Bosco685 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Just nuts to think how massive Aquaman has turned out to be. #1 on the in-year USD WB/DC movie list and #4 when adjusted for 2019 USD of any WB/DC movie ever made. Wan can demand pretty much what he wants now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 USA/Canada $316.6M China $295M S. Korea $39M Brazil $35.1M Mexico $31.3M Pending release schedule: 2/8/2019 - Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimik Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 4 hours ago, Gatsby77 said: This puts it less than $2 million away from passing Man of Steel domestically (in real, inflation-adjusted terms). Can you imagine someone back in 2015 saying, "umm...actually more people will go see Aquaman?" Someone did back in 2013, but I guess it was Aquaman topping Spider-Man....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Is it profitable enough to produce an Aquaman sequel, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Pending release dates: 2/8/19 Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) On 1/28/2019 at 5:12 AM, TwoPiece said: Is it profitable enough to produce an Aquaman sequel, though? Probably (and hey, thanks for the segue! ) But It's been a couple of weeks now, let's check back in to see if this big dumb movie with its big dumb $350MM budget is even as profitable as the other surprise runaway hit of the year Venom was (is): (According to boxofficemojo): China- $295MM @ 25% = $74MM North America- $316MM @ 50%= $158MM Other Foreign Territories- $481MM @ 40%= $192MM Total Profits to WB so far- $425MM - big dumb $350MM budget= $74MM net. So....about half of Venom profits on more than double the cost. Better keep swimming Aquabro. Better keep swimming. -J. Edited January 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 The whole thing about .25 for China, .4 for foreign, and .5 for domestic box-office....you can throw all that out-the-window for billion dollar blockbusters. The worldwide-gross is the best way to estimate profitability. Simple. The studios (especially for blockbusters) negotiate private deals with China. Releasing first there, plus Wan as director, probably got the % up to 40. And...studios get front-loaded $ from domestic theaters, meaning that the % for the studio usually comes down on billion-dollar blockbusters. So foreign/domestic evens-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperheart Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) Will tank $600MM Tracking $40-60MM Oh no, lower opening than JL Surprised if it hits $850MM Has to hit $900MM to break even Not as profitable as Venom #movingthegoalpostsasdogsdrowninseaofBS Edited January 30, 2019 by paperheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimik Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said: Probably (and hey, thanks for the segue! ) But It's been a couple of weeks now, let's check back in to see if this big dumb movie with its big dumb $350MM budget is even as profitable as the other surprise runaway hit of the year Venom was (is): (According to boxofficemojo): China- $295MM @ 25% = $74MM North America- $316MM @ 50%= $158MM Other Foreign Territories- $481MM @ 40%= $192MM Total Profits to WB so far- $425MM - big dumb $350MM budget= $74MM net. So....about half of Venom profits on more than double the cost. Better keep swimming Aquabro. Better keep swimming. -J. Venom was a runaway hit? Again, Google is your friend. Use it to see how wrong you are re: financing of the film. Edited January 29, 2019 by kimik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) 54 minutes ago, kimik said: Venom was a runaway hit? Again, Google is your friend. Use it to see how wrong you are re: financing of the film. Yeah $856MM on a ~$150MM all in is considered a runaway hit to most rational industry observers. And as to your other inane comment... Yes google is your friend. Maybe *you* should use it. ....But here's a little help for you anyway (big dumb $350MM all in budget)- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/arts/aquaman-box-office-china.html -J. Edited January 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 As the majority know, no expenses have been finalized though more than a few tracking sites have stuck with $160M. Box Office Mojo is still TBD. Meanwhile... So many loss leaders among our 2018 Lebowski Little Achievers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimik Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said: Yeah $856MM on a ~$150MM all in is considered a runaway hit to most rational industry observers. And as to your other inane comment... Yes google is your friend. Maybe *you* should use it. ....But here's a little help for you anyway (big dumb $350MM all in budget)- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/arts/aquaman-box-office-china.html -J. Venom did well at the box office, but I would like to see the final marketing budget all in. My guess is that they upped the marketing for it substantially after the first weekend - there were ads running here for three weeks longer than Aquaman (those stopped after the second week of release). I have not seen it since the CGI was brutal and word of mouth from friends that saw it was mixed. I am glad you liked it. I am not arguing the $350MM for Aquaman, just the fact that it doesn't include all of the subsidies/grants that are posted online and I have repeatedly mentioned. You can find it with a 10 second Google search if you want to correct your numbers. But, based on your continued use of incomplete numbers to date, I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, kimik said: Venom did well at the box office, but I would like to see the final marketing budget all in. My guess is that they upped the marketing for it substantially after the first weekend - there were ads running here for three weeks longer than Aquaman (those stopped after the second week of release). I have not seen it since the CGI was brutal and word of mouth from friends that saw it was mixed. I am glad you liked it. I am not arguing the $350MM for Aquaman, just the fact that it doesn't include all of the subsidies/grants that are posted online and I have repeatedly mentioned. You can find it with a 10 second Google search if you want to correct your numbers. But, based on your continued use of incomplete numbers to date, I doubt it. Point taken. To which my response is: All of the purported subsidies/grants in the world don't change its big dumb all in budget of $350MM. Warner managed to dodge a bullet (again). This will take some of the sting out of the Justice League debacle, and its even bigger, dumber budget. Good for WB. Here's to hoping they make smarter, better movies going forward, which will allow them to reap better rewards and hopefully lead to even more, better movies. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiamondCityComics Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: Point taken. To which my response is: All of the purported subsidies/grants in the world don't change its big dumb all in budget of $350MM. Warner managed to dodge a bullet (again). This will take some of the sting out of the Justice League debacle, and its even bigger, dumber budget. Good for WB. Here's to hoping they make smarter, better movies going forward, which will allow them to reap better rewards and hopefully lead to even more, better movies. -J. Why does it seem the only movie anyone adds the marketing budget on to the production budget is Aquaman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperheart Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 13 minutes ago, DiamondCityComics said: Why does it seem the only movie anyone adds the marketing budget on to the production budget is Aquaman? fixed theCapraAegagrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsilverjanet Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 No offense but as far as quality aquaman was a better overall film than Venom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsilverjanet Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Isn’t that what really matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 11 hours ago, jsilverjanet said: Isn’t that what really matters Yes. Aquaman is a good-to-great movie. Venom is in the same trash compactor as Solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 11 hours ago, jsilverjanet said: No offense but as far as quality aquaman was a better overall film than Venom. Obviously a matter of opinion. And while a lot more can be done when you're willing to blow an extra $200MM on making and releasing your movie, I notice that Venom is still sporting a better audience score on RT than Aquaman. As to the critics scores- well let's just say that after Venom (and then Bohemian Rhapsody) ended up blowing the doors off the box office, many of those same critics ended up mitigating if not outright walking back their earlier negative reviews, to the obvious benefit of Aquaman, which is a loud, miscast, chaotic mess of a movie, that critics clearly opted to hedge their bets on when reviewing this time, by calling it "fun" and "so bad it's kind of good", which is basically what they said about Venom earlier, but clearly didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of a fan favourite box office hit three times in the same season lol. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: Obviously a matter of opinion. And while a lot more can be done when you're willing to blow an extra $200MM on making and releasing your movie, I notice that Venom is still sporting a better audience score on RT than Aquaman. As to the critics scores- well let's just say that after Venom (and then Bohemian Rhapsody) ended up blowing the doors off the box office, many of those same critics ended up mitigating if not outright walking back their earlier negative reviews, to the obvious benefit of Aquaman, which is a loud, miscast, chaotic mess of a movie, that critics clearly opted to hedge their bets on when reviewing this time, by calling it "fun" and "so bad it's kind of good", which is basically what they said about Venom earlier, but clearly didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of a fan favourite box office hit three times in the same season lol. -J. Venom was never "so bad it's good". Aquaman can be brainless fun if you suspend disbelief. What is Venom, even? It doesn't commit to any genre. Outside of Tom Hardy the film is literally worthless. At least co-stars in Aquaman acted well (outside of Black Manta IMO). Venom is an incoherent mess that, without Hardy, is total garbage. If you want to contend this statement - go ahead - name 1 thing good about the movie that doesn't involve Tom Hardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
