• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

X-Men: Apocalypse set for May 27, 2016
0

1,618 posts in this topic

I don't know how you guys can watch a cam version. It spoils the movie. If you're not going to watch it on the big screen then at least wait for an HD release :(
I know.

I haven't watched a leaked movie since Wolverine: Origins.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you guys can watch a cam version. It spoils the movie. If you're not going to watch it on the big screen then at least wait for an HD release :(

 

Its the younger generation that's doing it. Teenagers are doing it all the time on their phones.

 

Edited by Fastballspecial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you guys can watch a cam version. It spoils the movie. If you're not going to watch it on the big screen then at least wait for an HD release :(

 

 

There is only so much of Sofia the 1st and Dora the explorer I can take. Wife was away, kids were busy playing and watching tv, and she will never go to the theater to see it, so why not? Its either that or wait until it comes on cable, which I'm too impatient for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Box Office: X-MEN: APOCALYPSE Is The #1 Movie In The World With An Impressive $100 Million

 

Captain America: Civil War was knocked from the top spot in North America this weekend by The Angry Birds Movie, bringing in an estimated $33 million compared to that animated feature's $39 million. However, the latter has failed to become the #1 movie in the world this weekend as that title has instead gone to the Bryan Singer helmed X-Men: Apocalypse after it opened in 71 of 75 markets.

 

With an estimated $103.3 million, the movie is off to a strong start, but with mixed reviews, it will be interesting to see if those have any sort of impact on the movie by the time it reaches North America. So far, fans do seem to be responding well to X-Men: Apocalypse. Regardless, it has yet to open in two other huge territories, including Korea and China, so it's still early days for this one right now.

 

:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually do both. I watch online and or get a copy from the guy at my local flea market but always go to the movies to see it. I love the movie theater experience and like having with my family or friends on a movie night. Just for me I don't always get to the movie for 2_-3 weeks .so can watch it so I can talk here or with friends then finally get to the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you guys can watch a cam version. It spoils the movie. If you're not going to watch it on the big screen then at least wait for an HD release :(

 

 

There is only so much of Sofia the 1st and Dora the explorer I can take. Wife was away, kids were busy playing and watching tv, and she will never go to the theater to see it, so why not? Its either that or wait until it comes on cable, which I'm too impatient for.

 

I'm not judging anyone for downloading stuff. I just think that a cam rip uploaded a couple of days after the movie comes out in terrible quality is not the way to appreciate a movie. If you can't go see it at the theater then at least wait for a better copy. But hey It's your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The budget for X-Men: Apocalypse has been noted as $234 MM by a recent article.

 

Sydney gets blown up in the new X-Men movie

 

Based on that, this is the highest budget yet, before inflation adjustment. But it is X-Men: The Last Stand that truly still holds that 'crown' as its 2006 budget of $210 MM is $249.2 MM when adjusted for 2016 USD.

 

tkRDJYj.png

 

XLKGBmx.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The budget for X-Men: Apocalypse has been noted as $234 MM by a recent article.

 

Sydney gets blown up in the new X-Men movie

 

Based on that, this is the highest budget yet, before inflation adjustment. But it is X-Men: The Last Stand that truly still holds that 'crown' as its 2006 budget of $210 MM is $249.2 MM when adjusted for 2016 USD.

 

tkRDJYj.png

 

XLKGBmx.png

 

1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

2. The only real "flop" is Electra

3. That international debut for X-Men: Apocalypse is a monster (didn't expect it to be that big)

4. That Deadpool number is more impressive than I thought

 

***Love this kind of information (I'm an excel nerd lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

 

I appreciate the suggestion. But this has been mentioned before trying to determine 'true profit' with these movies is more challenging than people realize. That's why I stick just with the Revenue Ratio to be safe. But I do like your thinking.

 

Signed,

a fellow Excel nerd

 

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

 

Nobody knows what that is because studios don't divulge their total costs. Production budgets get thrown out there, but whether or not they go over or under budget, how much marketing costs, how much translating to different languages costs, how many costs are built into studio generic costs, etc, are never divulged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. That Deadpool number is more impressive than I thought

 

And I do agree with you. Deadpool taught all the studios what a monster of a hit these comic book movies can be if handled in a way audiences can relate to the characters and appreciate the story.

 

:cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows what that is because studios don't divulge their total costs. Production budgets get thrown out there, but whether or not they go over or under budget, how much marketing costs, how much translating to different languages costs, how many costs are built into studio generic costs, etc, are never divulged.

 

Exactly!

 

Hollywood Accounting: Isn't it as easy as reading a studio's prospectus to figure out profits?

 

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

 

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

 

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

 

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

 

As a case study, he walks us through the numbers for "Gone In 60 Seconds." (It starred Angelina Jolie and Nicolas Cage. They stole cars. Don't pretend like you don't remember it.)

 

The movie grossed $240 million at the box office. And, after you take out all the costs and fees and everything associated with the movie, it lost $212 million.

 

This is the part of Hollywood accounting that is, essentially, fiction. Disney, which produced the movie, did not lose that money.

 

These are articles about how studios play with their individual movie balance sheets to claim expenses, actors claim salaries not received for negotiation power later on with other movies, or doing all they can to avoid paying royalties.

 

Fun times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered if there was more 'funny business" with the movies that have more "points" shared among the actors, directors and such, where as the movies that give away no points are more likely to show a greater profit (since all of the profit stays in house).

 

 

granted for tax purposes it's never good to show a profit, but there's only so much "fudging" that the IRS can take...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered if there was more 'funny business" with the movies that have more "points" shared among the actors, directors and such, where as the movies that give away no points are more likely to show a greater profit (since all of the profit stays in house).

 

 

granted for tax purposes it's never good to show a profit, but there's only so much "fudging" that the IRS can take...

 

I never realized how tricky that business was until I started researching revenues and profits for films and happened across all those articles.

 

It feels like the coin laundry business. To work around the 'cons' of the business, the IRS had to find ways to truly identify how much these businesses were making since coin payment is easy to hide. So it started gathering reports on water usage per laundromat to determine how many washes may have taken place.

 

Not so easy for determining how much went into making a movie. Or how much actors truly made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Apocalypse is heading for stinksville!

 

Wow! RT critics are destroying this movie!!!

 

Is there a pattern here???

 

The 2000 X-men movie was good, X2 was awesome and X3 was a letdown...

 

First class was great, Days of future Past was even better and now this looks like a bad rental.

 

Now given I don't put 100% faith in this critic system, but I find it spot on about 85% of the time.

 

 

There were some good movies that they got wrong and some overrated movies that left me scratching my head.

 

 

:sorry:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just de-stressed for a bit and watched it while packing some stuff up. It was...okay. I might get into detail later, but it might not be worth the effort to. I don't think anyone will want to hear what I have to say since I'm a huge fan of the Byrne X-Men run as well as the Simonson X-Factor run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought my tickets a week ago, but it saddens me to say I'm not really excited about it. (shrug)

:o What?!?!?!

 

Blame it on the negative reviews, and my realization that Jennifer Lawrence is the main part of the entire movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0