And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
It was by all accounts pretty incomprehensible as to how he messed it up, considering it's his favorite book. I still want to watch it; him finishing rehab apparently stopped the clock on his divorce as well, so that's good.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
Although it's debatable how much of that was because of the movie and how much of that was because Batman and Superman sell a lot of merch.
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
Although it's debatable how much of that was because of the movie and how much of that was because Batman and Superman sell a lot of merch.
What's impressive about Marvel and the new Star Wars movies making billion dollars is that they made that entirely in their theatrical runs, they didn't have rely on merchandise to break that barrier. To them that extra profit was a bonus.
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
Although it's debatable how much of that was because of the movie and how much of that was because Batman and Superman sell a lot of merch.
The last numbers I have on characters were in 2014. Batman brought in a touch under $500 million and Superman was just over $275 million. That year, WB's total merchandise brought in $6 billion. Given DC alone was $4.5 billion last year, I'd say the movie helped a lot.
However, Spider-Man is king of comic merchandise. He brought in $1.3 billion in merch for Disney.
And it made like a billion dollars, so it can't be all that bad!
I saw it in theatres, believe me, I know it was that bad.
While it did make a lot of money did SS really cross the billion dollar mark?
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
Although it's debatable how much of that was because of the movie and how much of that was because Batman and Superman sell a lot of merch.
The last numbers I have on characters were in 2014. Batman brought in a touch under $500 million and Superman was just over $275 million. That year, WB's total merchandise brought in $6 billion. Given DC alone was $4.5 billion last year, I'd say the movie helped a lot.
However, Spider-Man is king of comic merchandise. He brought in $1.3 billion in merch for Disney.
Depends on how much merch money B vs S bought in, neither IP need that movie to do impressive numbers on that front. Especially Batman.
Edit: Who also had access to the Lego movie, as well.
I think movie quality is on a curve where you definitely get diminishing returns after a point of investment. You don't show the best thing ever made for $7 a person
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
Doomed I tell ya. Doomed. Just pull the plug, guys. It's gone so far beyond bad filmmaking. It's destroying lives at this point.
I think movie quality is on a curve where you definitely get diminishing returns after a point of investment. You don't show the best thing ever made for $7 a person
As of right now, only James Wan’s Aquaman will shoot in 2017, which means there would only be one DC film released in 2018. That’s not great for keeping the brand relevant. So, according to Variety reporter Justin Kroll, Warner Bros. is currently hoping one of five films will be ready to shoot by the end of the year. They are:
Gotham City Sirens
The Flash
Green Lantern Corps
Suicide Squad 2
Dark Universe
Each of those films have writers attached and are in the process of getting their scripts right. Some also have directors, too. None are ready to move forward just yet, though, and Kroll says if it doesn’t work out and only Aquaman shoots this year, the company is okay with that. Matt Reeves’ Batman solo film will be shooting next year with an eye on a 2019 release.
The shitshow continues, as now Joe Manganiello, who could never resist an opportunity to express his excitement about being Deathstroke, now isn't sure it will happen.
Since the script is being re-written, it wouldn't shock me if there's a mandate to use Joker or something.
The shitshow continues, as now Joe Manganiello, who could never resist an opportunity to express his excitement about being Deathstroke, now isn't sure it will happen.
Since the script is being re-written, it wouldn't shock me if there's a mandate to use Joker or something.
While he is a good cast for Deathstroke I'd be ok if he wasn't in the movie. I'd like to see this Batman meet the Joker, and we need to find some reason why he hasn't ran the guy over with his Batmobile ten years ago.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
"so this masked guy that uses guns, martial arts and bladed weapons to murder people is the bad guy?" "No that's Batman"
There is potential to tell a story that turns the current DC Murderman around when he's forced to confront someone very much like himself, but nah let's use Leto's Joker so there's no confusion that this will be terrible.
Oh brilliant
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The shitshow continues, as now Joe Manganiello, who could never resist an opportunity to express his excitement about being Deathstroke, now isn't sure it will happen.
Since the script is being re-written, it wouldn't shock me if there's a mandate to use Joker or something.
While he is a good cast for Deathstroke I'd be ok if he wasn't in the movie. I'd like to see this Batman meet the Joker, and we need to find some reason why he hasn't ran the guy over with his Batmobile ten years ago.
A prequel Batman movie with the Joker? Specifically Leto's joker? That sounds absolutely horrible. Might as well frame the damn thing as a flashback while he's writing the job offer email to Wonder Woman.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
I did say 'like' to introduce vagueness/uncertainty for a reason, but since you asked, no, it didn't.
It merely made almost $750 million.
No, it was the magnum opus Batman v Superman I must've been thinking about, that pulled in nearly $875m at the global box office.
And I'm guessing after merchandising and DVD/digital sales, those numbers probably creep closer to the 10th digit.
Snark stands; they are (imo, not objectively) shit movies trading on the brand/character recognition and still making substantial amounts of money (and yes then we can rely on Hollywood Accounting to say that they actually made about $5 apiece after budget, marketing, etc, etc, etc, etc).
BvS had a budget of around $250m but that's not accounting for overruns, marketing, junkets, etc. General rule of thumb states you double the budget of a Hollywood Blockbuster like this to get the true cost. So, lets say the spent $500m all total, making and marketing the movie. $375m of profit is nothing to sneeze at, but it's still way under what they were expecting. SS made a similar amount of money in the end.
The biggest unknown in this formula is how much of the foreign box office sales the studio got to keep. Best estimates put that at around 50%. You take away half of the foreign box office you're left with around $600m the studio actually took home. It's harder to account for domestic taxes since they've all likely been deferred. Still, you're looking at some pretty fucking slim profit margins for BvS and SS.
It was by all accounts pretty incomprehensible as to how he messed it up, considering it's his favorite book. I still want to watch it; him finishing rehab apparently stopped the clock on his divorce as well, so that's good.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
On the other side, though, you have to include merchandise sales in the profit. DC brought in $4.5 billion in merchandise sales last year. I'm sure BvS had a nice chunk of that all to themselves.
Although it's debatable how much of that was because of the movie and how much of that was because Batman and Superman sell a lot of merch.
What's impressive about Marvel and the new Star Wars movies making billion dollars is that they made that entirely in their theatrical runs, they didn't have rely on merchandise to break that barrier. To them that extra profit was a bonus.
The last numbers I have on characters were in 2014. Batman brought in a touch under $500 million and Superman was just over $275 million. That year, WB's total merchandise brought in $6 billion. Given DC alone was $4.5 billion last year, I'd say the movie helped a lot.
However, Spider-Man is king of comic merchandise. He brought in $1.3 billion in merch for Disney.
Depends on how much merch money B vs S bought in, neither IP need that movie to do impressive numbers on that front. Especially Batman.
Edit: Who also had access to the Lego movie, as well.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
http://www.slashfilm.com/the-batman-screenplay-and-delays/
They need to cancel JL and just cut their losses.
So we learn to pick ourselves up.
So they learn how to fall again.
I think they do need a reset but JL looks mostly done, might aswell get the cash back and then call it
Not when DC does it.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/warner-bros-is-hoping-one-of-these-five-dc-films-will-s-1793355499
Utter chaos at WB right now.
Unlikely, the chimps would at least put out decent (if misspelled) writing:
https://youtu.be/no_elVGGgW8
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
I didn't realize Warner Brothers was run by the actual Warner Brothers (and the Warner Sister).
They're not as evidenced by Yakko and Wakko's insanity consistently leading to success as opposed to whatever the hell WB has going on right now.
To be fair, they had success. Everyone around them did not.
Sounds about right.
I have a feeling it will be Flash when his upbeatness becomes a highlight in Justice League.
I imagine one of the executives is an actual pile of meat with a note that has 'WB executive' attached to it. Executive Slab McMeatman.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Too Liefeld?
But did he have "bitch tits"?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Since the script is being re-written, it wouldn't shock me if there's a mandate to use Joker or something.
While he is a good cast for Deathstroke I'd be ok if he wasn't in the movie. I'd like to see this Batman meet the Joker, and we need to find some reason why he hasn't ran the guy over with his Batmobile ten years ago.
There is potential to tell a story that turns the current DC Murderman around when he's forced to confront someone very much like himself, but nah let's use Leto's Joker so there's no confusion that this will be terrible.
A prequel Batman movie with the Joker? Specifically Leto's joker? That sounds absolutely horrible. Might as well frame the damn thing as a flashback while he's writing the job offer email to Wonder Woman.