X-MEN: DARK PHOENIX directed by Simon Kinberg (11/2/18) 4 4

[Bosco685]

38 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

I saw Apocalypse on Sunday, and the CGI is so damn bad for a modern film.

The Phoenix stuff at the end was so dumb.

Do you mean...

Spoiler

When she is taking on the D'Bari by herself, and turning them to dust?

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

Do you mean...

  Hide contents

When she is taking on the D'Bari by herself, and turning them to dust?

 

I'm talking about Apocalypse...

[Jaydogrules]

10 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

If Venom was the new benchmark for all superhero movies going forward, the studios should just back off now because there was so much going against that movie. Including a traditional Spider-Man character without him in the film, light on story and a character that if the production team had landed Tom Hardy could have gone much differently. It is not the norm.

Yet when comparing to other movies within the same sales range, Shazam and Into The Spider-Verse are more to the top of the list of films considered to have been profitable.

So trying to pitch everyone else's math is off and you have it figured out better when we clearly have films to compare against just makes it comes across like you want to be the devil's advocate more than a fact soothsayer. Unless you are assuming all the other films were a hidden bust at this point.

Once again, I am using Venom as a comp because *it is the most recent, and similarly budgeted and released film*. With an 8.5× of production budget only multiplier, that film only netted the studio about $250MM *after worldwide ancillaries are factored in*. But even using the incomplete chart you posted, both shazam anand spider-verse pulled in spectacularly pathetic worldwide grosses, irrespective of budgets, save for two early MCU movies that came out nearly or more than *ten years ago*, neither of which had any real China (and Shazam only beat out ONE of those two movies, WITH china as the #2 market).  

-J.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

Just now, TwoPiece said:

I'm talking about Apocalypse...

Ahhhhhh.

I really think they could have done the whole The Fall of the Mutants buildup with Apocalypse and made it that much more exciting when the story all came together. With a big fight involving the Four Horsemen (People - didn't want@therealsilvermaneto take offense).

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Once again, I am using Venom as a comp because *it is the most recent, and similarly budgeted and released film*. With an 8.5× of production budget only multiplier, that film only netted the studio about $250MM *after worldwide ancillaries are factored in*. But even using the incomplete chart you posted, both shazam anand spider-verse pulled in spectacularly pathetic worldwide grosses, irrespective of budgets, save for two early MCU movies that came out nearly or more than *ten years ago* (and Shazam only beat out ONE of those two movies).  

-J.

You have mentioned Venom more than once, like it is the new benchmark for superhero movies. It was an outlier success. Kind of like Deadpool and Batman (1989).

Your average comic book movie is not landing so high a multiple. That's why these are considered so unique, and celebrated for breaking the mold. Right?

[Jaydogrules]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

You have mentioned Venom more than once, like it is the new benchmark for superhero movies. It was an outlier success. Kind of like Deadpool and Batman (1989).

Your average comic book movie is not landing so high a multiple. That's why these are considered so unique, and celebrated for breaking the mold. Right?

True Venom is in obvious outlier.  

I use it to show that, even an as an extreme outlier, the "profit" to studio as a seemingly and relatively modest $250MM, (as compared to only its production budget of $100MM) even after ancillaries, seriously undercuts the notion that films like shazam and Spider-verse will be credible money makers, even with ancillaries, when they have made near or less than hero movies that came out 10+ years ago, before either the advent of China, or the bar being raised globally for how much money these hero movies could make (irrespective of their relative budgets).

-J.

[N e r V]

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

When did $362 Million Worldwide on a $100 Million Budget become a failure in this business?

Depending on the source sometimes a posted budget is a production budget only which doesn’t include the costs involved in marketing/advertising which can greatly inflate things for a studio.

In the end it’s up to the studio (and others in the industry that follow) to assess what is a failure. A movie can still turn some profit for you in the end and still can be a failure. You put a lot of time, money and effort into something that either exceeds or disappoints you. You don’t know what other options a studio may have passed up to green light a movie.

So in comic terms look at your feelings this way. You have a copy of Action comics #1 you hope nets you $500,000.00 profit. So what are your feelings about the following results?

$600,000.00 profit (you exceeded your expectations)

$500,000.00 profit (right on the money)

$400,000.00 profit (below what you expected but still ok)

$200,000.00 profit (disappointed and not sure if you’ll use the same auction house)

break even (upset, a waste of your time, heads will roll)

A bit of a simple illustration but not to far off how studios and most people doing deals in business feel about things concerning profit.

Hollywood has been very lucky the international market has grown so much for them over the years to cushion the blows of underperforming movies in the US market.

 

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

True Venom is in obvious outlier.  

I use it to show that, even an as an extreme outlier, the "profit" to studio as a seemingly and relatively modest $250MM, (as compared to only its production budget of $100MM) even after ancillaries, seriously undercuts the notion that films like shazam and Spider-verse will be credible money makers, even with ancillaries, when they have made near or less than hero movies that came out 10+ years ago, before either the advent of China, or the bar being raised globally for how much money these hero movies could make (irrespective of their relative budgets).

-J.

It's not a logical comparison. Which you realize.

It would be like comparing all movies to Endgame going forward, and every time calling them a flop for not breaking $2B. You could. You just look odd.

[Jaydogrules]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

It's not a logical comparison. Which you realize.

It would be like comparing all movies to Endgame going forward, and every time calling them a flop for not breaking $2B. You could. You just look odd.

The comparison is exactly on point.  

You just don't like it.  

-J.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

The comparison is exactly on point.  

You just don't like it.  

-J.

Not really. Why do you think more than one person points this out to you? 

 

[Gatsby77]

24 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

True Venom is in obvious outlier.  

I use it to show that, even an as an extreme outlier, the "profit" to studio as a seemingly and relatively modest $250MM, (as compared to only its production budget of $100MM) even after ancillaries, seriously undercuts the notion that films like shazam and Spider-verse will be credible money makers, even with ancillaries, when they have made near or less than hero movies that came out 10+ years ago, before either the advent of China, or the bar being raised globally for how much money these hero movies could make (irrespective of their relative budgets).

-J.

Part of the reason Venom's not a good comp. is it over-performed in China, which deflates its profitability.

Bosco's chart shows it doing far better on a production budget multiple while Deadline shows its profitability lagged that of films with lower multiples.

As you once said about Aquaman, "China ain't gonna' save it."

Looking at Bosco's chart, Venom ranks third on the list, with an astounding 8.6 budget multiple.

Yet Deadline shows it was actually less profitable to studios then Aquaman, Black Panther and Infinity War from last year alone -- all of which posted smaller budget multiples than Venom.

Captain Marvel will similarly out-do Venom's profitability when this year's list comes out, simply because its worldwide revenue wasn't artificially boosted by out-performance in China.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Gatsby77

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

Not really. Why do you think more than one person points this out to you? 

 

Don't know, don't care.  Some people would rather clap at the sky with fanboy enthusiasm than look at the actual numbers of comparable movies.  

-J.

[Gatsby77]

All of this goes back to the main point, however.

Shazam was profitable.

And it will lead to at least one, if not two, sequels.

I'd also bet money we see a Shazam sequel (be it Black Adam or Shazam 2) before we see Venom 2.

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Part of the reason Venom's not a good comp. is it over-performed in China, which deflates its profitability.

Bosco's chart shows it doing far better on a production budget multiple while Deadline shows its profitability lagged that of films with lower multiples.

As you once said about Aquaman, "China ain't gonna' save it."

Looking at Bosco's chart, Venom ranks third on the list, with an astounding 8.6 budget multiple.

Yet Deadline shows it was actually less profitable to studios then Aquaman, Black Panther and Infinity War from last year alone -- all of which posted smaller budget multiples than Venom.

Captain Marvel will similarly out-do Venom's profitability when this year's list comes out, simply because its worldwide revenue wasn't artificially boosted by out-performance in China.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here.  Case by case basis- which is why I will occasionally do a very cursory and basic box office breakdown of an individual movie. 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

7 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

All of this goes back to the main point, however.

Shazam was profitable.

And it will lead to at least one, if not two, sequels.

I'd also bet money we see a Shazam sequel (be it Black Adam or Shazam 2) before we see Venom 2.

This I do not agree with.  Shazam in fact lost a sizable amount of money theatrically, and would have to do gang busters to even break even post-theatrically.  With the recent failures of it, hellboy, Dark Phoenix (and to a somewhat less extent, Spider-verse) studios not named Disney will have to pick and choose projects they greenlight, since we now see that hero movies are in fact not bullet proof at the box office. 

And colour me shocked if WB ever actually does move forward in earnest on anything theatrically on anything having to do with Shazam.  Believing that WB is seriously moving forward on its biggest box office bust (in terms of worldwide box office) with not one but multiple sequels, lol, is just more clapping at the sky IMO.

-J.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[paperheart]

9 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Part of the reason Venom's not a good comp. is it over-performed in China, which deflates its profitability.

Bosco's chart shows it doing far better on a production budget multiple while Deadline shows its profitability lagged that of films with lower multiples.

As you once said about Aquaman, "China ain't gonna' save it."

Looking at Bosco's chart, Venom ranks third on the list, with an astounding 8.6 budget multiple.

Yet Deadline shows it was actually less profitable to studios then Aquaman, Black Panther and Infinity War from last year alone -- all of which posted smaller budget multiples than Venom.

Captain Marvel will similarly out-do Venom's profitability when this year's list comes out, simply because its worldwide revenue wasn't artificially boosted by out-performance in China.

add Aquaman to that sentence as well

[Gatsby77]

19 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

And colour me shocked if WB ever actually does move forward in earnest on anything theatrically on anything having to do with Shazam.  Believing that WB is seriously moving forward on its biggest box office bust (in terms of worldwide box office) with not one but multiple sequels, lol, is just more clapping at the sky IMO.

-J.

I could be wrong that at least Black Adam hits before Venom 2.

But last I checked, Black Adam has a director (who was announced two days ago) and is scheduled to go into production next summer with a 2022 release date.

To my knowledge, Venom 2 is planned for release Oct. 2, 2020, but no director has yet been announced.

Even if they shoot it at night this fall and have the same mess special effects as the first one, I reckon it'd be tough to hit that release date.

[Gatsby77]

22 minutes ago, paperheart said:

add Aquaman to that sentence as well

It already was.

Since Aquaman was a 2018 release, Deadline counted it in last year's list -- and it was listed as more profitable to Warner Bros. then Venom was to Sony.

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I could be wrong that at least Black Adam hits before Venom 2.

But last I checked, Black Adam has a director (who was announced two days ago) and is scheduled to go into production next summer with a 2022 release date.

To my knowledge, Venom 2 is planned for release Oct. 2, 2020, but no director has yet been announced.

Even if they shoot it at night this fall and have the same mess special effects as the first one, I reckon it'd be tough to hit that release date.

Eh.

Contrary to what some outlets have posted, there were only "talks" of that guy directing the long talked about Black Adam movie.  Nothing in stone, and last I checked WB had not announced any release dates or had even officially greenlit a Black Adam movie.  

As I stated in another thread, leaking information like that is mostly just fodder for eager fanboys, and propaganda for the movie in advance of its home video release, with hopes to stoke interest in that ancillary market that it will hope to at least break even in.  Plans change quickly when movies underperform and/or flop at studios (see, eg, ASM 2).

-J.

[Bosco685]

27 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

And colour me shocked if WB ever actually does move forward in earnest on anything theatrically on anything having to do with Shazam.  Believing that WB is seriously moving forward on its biggest box office bust (in terms of worldwide box office) with not one but multiple sequels, lol, is just more clapping at the sky IMO.

-J.

Now you are just doing this for attention. Come on. Admit it. The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Variety and others all announced the Black Adam director. Even the Producer of the Shazam and Black Adam films made an announcement about it.