|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 3:02:20 GMT -5
Since the movie is not exceeding box office expectations, you have to think they are trying to find a way to get the kind of return on investment from this movie they were hoping for, but didn't get because it didn't have legs at the box office. I don't know about expectations, but if they invested an additional 10%, and they're getting more than that at the box office, they should be content. BTW, it's been only two weeks, kind of early to start talking in the past tense. So a Batman and Superman film can't even make as much money as a rated R Deadpool film in the USA? It will make more money, worldwide. Is it really important, where the money comes from? You have to figure in opportunity cost in return on investment as well. If they allocate x amount of resources to BvS and get y% in return, is that more profit (or more specifically more profit margin) than they would have gotten investing X in another project. They expected a much larger margin in return, WB execs have said anything less than a billion in box office would be a disappointment- not a loss per se, but not the kind of return they wanted on the investment when they are tying up a good chunk of resources (not just money but all the talent working behind the scenes, the crews, etc. that could have been working on other projects with higher % returns). It's only been 2 weeks, but box office attrition is worse than that for monthly comics series and it dropped over 60% the second week when there were no other major releases to claim box office (almost double what is expected for this kind of movie when facing other major releases in prime movie going timeframes yet no competition as stated above)and is underperforming in several key international markets that they expected to do much better in. It's not just how much it makes, but how much it makes compared to how much they could have made if they had allocated those resources elsewhere. And a move like re-releasing it with additional footage and a different rating within the same year as its initial release, which is almost unprecedented, as a theatrical release, basically trumpets they need to get more out of what they invested to justify the opportunity costs. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 10, 2016 5:37:51 GMT -5
If and when they make such an unprecedented move, I'll take that as a sing that they, indeed, had higher expectations. As to the whole eggs and baskets argument, I'd strongly urge them to looks for more eggs (creatives). It's a big world outside their offices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 10:17:01 GMT -5
I don't know about expectations, but if they invested an additional 10%, and they're getting more than that at the box office, they should be content. BTW, it's been only two weeks, kind of early to start talking in the past tense. It will make more money, worldwide. Is it really important, where the money comes from? You have to figure in opportunity cost in return on investment as well. If they allocate x amount of resources to BvS and get y% in return, is that more profit (or more specifically more profit margin) than they would have gotten investing X in another project. They expected a much larger margin in return, WB execs have said anything less than a billion in box office would be a disappointment- not a loss per se, but not the kind of return they wanted on the investment when they are tying up a good chunk of resources (not just money but all the talent working behind the scenes, the crews, etc. that could have been working on other projects with higher % returns). It's only been 2 weeks, but box office attrition is worse than that for monthly comics series and it dropped over 60% the second week when there were no other major releases to claim box office (almost double what is expected for this kind of movie when facing other major releases in prime movie going timeframes yet no competition as stated above)and is underperforming in several key international markets that they expected to do much better in. It's not just how much it makes, but how much it makes compared to how much they could have made if they had allocated those resources elsewhere. And a move like re-releasing it with additional footage and a different rating within the same year as its initial release, which is almost unprecedented, as a theatrical release, basically trumpets they need to get more out of what they invested to justify the opportunity costs. -M Seriously, this is a quite depressing angle, dangerously starting to lean towards "it didn't make that much money, what a failed project it is!".. Tons of people made a good living for a few years working on this, and the producers will make good money for themselves. I'm really baffled by how much talk about money I'm hearing here. I wouldn't be surprised to soon read that Avengers is the best (comic book related) movie ever since it made the most money... |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Apr 10, 2016 11:32:12 GMT -5
You have to figure in opportunity cost in return on investment as well. If they allocate x amount of resources to BvS and get y% in return, is that more profit (or more specifically more profit margin) than they would have gotten investing X in another project. They expected a much larger margin in return, WB execs have said anything less than a billion in box office would be a disappointment- not a loss per se, but not the kind of return they wanted on the investment when they are tying up a good chunk of resources (not just money but all the talent working behind the scenes, the crews, etc. that could have been working on other projects with higher % returns). It's only been 2 weeks, but box office attrition is worse than that for monthly comics series and it dropped over 60% the second week when there were no other major releases to claim box office (almost double what is expected for this kind of movie when facing other major releases in prime movie going timeframes yet no competition as stated above)and is underperforming in several key international markets that they expected to do much better in. It's not just how much it makes, but how much it makes compared to how much they could have made if they had allocated those resources elsewhere. And a move like re-releasing it with additional footage and a different rating within the same year as its initial release, which is almost unprecedented, as a theatrical release, basically trumpets they need to get more out of what they invested to justify the opportunity costs. -M Seriously, this is a quite depressing angle, dangerously starting to lean towards "it didn't make that much money, what a failed project it is!".. Tons of people made a good living for a few years working on this, and the producers will make good money for themselves. I'm really baffled by how much talk about money I'm hearing here. I wouldn't be surprised to soon read that Avengers is the best (comic book related) movie ever since it made the most money... I think many are rooting for it to fail bigtime because they want DC and WB to take a step back and make some serious changes. I personally have no idea how Snyder keeps getting put in charge of these big budget blockbusters. His efforts never rise above mediocre. He has a knack for visual flare but his movies are so convoluted and all over the place. Not to mention that he doesn't seem to have a fundamental understanding of these characters at all. This is the kind of movie that was going to make money regardless of who was overseeing the project. When you put Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman on screen together for the first time, of course people will flock in droves to go see it. I'm just hoping that DC/WB aren't simply satisfied turning a profit while releasing a subpar product. There's no reason that Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy should be smacking the piss out of DC's Big 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 12:06:32 GMT -5
I think many are rooting for it to fail bigtime because they want DC and WB to take a step back and make some serious changes. I personally have no idea how Snyder keeps getting put in charge of these big budget blockbusters. His efforts never rise above mediocre. He has a knack for visual flare but his movies are so convoluted and all over the place. Not to mention that he doesn't seem to have a fundamental understanding of these characters at all. This is the kind of movie that was going to make money regardless of who was overseeing the project. When you put Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman on screen together for the first time, of course people will flock in droves to go see it. I'm just hoping that DC/WB aren't simply satisfied turning a profit while releasing a subpar product. There's no reason that Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy should be smacking the piss out of DC's Big 3. Well, I find that even more disheartening. I know that "fans" most of the time think their own subjective opinion is much more valid than the ones of actual creators, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I didn't expect so much of that pattern over here. I personnaly think that Ant-Man and GOTG were god-awefull movies with little redeaming qualities beyond entertainmant for 10 year olds, but I wouldn't root those to fail, that'd be just petty. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Apr 10, 2016 13:00:32 GMT -5
The CCF stats so far :
12 members enjoyed/loved it
4 didn't like it at all
2 were neutral about it
I can't help but think that despite flaws, this and MOS will age far better as movies than Avengers, and we've still got an extended cut to look forward, one that may have the effect the EC had on The Lord Of the Ring first movie (close to a narrative disaster in its theater cut, a rich and solid piece of entertainment in its EC form, at least in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 10, 2016 13:12:41 GMT -5
I think many are rooting for it to fail bigtime because they want DC and WB to take a step back and make some serious changes. I personally have no idea how Snyder keeps getting put in charge of these big budget blockbusters. His efforts never rise above mediocre. He has a knack for visual flare but his movies are so convoluted and all over the place. Not to mention that he doesn't seem to have a fundamental understanding of these characters at all. This is the kind of movie that was going to make money regardless of who was overseeing the project. When you put Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman on screen together for the first time, of course people will flock in droves to go see it. I'm just hoping that DC/WB aren't simply satisfied turning a profit while releasing a subpar product. There's no reason that Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy should be smacking the piss out of DC's Big 3. Well, I find that even more disheartening. I know that "fans" most of the time think their own subjective opinion is much more valid than the ones of actual creators, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I didn't expect so much of that pattern over here. I personnaly think that Ant-Man and GOTG were god-awefull movies with little redeaming qualities beyond entertainmant for 10 year olds, but I wouldn't root those to fail, that'd be just petty. I don't understand this reasoning. Snyder is not the "actual creator" of Batman or Superman, so he doesn't know the characters any better than a fan. But I guess your argument is that he is the actual creator of the movie, so all other opinions must take a back seat to Snyder's about whether it is a good film. The actions of making a movie and watching one are two different things. Someone may know things about making a movie, but be a poor job of the quality of the finished product (or may have blindspots). Many people that make movies, TV, music, etc. admit they haven't seen works that any interviewer isn't talking about. A great athlete can be an awful coach or commentator (e.g., Isiah Thomas). And frankly, wouldn't you expect the creator of a work to often have less objectivity, given their vested in interest in their own work, than the average movie-goer would. Ant-Man had a lot of good things going for it: a brilliant supporting performance by Michael Pena, great chemistry between Rudd and Lilly, good balance between the elements and pacing, a well-choreographed climactic fight scene, a more nuanced portrayal of a female character than you see in most superhero films (like almost every Batman film), lot of humor (ranging from subtle to broad), that keychain as "Chekhov's gun", and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Apr 10, 2016 13:13:35 GMT -5
I think many are rooting for it to fail bigtime because they want DC and WB to take a step back and make some serious changes. I personally have no idea how Snyder keeps getting put in charge of these big budget blockbusters. His efforts never rise above mediocre. He has a knack for visual flare but his movies are so convoluted and all over the place. Not to mention that he doesn't seem to have a fundamental understanding of these characters at all. This is the kind of movie that was going to make money regardless of who was overseeing the project. When you put Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman on screen together for the first time, of course people will flock in droves to go see it. I'm just hoping that DC/WB aren't simply satisfied turning a profit while releasing a subpar product. There's no reason that Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy should be smacking the piss out of DC's Big 3. Well, I find that even more disheartening. I know that "fans" most of the time think their own subjective opinion is much more valid than the ones of actual creators, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I guess I didn't expect so much of that pattern over here. I personnaly think that Ant-Man and GOTG were god-awefull movies with little redeaming qualities beyond entertainmant for 10 year olds, but I wouldn't root those to fail, that'd be just petty. It may be "petty" but that's the way it is. If BvS passes the billion dollar box office threshold, then it's essentially guaranteed that DC/WB will push ahead with the same formula. Which the majority of the critics and general public seem to despise (and I'd be right there with them). Snyder directs as if he's 15 years old. Every character has to be "dark" and "brooding" just for the hell of it. Even Superman. As I said before, at the core of it all...these are still spandex clad superheroes fighting equally goofy and over the top villains. To portray everything in this comic book world as super serious and dark would be infinitely more ridiculous than adding a little humor and light hearted tone. You can still have violence. You can still deal with mature themes. But do it when it's necessary. Not just for the hell of it because it's "uber kewl". |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 10, 2016 13:37:20 GMT -5
If BvS passes the billion dollar box office threshold, then it's essentially guaranteed that DC/WB will push ahead with the same formula. Which the majority of the critics and general public seem to despise [my bolding] As I said before, at the core of it all...these are still spandex clad superheroes fighting equally goofy and over the top villains. To portray everything in this comic book world as super serious and dark would be infinitely more ridiculous than adding a little humor and light hearted tone. You can still have violence. You can still deal with mature themes. But do it when it's necessary. I'd say the general public doesn't, as the box office figures indicate. Not that I think that proves anything, just pointing out that if they didn't, they wouldn't buy the tickets. Unless you start with the premise, that the majority of the audience is oblivious to the critics' opinion, and go watch the movie because they think it will suit them, only to find out it didn't. I could buy that, if Zack wasn't well known, and this were his first superhero movie. And yet for me, the most ridiculous part, was when he tried to fit a joke in the movie, when Batman saves Martha. Necessity. We need air, water and food, everything else is subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Apr 10, 2016 13:44:18 GMT -5
If BvS passes the billion dollar box office threshold, then it's essentially guaranteed that DC/WB will push ahead with the same formula. Which the majority of the critics and general public seem to despise [my bolding] As I said before, at the core of it all...these are still spandex clad superheroes fighting equally goofy and over the top villains. To portray everything in this comic book world as super serious and dark would be infinitely more ridiculous than adding a little humor and light hearted tone. You can still have violence. You can still deal with mature themes. But do it when it's necessary. I'd say the general public doesn't, as the box office figures indicate. Not that I think that proves anything, just pointing out that if they didn't, they wouldn't buy the tickets. Unless you start with the premise, that the majority of the audience is oblivious to the critics' opinion, and go watch the movie because they think it will suit them, only to find out it didn't. I could buy that, if Zack wasn't well known, and this were his first superhero movie. And yet for me, the most ridiculous part, was when he tried to fit a joke in the movie, when Batman saves Martha. Necessity. We need air, water and food, everything else is subjective. The majority of the general public doesn't pay attention to stuff like who's directing the movie or writing the script. They see a trailer with DC's Holy Trinity teaming up and that's enough incentive to throw down their $10 to go see the movie. As I said, that reason alone is why this movie was always going to be a financial success. You could've had Uwe Boll handling the directorial duties and tons of people still would've rushed out to go see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Apr 10, 2016 14:12:38 GMT -5
The CCF stats so far : 12 members enjoyed/loved it 4 didn't like it at all 2 were neutral about it I can't help but think that despite flaws, this and MOS will age far better as movies than Avengers, and we've still got an extended cut to look forward, one that may have the effect the EC had on The Lord Of the Ring first movie (close to a narrative disaster in its theater cut, a rich and solid piece of entertainment in its EC form, at least in my opinion). Really?! I'm the biggest pro-DC fan I can imagine, but must regretfully admit that Marvel's films are much better. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 10, 2016 14:14:19 GMT -5
The majority of the general public doesn't pay attention to stuff like who's directing the movie or writing the script. They see a trailer with DC's Holy Trinity teaming up and that's enough incentive to throw down their $10 to go see the movie. If they pay so little attention, to how they invest their entertainment time and money, what does it matter if they despise or love something? They can be sucked again, into seeing the next instalment, just as well; without any need for editorial changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 10, 2016 14:16:45 GMT -5
Really?! I'm the biggest pro-DC fan I can imagine, but must regretfully admit that Marvel's films are much better. Someone please take away his badge. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Apr 10, 2016 14:24:35 GMT -5
The majority of the general public doesn't pay attention to stuff like who's directing the movie or writing the script. They see a trailer with DC's Holy Trinity teaming up and that's enough incentive to throw down their $10 to go see the movie. If they pay so little attention, to how they invest their entertainment time and money, what does it matter if they despise or love something? They can be sucked again, into seeing the next instalment, just as well; without any need for editorial changes. I agree And therein lies the problem. It's basically up to DC and Warner Bros to decide that while it's nice that the movies are making money, the quality just isn't where it needs to be. There's no reason for this movie to be such a disappointment. It should've blown everyone's tits off. A $250+ million budget, the 2 most popular superheroes in existence, the first big screen appearance of Wonder Woman, 3 years of production, almost 3 hours of runtime...and this is the best they could do? That's just pathetic to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Apr 10, 2016 14:42:05 GMT -5
If they pay so little attention, to how they invest their entertainment time and money, what does it matter if they despise or love something? They can be sucked again, into seeing the next instalment, just as well; without any need for editorial changes. I agree And therein lies the problem. It's basically up to DC and Warner Bros to decide that while it's nice that the movies are making money, the quality just isn't where it needs to be. There's no reason for this movie to be such a disappointment. It should've blown everyone's tits off. A $250+ million budget, the 2 most popular superheroes in existence, the first big screen appearance of Wonder Woman, 3 years of production, almost 3 hours of runtime...and this is the best they could do? That's just pathetic to me. I don't think you agree with what I said, because I was implying that their opinion doesn't hold much water. In other words, if they make a poll among those coming out of the cinema, and the general consensus is that the movie is bad, it wouldn't change my opinion about it not being bad. I don't care about how many people go to see it, or whether they like it, in reference to the quality of the movie. We agree on the whole thing being up to DC, they choose directors based on factors, we probably aren't privy to. This can also be said about other franchises: Marvel, Star Wars... Even when a high profile or critically acclaimed director is chosen, like in the cases of Burton, Singer or Lee, quality isn't guaranteed. So far, the only one who's been able to pull it off, has been the Nolan/Zimmer duo, the task isn't easy at all. Snyder wouldn't be my first choice, but at least he lives up to his previous works, actually supersedes them with his DC flicks, IMO. |
|
