 

[Jazzy B.]

The movie underperformed, they were definitely expecting more money to be made, big budget+mass marketing+Christopher Nolan's "name"+one of the world's most famous superheroes, should have made $800M-$900M like the original Spiderman flicks did back in the day, it's gonna look even worse when Thor 2, a virtually new Superhero makes similar amount if not more worldwide and domestically. Iron Man and Iron Man 2 didn't even have 3D or the added China boost and were close to Man of Steel's gross. In fact the first two Iron Man films made more money than Man of Steel in the states.

 

[Kartel13]

The movie underperformed, they were definitely expecting more money to be made, big budget+mass marketing+Christopher Nolan's "name"+one of the world's most famous superheroes, should have made $800M-$900M like the original Spiderman flicks did back in the day, it's gonna look even worse when Thor 2, a virtually new Superhero makes similar amount if not more worldwide and domestically. Iron Man and Iron Man 2 didn't even have 3D or the added China boost and were close to Man of Steel's gross. In fact the first two Iron Man films made more money than Man of Steel in the states.

If that's the case, then why was Superman Returns such a bomb? It too had a nice budget at the time, world's most famous super hereo, a 2 time academy award winner as the villain, and Bryan Singer as the director (Whom had the successfull X-men movies under his belt).

 

[Roman Brady]

You don't know what your talking about . Your comparing sequels to a first in a franchise ?

where do i "compare" first movies to sequels?

Iron man 1 and 2 didn't even do mos numbers

you totally missed the point about ironman

neither did batman begins or Thor or cap .

Dont know if its intentional or if you have adhd and cant stick to the topic but u are going on an irrelevant tangent.Its a "superman movie" spearheaded by everyones false god nolan. On paper it was suppose to shatter records, the fact that it did more numbers than obscure heroes is what it was suppose to u can cite mos outdoing bb all u want but to my knowledge inflation and 3d werent included in those final receipts

 

[Jazzy B.]

If that's the case, then why was Superman Returns such a bomb? It too had a nice budget at the time, world's most famous super hereo, a 2 time academy award winner as the villain, and Bryan Singer as the director (Whom had the successfull X-men movies under his belt).

Byran Singer's "name" wasn't as big as Nolan's "name" is now when Returns was released, maybe back in the late 90's towards X-Men's release when he did The Usual Suspects but in 2006 . X-MEN films also aren't regarded as highly as the The Dark Knight or Inception. Also superhero movies weren't as popular or as mainstream as they are right now, they're even bigger than they were before 2008, after The Dark Knight and Iron Man crushed buildings and The Avengers in 2012, 4 superhero movies have recently made over $1B, one is the third highest grossing film of all time another is the 5th. If Superman Returns was released today, it would have made more money that it did back in the day. I would say it flopped because it was a bad film, wasn't enjoyable, had terrible word of mouth and looked outdated. It didn't look like a $200M film. The character also needed to be reinvented, look at how Nolan redefined, modernised and distanced his Batman from the one's before. Yet Superman Returns tried to be like the outdated original Donnor films.

 

[Jello Biafra]

The movie underperformed, they were definitely expecting more money to be made, big budget+mass marketing+Christopher Nolan's "name"+one of the world's most famous superheroes, should have made $800M-$900M like the original Spiderman flicks did back in the day, it's gonna look even worse when Thor 2, a virtually new Superhero makes similar amount if not more worldwide and domestically. Iron Man and Iron Man 2 didn't even have 3D or the added China boost and were close to Man of Steel's gross. In fact the first two Iron Man films made more money than Man of Steel in the states.

It didn't underperform though. WB knew that the stigma on the character was going to be an issue after the unpopular reception that Superman Returns got. They will be expecting major numbers with the sequel but the studio had more realistic expectations for MOS. As for Thor 2, that movie has ties to the biggest movie ever in The Avengers so expectations for it (and all of he solo Avengers movies) are expected to perform at a high level at the box office.
And again I reiterate that how much money it made doesn't matter because it made enough to be viewed as successful enough for a sequel and it was a good, entertaining movie which is all anyone who doesn't work for WB should give a fukk about.

 

[Kartel13]

Byran Singer's "name" wasn't as big as Nolan's "name" is now when Returns was released, maybe back in the late 90's towards X-Men's release when he did The Usual Suspects but in 2006 . X-MEN films also aren't regarded as highly as the The Dark Knight or Inception. Also superhero movies weren't as popular or as mainstream as they are right now, they're even bigger than they were before 2008, after The Dark Knight and Iron Man crushed buildings and The Avengers in 2012, 4 superhero movies have recently made over $1B, one is the third highest grossing film of all time another is the 5th. If Superman Returns was released today, it would have made more money that it did back in the day. I would say it flopped because it was a bad film, wasn't enjoyable, had terrible word of mouth and looked outdated. It didn't look like a $200M film. The character also needed to be reinvented, look at how Nolan redefined, modernised and distanced his Batman from the one's before. Yet Superman Returns tried to be like the outdated original Donnor films.

Breh, you can't compare TDK, Iron Man 3, or The Avengers to MOS. Those films are already established franchises. If anything, MOS was neck and neck Iron Man 2 and The Amazing Spiderman.

MOS was a reboot and reinvention of a comic book character that isn't as appealing as he once was. Doesn't matter how famous or iconic Superman is, many consider him too much of a boyscout in this world that has super heroes murking people with no remorse.

 

[Kartel13]

It didn't underperform though. WB knew that the stigma on the character was going to be an issue after the unpopular reception that Superman Returns got. They will be expecting major numbers with the sequel but the studio had more realistic expectations for MOS. As for Thor 2, that movie has ties to the biggest movie ever in The Avengers so expectations for it (and all of he solo Avengers movies) are expected to perform at a high level at the box office.
And again I reiterate that how much money it made doesn't matter because it made enough to be viewed as successful enough for a sequel and it was a good, entertaining movie which is all anyone who doesn't work for WB should give a fukk about.

Couldn't have said it better myself.