Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[karamazov80]

blue parka.

On a geek toy forum, posting this is like waving a loaded gun around.

Speaking of Olson, of course it sucks that he met his demise. But damn if we didn't have fun watching him go.

 

[Starscream Soundwave]

Wow, people that like BvS really hate critics

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Wow, people that like BvS really hate critics

Truth hurts

 

[kryptonianmutie]

Speaking of keys, I wonder if we'll ever see this in the Snyderverse:

It would probably be in slow motion.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

No. It started profiting once it got past $550-600 million worldwide. I broke out it down earlier in the thread.

In the end it will profit about $250-$300 million from its initial box office run.

Thats only assumming 250mil budget and not counting the supposed marketing for the film, which some sites have stated over 100mil.

 

[moose]

I know. I still think it's ********, though, and I feel like, maybe not all of them, but, at least, some of them failed to do their jobs, because, ultimately, you're supposed to be objective, and I failed to see that. I can't count how many reviews I saw that said something along the lines of "too dark," "too dour," "not fun," or any variety of those buzzwords. I look at it this way, if you go into "Braveheart" expecting "Forrest Gump," you're going to be disappointed. Both are technically the same genre; they're both dramas, but that's pretty much the only common ground you can find. Both are good movies in their own right, and, even though they're different, people recognize that.

That was simply not the case with this movie. Did it have problems? Absolutely. Pacing issues? Sure. Are there areas for improvement? Definitely. Do I think the Ultimate Edition will be a better movie? Hopefully, but, as I said, it's telling when the same people who are reviewing the film post their "trailer reactions" each and every time a new one hits, and their opinion of the finished product is exactly the same. You see this consistent trend of "what Marvel is doing..." and "what makes Marvel so good..." and you can't help but feel like many of these people are straining their credibility.

Hum , I used to be pretty naive about these things especially when it came to the YouTube reviewers who were the only ones I was actually paying attention to then realized that they were Turing this in to a means of earning an income i should have guessed when they moved from a couch to a studio.

The realization came with the TFA when the reviews were coming in both on YouTube and Rotten tomatoes and I was shocked how could this blatant copy of episode 4 be getting such praise it was a joke and ehen they do mention its in passing as though it was a minor nitpick, whatever credibility they had went out the door nothing but sellouts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[IrishJedi]

Thats only assumming 250mil budget and not counting the supposed marketing for the film, which some sites have stated over 100mil.

Yes, I know. The Budget was $247 million. Worldwide marketing was between $145-$160 million, actually... But it was offset by nearly $200 million from promotional partners (like Dr Pepper, Turkish Airlines, etc) who covered that cost. A *conservative* line item in the total budget (accounting for the exhibitors' take from ticket sales) had the film hitting profit somewhere between $550-$600 million worldwide (the range is wide because of differences in ticket sales margins in different countries). So let's say it ends up around $850 million in worldwide box office total (it's at $786 right now)... that would put the profit at about $250-$300. Again, that's before merchandising and home video is factored in later on.

So it wasn't a grand slam home run (The $1-2 billion range appears to be the benchmark these days), but they'll make a decent amount of coin. Also, two of the biggest promotional partners have just re-upped for Wonder Woman and Justice League. So they must feel they got enough out of this as well, which is also important to WB as they will help offset marketing costs again in the future.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Yes, I know. The Budget was $247 million. Worldwide marketing was between $145-$160 million, actually... But it was offset by nearly $200 million from promotional partners (like Dr Pepper, Turkish Airlines, etc) who covered that cost. A *conservative* line item in the total budget (accounting for the exhibitors' take from ticket sales) had the film hitting profit somewhere between $550-$600 million worldwide (the range is wide because of differences in ticket sales margins in different countries). So let's say it ends up around $850 million in worldwide box office total (it's at $786 right now)... that would put the profit at about $250-$300. Again, that's before merchandising and home video is factored in later on.

So it wasn't a grand slam home run (The $1-2 billion range appears to be the benchmark these days), but they'll make a decent amount of coin. Also, two of the biggest promotional partners have just re-upped for Wonder Woman and Justice League. So they must feel they got enough out of this as well, which is also important to WB as they will help offset marketing costs again in the future.

Maybe but maybe not as the Hollywood reporter has come today stating the WB is now mulling taking films off the slate due to the box office of BvS not being what they thought.

If this film had been done the way many percieved it should have been it could have easily made Avengers box office numbers, maybe more. Instead we have a divided fan base, a critical no show and an under performing film.

 

[Ropen]

So we live in a world that judge movies because of meta critics and rt scores oh gosh


Sent from Le iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[karamazov80]

Looking at the differential profits obtained from domestic vs. overseas ticket sales, there is a sizable difference to consider.

For Hollywood, Not All Box Office Dollars Are Equal - WSJ

The cut of each box office dollar that studios take varies from as little as 25 cents in China to about 50 cents in the U.S.

Based on that, even in a best-case scenario, only 50 cents of every box office dollar come back to the studio. But then, you have to factor in long-term revenue from DVDs and streams. Seems really hard to get even an approximate estimate of success or failure here.

 

[beeshaw]

Yes, I know. The Budget was $247 million. Worldwide marketing was between $145-$160 million, actually... But it was offset by nearly $200 million from promotional partners (like Dr Pepper, Turkish Airlines, etc) who covered that cost. A *conservative* line item in the total budget (accounting for the exhibitors' take from ticket sales) had the film hitting profit somewhere between $550-$600 million worldwide (the range is wide because of differences in ticket sales margins in different countries). So let's say it ends up around $850 million in worldwide box office total (it's at $786 right now)... that would put the profit at about $250-$300. Again, that's before merchandising and home video is factored in later on.

So it wasn't a grand slam home run (The $1-2 billion range appears to be the benchmark these days), but they'll make a decent amount of coin. Also, two of the biggest promotional partners have just re-upped for Wonder Woman and Justice League. So they must feel they got enough out of this as well, which is also important to WB as they will help offset marketing costs again in the future.

Man, it's almost like you know what you're taking about.

How's London treating you so far?

 

[IrishJedi]

Maybe but maybe not as the Hollywood reporter has come today stating the WB is now mulling taking films off the slate due to the box office of BvS not being what they thought.

If this film had been done the way many percieved it should have been it could have easily made Avengers box office numbers, maybe more. Instead we have a divided fan base, a critical no show and an under performing film.

Yeah, they're wanting to start cracking down on risky movies with huge budgets (like "In The Heart of The Sea", "Jupiter Ascending" and "Pan") because the amount of money lost on those is much harder to absorb if their franchise films aren't super-performers ($1-$2 billion each). There's also now pressure on "Magical Beasts and Where To Find Them" and "LEGO Batman" to be huge, huge hits for the same reason.

They've actually added 2 new DC films to the production slate. They're culling the non-franchise films (like noted above) and actually relying more on DC, LEGO and Harry Potter... because there's less risk.

 

[IrishJedi]

Looking at the differential profits obtained from domestic vs. overseas ticket sales, there is a sizable difference to consider.

For Hollywood, Not All Box Office Dollars Are Equal - WSJ

The cut of each box office dollar that studios take varies from as little as 25 cents in China to about 50 cents in the U.S.

Based on that, even in a best-case scenario, only 50 cents of every box office dollar come back to the studio. But then, you have to factor in long-term revenue from DVDs and streams. Seems really hard to get even an approximate estimate of success or failure here.

Yes, that's why the "black line" range is $50 million ($550-$650mm). That's a pretty big difference.

Man, it's almost like you know what you're taking about.

How's London treating you so far?

Good, thanks. Kind of uneventful, so far, because Monday was a Closed Set (it was the first day of shooting, so that's pretty normal) so only talent and necessary crew were allowed. And today is one of those days where they shoot the same dialogue scene about 67 times in a row. Set life CAN be boring some times. But I'm here until Saturday and there's supposed to be some cool stuff on the call sheets tomorrow and Thursday, so we'll see. Right now, I'm sitting in a corner office at Leavesden and writing and sending behind-the-scenes copy to Warner Bros in Burbank. It's really not all that glamorous.

 

[abake]

I think this sums it up for me:

At its worst, "Dawn of Justice" comes on too strong, which makes it more of a curate's egg than an unqualified success. Still, we'll be lucky if we got more bruising blockbusters like it than more of the same from Marvel, DC, and anyone else who wants to capitalize on our latest love affair with superheroes.

From here:

No Survivors and Heroes: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" | Balder and Dash | Roger Ebert

 

[kryptonianmutie]

Yeah, they're wanting to start cracking down on risky movies with huge budgets (like "In The Heart of The Sea", "Jupiter Ascending" and "Pan") because the amount of money lost on those is much harder to absorb if their franchise films aren't super-performers ($1-$2 billion each). There's also now pressure on "Magical Beasts and Where To Find Them" and "LEGO Batman" to be huge, huge hits for the same reason.

They've actually added 2 new DC films to the production slate. They're culling the non-franchise films (like noted above) and actually relying more on DC, LEGO and Harry Potter... because there's less risk.

Exactly, I read the same thing the other day. It's smart but at the same time it's one of the things that annoys me about Disney. Everything live action movie they do has to be Marvel or related to a Disney animated classic. They only take risks with animation, which isn't that big of a risk because they are Disney and Pixar.

 

[IrishJedi]

I think this sums it up for me:



From here:

No Survivors and Heroes: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" | Balder and Dash | Roger Ebert

Basically, they're saying "Hey, Kudos to Snyder and company for not playing it safe and shooting for the moon (in this day and age of cookie-cutter blockbusters).", which I think is a very fair observation. You don't even have to like the movie to agree with that.

 

[Mr. Green]

"The force is strong on this thread." - Wrong Thread

 

[IrishJedi]

Exactly, I read the same thing the other day. It's smart but at the same time it's one of the things that annoys me about Disney. Everything live action movie they do has to be Marvel or related to a Disney animated classic. They only take risks with animation, which isn't that big of a risk because they are Disney and Pixar.

Yeah, I don't like it either, personally. It means much less diverse pool of mega-budget movies. I mean, I totally get what Disney (and now WB) have chosen to do from a business perspective. Just too many huge budget mistakes. But at the same time, it's sad. But that's the new reality of Hollywood box office today. Unless your Go-To movies are ALL big mega-billion smashes the studios just can't absorb the losses from some of the riskier ones anymore.

 

[karamazov80]

There certainly were some ballsy moves in that movie.

 

[abake]

Basically, they're saying "Hey, Kudos to Snyder and company for not playing it safe and shooting for the moon (in this day and age of cookie-cutter blockbusters).", which I think is a very fair observation. You don't even have to like the movie to agree with that.

Indeed.
I think it was a ballsy move to go for a totally different type of Superhero Blockbuster, and even though it's clear the studio had the filmmakers cram a lot of stuff into it, in the end they let them do something different, which is very refreshing.