Goku and Superman Popularity

[Dbzk1999]

Batman is significantly more popular than Superman. While Batman was having record breaking blockbuster films Superman had a movie that made chump change so was demoted to TV shows.

Which superman movie are you talking about!

He isn't quite aware what he's talking about. Attempts at another Superman movie were effectively nonstop from when Cannon film's Superman 4 bombed to the day Superman Returns came out.

Warner was so desperate to get the film rights themselves that they used some legal trickery to get the film rights to the character, which at the time they didn't actually have film rights to.

He's confusing the idea of Superman not having a film in that timeframe because of behind the scenes issues with them not 'wanting' to make one. They were quite desperate to have one. Various contracts in the intervening years were pay or play, which means they were so dedicated to getting a new film made people were given guaranteed paydays, even if no film ever came out (the most notable I believe was the period when Tim Burton was given a $5 million pay or play.)

There are 6 theatrical full length Superman features at the moment.

Between 4 not doing well and Returns coming out they tried to make more than the number of films that currently exist- Superman 5, 2 different versions of a film called Superman Reborn, 2 different films called Superman Lives (actually... 3, but I don't recall if the first one prior to Smith coming on was called Superman Lives or not), a film called Superman: Man of Steel (this pitch involved a story that could be stretched out to half a dozen sequels if it was successful as I recall), at one point Nic Cage was helping write a script (different from Superman Lives when he was hired to be Superman), then you had a few various versions of a Batman Vs. Superman movie, and finally you had JJ Abrams utterly psychotic Superman Flyby, which fell apart when it's director dropped out, which led to Superman Returns.

The list of actors and directors were were chased after to do Superman during that period is almost hilarious.

Bullza is simply making the common mistake of "A movie hasn't come out, therefore there was no interest" when anyone who follows film news through the 90s and early 2000s knows that news about new Superman movies was nearly nonstop.

Ok
I remember reading about how they were desperate to make a superman movie (along with crossover with batman, justice league, etc.)

[Polyphase Avatron]

There has not been a good Superman movie since Superman 2 way back in 1981. Unless you count some of the animated/DCAU movies.

[dario03]

There has not been a good Superman movie since Superman 2 way back in 1981. Unless you count some of the animated/DCAU movies.

Then there is a bunch of good ones.

[Kid Buu]

There has not been a good Superman movie since Superman 2 way back in 1981. Unless you count some of the animated/DCAU movies.

If you're only gonna go by Superman's live-action films, than I guess we should only use Goku's live-action films in this comparison.

[Bullza]

Bullza is simply making the common mistake of "A movie hasn't come out, therefore there was no interest" when anyone who follows film news through the 90s and early 2000s knows that news about new Superman movies was nearly nonstop.

Everything you just said was an assumption and an incorrect one at that. I know perfectly well that there were several attempts at making a movie, there's even pictures of Nicolas Cage in a Superman costume from one such attempt. I never said they didn't want to make one, I said there wasn't one and there wasn't.

Please read carefully next time.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Nicholas Cage as Superman would be amazing.

"Oh no, not the Kryptonite! Not the Kryptonite! Oh no it's in my eyes! My eyes! GAAAAAAAAAH!"

[MarcFBR]

Bullza is simply making the common mistake of "A movie hasn't come out, therefore there was no interest" when anyone who follows film news through the 90s and early 2000s knows that news about new Superman movies was nearly nonstop.

Everything you just said was an assumption and an incorrect one at that.

I know perfectly well that there were several attempts at making a movie, there's even pictures of Nicolas Cage in a Superman costume from one such attempt. I never said they didn't want to make one, I said there wasn't one and there wasn't.

Please read carefully next time.

Maybe you should read your own posts next time, because I didn't make any assumption. And you didn't just say there "wasn't one"

While Batman was having record breaking blockbuster films Superman had a movie that made chump change so was demoted to TV shows and when he finally did he get a film (Superman Returns) it flopped.

You made a specific statement that Superman was 'demoted to tv' after he had a movie that made 'chump change' (you refer to Superman Returns later so the film you are referring to has to be 4) thereby explaining the period of nearly 20 years without a Superman film as a reaction to 4 not doing well, while attempts to make a new Superman film were basically nonstop for almost the entire period.

The fact you said something stupid and got called out on it and you felt the need to be flippant in response while ignoring (or potentially forgetting about) your own statements doesn't change that you made them.

And that's without getting into your statement of Superman Returns being a flop, which anyone who knows about how accounting works in Hollywood could tell you it certainly didn't flop

[Bullza]

Maybe you should read your own posts next time, because I didn't make any assumption.

You did indeed because you're assuming that 1) That I didn't know that there were plans throughout the 90's to make another Superman movie and 2) That I think they didn't make another movie in 18 years solely because Superman IV bombed and you're wrong on both accounts.

All I was practically saying was that Superman IV bombed, the character ended up on the small screen, meanwhile Batman was having successful blockbusters on the big screen, when Superman did get another film in 2006 it flopped. So you're interpretation of what I said was just flat out wrong.

So like I said next time read what is said carefully before making assumptions then acting all uppity afterwards after you're corrected.

And that's without getting into your statement of Superman Returns being a flop, which anyone who knows about how accounting works in Hollywood could tell you it certainly didn't flop

A box office rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make twice it's production budget to break even. Superman Returns had a production budget of up to $270 million with $100 million for marketing and only made $391 million. It flopped.

[MarcFBR]

All I was practically saying was that Superman IV bombed, the character ended up on the small screen, meanwhile Batman was having successful blockbusters on the big screen, when Superman did get another film in 2006 it flopped. So you're interpretation of what I said was just flat out wrong.

Except that isn't what you actually said.

So like I said next time read what is said carefully before making assumptions then acting all uppity afterwards after you're corrected.

I wasn't corrected for any mistake I made, you misspoke and simply refuse to admit it.

A box office rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make twice it's production budget to break even. Superman Returns had a production budget of up to $270 million with $100 million for marketing and only made $391 million. It flopped.

Which isn't quite true. The $270 million number includes ALL the prior attempts Warner did at making the film including pay to play deals along with other elements.

Based on comments from those involved, roughly $70 million was pre-production on the prior un-made Superman films, so that's down to $200 million already.

The movie was a success (not a raging success, but a success none the less) and they were rather prepared to do a sequel but various staff issues (Singer having another film and the writers became busy) began to put Warner off it as it had been to long. Obviously had Returns been an unstoppable a success the delay wouldn't have meant much, but you don't actively have work being done for a flop. Moreso when you take into account home video sales, which everyone stopped counting for Returns when it hit just under $90 million (which as I recall only counts the initial solo release, not the big box that came out the same day.) For comparison, the top Blu-ray of a film this year so far is Big Hero 6, which hasn't hit $50 million. (And of course, product sales aren't taken into account at all.)

It's sort of like the 'ehh' performance of Amazing Spider-Man 2. Sony cares it didn't do great, enough to team up with Marvel in the future. But if Sony had merchandising rights for Spider-Man, that conversation would have never happened.

[Bullza]

Except that isn't what you actually said.

That's why I said practically. What I didn't say was that during no point between Superman IV and Returns were their any plans to make a Superman movie and that their were none because Superman IV bombed yet somehow you came to that conclusion, which is a false one.

Which isn't quite true. The $270 million number includes ALL the prior attempts Warner did at making the film including pay to play deals along with other elements.

It doesn't particularly matter, it was all a cost that went into the production of the next Superman movie even if it wasn't Superman Returns specifically. Superman Returns itself cost around $204 million and the movie still didn't make twice that amount either. At the very least it was a theatrical box office flop.

It still costs money to manufacture and advertise DVD's and the $85 million it did make is still poor itself when Ghost Rider did $104 million and performed worse commercially and critically than what Superman Returns did.

If they had really wanted to make a sequel, had it had any worthwhile success they would have found a way to make a sequel. It may not have pulled a Green Lantern but grossing only $390 million on even as little as $204 million is just downright poor.

Even Bryan Singer said he didn't think the movie did "THAT bad" something he would never have to emphasis if the movie's performance hadn't been considered bad in the first place.

The Amazing Spider-man 2's performance is considered "ehh" because it made $708 million in theatres when it cost $430 million to produce and market. Superman Returns made $390 million in theatres when it cost $350 million to produce and market, that's not "ehh" that's poor.

[rereboy]

Apparently, Superman Returns, with its budget, plus the development costs since the early 1990s, plus the marketing costs, had a cost of around 350 million. So, a grossing of 391 million is obviously not something they were very enthusiastic about.

[MarcFBR]

Except that isn't what you actually said.

That's why I said practically. What I didn't say was that during no point between Superman IV and Returns were their any plans to make a Superman movie and that their were none because Superman IV bombed yet somehow you came to that conclusion, which is a false one.

Except not really. The fact you tried to use hyperbole to make your point and did so poorly is on you.

Which isn't quite true. The $270 million number includes ALL the prior attempts Warner did at making the film including pay to play deals along with other elements.

It doesn't particularly matter, it was all a cost that went into the production of the next Superman movie even if it wasn't Superman Returns specifically. Superman Returns itself cost around $204 million and the movie still didn't make twice that amount either. At the very least it was a theatrical box office flop.

It did fine in theaters. It wasn't a grand success, but it made a very nice bit of money.

By your logic the Harry Potter movies bombed, as according to their budget-sheets any money they could have made were lost in other ways.

It still costs money to manufacture and advertise DVD's and the $85 million it did make is still poor itself when Ghost Rider did $104 million and performed worse commercially and critically than what Superman Returns did.

Not quite. As I said, the numbers I gave for Superman did not count any of the various bundles, which were popular sellers (Especially that big box. I'm shocked at how often I see people who started DVD collections in the mid 2000s who have that box.) It also doesn't take into account how Returns did in the rental market (on the downturn, but still a significant market at the time, as I recall Superman Returns did roughly $15 million it's initial week.)

Also, where exactly are you getting your numbers from? I've never seen the number 104 associated with Ghost Rider. I've never seen it listed past $100 million on home video sales (often a chunk less than that even) and it hit $115 domestic so I'm not quite sure what your number is in reference to (perhaps a boosted number taking into account the Ghost Rider double bundle when the second film came out?)

If they had really wanted to make a sequel, had it had any worthwhile success they would have found a way to make a sequel. It may not have pulled a Green Lantern but grossing only $390 million on even as little as $204 million is just downright poor.

Which ignores they had long term plans to do a sequel and only ever cancelled them when it became obvious the team that put together Returns probably would not be coming back and since they wanted a piece of the pie Marvel was making it made more sense logically to start over.

Even Bryan Singer said he didn't think the movie did "THAT bad" something he would never have to emphasis if the movie's performance hadn't been considered bad in the first place.

When the common assumption many people make is the movie bombed, yes, he does.

The Amazing Spider-man 2's performance is considered "ehh" because it made $708 million in theatres when it cost $430 million to produce and market. Superman Returns made $390 million in theatres when it cost $350 million to produce and market, that's not "ehh" that's poor.

That's poor based on numbers you've kind of fudged and don't explain and ignoring that Sony doesn't have merchandising for Spider-Man. It's possible for any movie to be declared a failure or success. Return of the Jedi, financially speaking, is still (legally/financially) in the red. While Warner did have massive marketing for Superman Returns, much of that was TV commercials, and many of those were in fact 'make goods' which Warner paid nothing for.

You're looking at surface numbers and declaring it a success or failure when the movie did fine. It wasn't a grand success, it wasn't a failure, it did 'well enough.'

But I'll go ahead and point to Forbes which disagrees with it being called a bomb. It gets the label for various reasons, including the tossing of prior Superman budgets on it for accounting purposes- http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendel ... at-werent/

[Bullza]

Except not really.

"Except not really" nothing. It's not what I said, it's not what I implied. I didn't say or imply it because I know full well it's not the case. You assume that's what I was saying but I wasn't so you're wrong, it's as simple as that.

It did fine in theaters. It wasn't a grand success, but it made a very nice bit of money.

It made a nice bit of money compared to the average blockbuster at the time but it did poor in relation to it's budget. It had a similar budget to X-men 3 (not including that extra $70 million) but $70 million less and it had a similar budget to Spider-man 2 and that made twice as much as Superman Returns.

By your logic the Harry Potter movies bombed

It's not by logic it's a well known rule of thumb. Studios keep half the gross so a movie needs to make double the production budget to break even, Superman Returns did not double it's production budget of up to $270 million.

Harry Potter got seven sequels where was Superman Returns sequel?

As I said, the numbers I gave for Superman did not count any of the various bundles, which were popular sellers (Especially that big box.

The Superman Ultimate Collectors Edition that released the same day as Superman Returns sold 342,000 units by it's second week a fraction of what Superman Returns alone did. It's not as though they can say that it sold because of Superman Returns in particular either. Ghost Rider has various bundles.

An apples to apples comparison shows Ghost Rider alone outside Superman Returns alone despite it being far less successful and far more disliked.

Also, where exactly are you getting your numbers from?

It's on The Numbers.

Which ignores they had long term plans to do a sequel and only ever cancelled them when it became obvious the team that put together Returns probably would not be coming back

Just because one movie flops or underperforms it doesn't automatically write off a sequel from doing better. They recognised that the lack of action was probably one of the causes and Bryan Singer said a sequel would have more action. The team behind Batman and Batman Returns didn't come back yet they soon replaced them and did a sequel. Singer didn't return for X-men 3 they soon replaced him. There was that ordeal with Spider-man 4 which almost happened but then it didn't and then next thing you know a reboot is in the works.

If Superman Returns was successful and they wanted a sequel then there would be one.

That's poor based on numbers you've kind of fudged and don't explain

The Amazing Spider-man 2 had a production budget of $255 million, a domestic advertising budget of $90 million and an overseas advertising budget of $85 million, total of $430 million. There are many other figures involving in both cost and earnings (including $25 million for merchandise) but according to Deadline it amounts to the studio having a net profit of $70 million.

An Entertainment Weekly article puts the movies cost at over $350 million actually ($363 million) and with it only making $390 million at the theatrical box office there's no way it made money.

But I'll go ahead and point to Forbes which disagrees with it being called a bomb.

Well it didn't bomb, it flopped or underperformed. Your article doesn't really even explain why it wasn't a bomb. It says the film had an official budget of $270 million which if it was Batman Begins budget would have have made it a flop, Superman Returns only made a bit more.

[MarcFBR]

Except not really.

"Except not really" nothing. It's not what I said, it's not what I implied. I didn't say or imply it because I know full well it's not the case. You assume that's what I was saying but I wasn't so you're wrong, it's as simple as that.

No, you apparently want people to infer a different meaning from what you actually wrote. You can say you meant whatever you meant but if you didn't use the words, it didn't mean that.

It made a nice bit of money compared to the average blockbuster at the time but it did poor in relation to it's budget. It had a similar budget to X-men 3 (not including that extra $70 million) but $70 million less and it had a similar budget to Spider-man 2 and that made twice as much as Superman Returns.

See, that I can agree with. You wording elsewhere suggested did far worse than it acutally did.

It's not by logic it's a well known rule of thumb. Studios keep half the gross so a movie needs to make double the production budget to break even, Superman Returns did not double it's production budget of up to $270 million.

Harry Potter got seven sequels where was Superman Returns sequel?

Again, when the principal people behind the scenes were busy, at some point it becomes more valuable to reboot. (Spider-Man 3 did amazingly well, but once issues between Sony cropped up and Raimi walked, despite them being ready to go, it became easier to just tank Spider-Man 4 and reboot.)

And to be clear, every single Harry Potter movie as far as Warner's financials list LOST money. My point is that the way financials are presented can make nearly any movie a success or a bomb.

An apples to apples comparison shows Ghost Rider alone outside Superman Returns alone despite it being far less successful and far more disliked.

And apples to apples is never quite exact because for example- Ghost Rider had crap merchandising, but Superman sold quite a bit.

It's on The Numbers.

They've apparently upped the number they had listed for Ghost Rider than, as it had a different number the last time I looked.

Just because one movie flops or underperforms it doesn't automatically write off a sequel from doing better. They recognised that the lack of action was probably one of the causes and Bryan Singer said a sequel would have more action. The team behind Batman and Batman Returns didn't come back yet they soon replaced them and did a sequel. Singer didn't return for X-men 3 they soon replaced him. There was that ordeal with Spider-man 4 which almost happened but then it didn't and then next thing you know a reboot is in the works.

Yes, but you are also just giving examples without context. Batman Returns was a big film that also had various issues because of marketing (the film was marketed as something everyone could enjoy, had Happy Meal tie ins, etc, but really didn't work well for kids) but they weren't really to risk the franchise, so they made the next one more all ages friendly.

In the case of X-Men 3, they put it on the fast track to spite Singer and they had a franchise that had a popular cast and lead.

Spider-Man 4 had a reboot because Raimi was out with the issues, Maguire was effectively unwilling to be productive without him, AND Sony still wanted script changes. At that point it made more sense to tank everything and start over (and that had already had 3 films and made a decent enough endpoint with the various issues cropping up.)

If Superman Returns was successful and they wanted a sequel then there would be one.

Which I actually said elsewhere. If it were a runaway success they would have made it happen. Between Singer being wafty and going to do other films, the writers leaving, etc, it just made more sense to start over.

The Amazing Spider-man 2 had a production budget of $255 million, a domestic advertising budget of $90 million and an overseas advertising budget of $85 million, total of $430 million. There are many other figures involving in both cost and earnings (including $25 million for merchandise) but according to Deadline it amounts to the studio having a net profit of $70 million.

An Entertainment Weekly article puts the movies cost at over $350 million actually ($363 million) and with it only making $390 million at the theatrical box office there's no way it made money.

And that Sony has little to no merchandising on Spider-Man. Which is the key issue. If they had merchandising they wouldn't be concerned enough to run to Marvel for help.

Well it didn't bomb, it flopped or underperformed. Your article doesn't really even explain why it wasn't a bomb. It says the film had an official budget of $270 million which if it was Batman Begins budget would have have made it a flop, Superman Returns only made a bit more.

Underperformed, certainly, based on various people definitions. Flopped, certainly not. Superman Returns certainly could have used more action, but by and large it did what it was supposed to do. The fact other people had projects they wanted to work on first tends to happen in Hollywood (hell... it's why Singer didn't direct X-Men 3 in the first place, because he really wanted to do Superman.)

Sometimes films just don't happen, pointing to numbers and going "that's why" is rarely the full and proper story.

Don't worry though, they're still trying to make Austin Powers 4 happen, so we all have that to look forward to.

[Bullza]

No, you apparently want people to infer a different meaning from what you actually wrote.

What I wrote was that Superman had a film that bombed, ended up on a couple TV shows while the competition had successful films, then once he got it a film it flopped. That's the meaning behind what I said, you just misinterpreted it and made assumptions that just happened to be wrong.

Again, when the principal people behind the scenes were busy, at some point it becomes more valuable to reboot.

It took seven years for that reboot to come out. They could have got a sequel out in three years had they wanted to. If the movie was any kind of success and they thought a sequel would be successful if would have definitely have happened. Other franchises have swapped major players all the time and still had movies out quickly.

And to be clear, every single Harry Potter movie as far as Warner's financials list LOST money.

OOTP is the only movie I've heard has lost money as that was well documented. I've never seen anything like that said about the rest.

Yes, but you are also just giving examples without context.

The examples still stand, they had issues and a change of hands yet they still got made because the previous movies (Batman Returns, Spider-man 3 and X-men 2) had all been successful and they didn't want to hang around with a hot property. If Superman Returns was anything like them they would have made the movie happen but they didn't.

There's an interesting article from August 06 that mentions that they're mulling over whether to do a sequel or not and that they'd probably invested too much time and money to just walk away, even though months before Superman Returns came out a sequel was announced for 2009.

It mentions how they a "shot" at just breaking even once all revenue was accounted for and that it'd take a long time even then.

There's mention of the sequel probably having a smaller budget and Returns counting on strong DVD's sales which it didn't seem to have.

This is not the making of a successful film and the film at large with what WB most likely wanted out of it certainly wasn't a success. After all the different plans and money spent on the next Superman film they ended up making one that severly underperformed, never got a sequel and just got started over again.

[MarcFBR]

No, you apparently want people to infer a different meaning from what you actually wrote.

What I wrote was that Superman had a film that bombed, ended up on a couple TV shows while the competition had successful films, then once he got it a film it flopped. That's the meaning behind what I said, you just misinterpreted it and made assumptions that just happened to be wrong.

No, I went off what you ACTUALLY wrote down. The fact your statement was badly written hyperbole changed it's meaning. The fact you 'meant' something else is immaterial to the fact that it isn't what you wrote.

It took seven years for that reboot to come out. They could have got a sequel out in three years had they wanted to. If the movie was any kind of success and they thought a sequel would be successful if would have definitely have happened. Other franchises have swapped major players all the time and still had movies out quickly.

Actually, no they really couldn't have. By the time everyone was ready to go contracts were ending, and multiple people still would have had to have been replaced behind the scenes. It literally became not worth doing, especially since they wanted to start over and go for the Marvel shared universe pie (I believe at the end it still had a release date of... May 2010 as I recall.)

OOTP is the only movie I've heard has lost money as that was well documented. I've never seen anything like that said about the rest.

Order of the Phoenix is the one primarily known about because one of their budget sheets got leaked. It's a rather common claim with successful films and TV shows. In the 90s one of Warner's own cartoon series made a joke about the matter. Perhaps the most amusing for our purposes- The original Batman was legally $40 million in the red when they greenlit a sequel.

The examples still stand, they had issues and a change of hands yet they still got made because the previous movies (Batman Returns, Spider-man 3 and X-men 2) had all been successful and they didn't want to hang around with a hot property. If Superman Returns was anything like them they would have made the movie happen but they didn't.

Which is still a misunderstanding of the elements at play, which you seemingly ignored when I explained.)

There's an interesting article from August 06 that mentions that they're mulling over whether to do a sequel or not and that they'd probably invested too much time and money to just walk away, even though months before Superman Returns came out a sequel was announced for 2009.

It mentions how they a "shot" at just breaking even once all revenue was accounted for and that it'd take a long time even then.

Which again, Hollywood accounting. Based on Warner's own budget statement's (even taking into account the money that WASN'T spent on Returns that they love to add to the public facing budget) it's quite impossible for the film to not have been showing a profit.

There's mention of the sequel probably having a smaller budget and Returns counting on strong DVD's sales which it didn't seem to have.

It did about what was expected. If it didn't, especially with your claim that it did poorly theatrically certainly would have shut the door on them wanting to do more. The fact they were still trying to get it off the ground until they finally just decided to reboot in the later half of 2008 (the 2 elements that perhaps hurt the attempt at a sequel the most were Valkyrie and the 2007/08 Writers Guild Strike.)

This is not the making of a successful film and the film at large with what WB most likely wanted out of it certainly wasn't a success. After all the different plans and money spent on the next Superman film they ended up making one that severly underperformed, never got a sequel and just got started over again.

Underperformed based on what they wanted? Certainly. It did 391, after the fact they claimed they wanted it to have done 500. Of course, the fact they had never discussed that number previously.

The fact of the matter is: Batman has always been more marketable than Superman and Batman at the time pulled 374. Based on that number alone they can't have expected Superman to do 500 because they know how much more money Batman makes than Superman.

[Kid Buu]

I wouldn't be surprised if Superman IV, despite being a failure, probably still sold more tickets than any DBZ theater release in the US.

[MarcFBR]

I wouldn't be surprised if Superman IV, despite being a failure, probably still sold more tickets than any DBZ theater release in the US.

If you ignore adjusting for inflation (just taking the numbers at face value) Superman 4 did roughly 6x Battle of Gods (Superman 4's gross was about 92% of it's budget, was done by a lower budget studio that pumped out crap after crap, the same year they did the He-Man film, a few years later they did Captain America, they nearly did a Spider-Man film also. The JCVD film Cyborg used some assets that were meant for Spider-Man as I recall.)

The oddity of how Cannon did business at the time means that they actually did cover their costs (before the movie ever hit theaters in fact,) but they shot themselves in the foot in regards to being able to make real money on many of their larger films at the time, eventually leading to them going bye bye. (Jon Cryer always contented that Cannon ran out of money and part of the reason the film was as bad as it was was that it wasn't actually done. Not that it was ever going to be great, but the stories of that films production are horribly hilarious.)

[Bullza]

No, I went off what you ACTUALLY wrote down.

I don't remember writing down that Superman IV bombed so they shelved all plans for another Superman movie until Superman Returns. It could be because I didn't write that down yet somehow that's the assumption that you made.

It literally became not worth doing

Only because of the poor performance of that first movie. If Superman Returns was successful and a sequel was worth doing they would have got around it easily. Nobody was seemingly in that much of a rush to get the movie out afterwards.

The fact of the matter is: Batman has always been more marketable than Superman and Batman at the time pulled 374. Based on that number alone they can't have expected Superman to do 500 because they know how much more money Batman makes than Superman.

That's got nothing to do with it. Batman Begins was always said to have suffered a blow at the box office because of the bad will of Batman & Robin. It would have made significantly more if it wasn't for that movie. Likewise Superman Returns was supposed to play off the good will of Batman Begins and the fact it was the first Superman film in 18 years but it didn't.

I remember the sheer amount of discussion the movie had on Box Office Mojo, people expecting it to make Spider-man level of money domestically and whether it or Dead Man's Chest would be #1 in 2006 and the movie really disappointed.

The movie really should have made at least $500 million and it wasn't unrealistic at all. They wouldn't have pumped so much money into it if they thought they'd only make around $400 million.

[MarcFBR]

I think it's about time I exit this conversation to have conversations with people who haven't spun into arguing with points they themselves made earlier in the conversation. I could take the mistyping and attempt to put new words into your mouth that were never there rather than just going "Whoops, that's not what I meant" but when you are actively arguing with things you've said earlier... I'm out.