All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 2

[Motown Marvel]

Its not in that level, imo.

your right, S:TM was better than TDK.

 

[DorkyFresh]

erm...i love S:TM but it's nowhere near the same level of TDK. i'm not a TDK nut or anything, i just judge on entertainment value. TDK is much more entertaining than S:TM.......imo

 

[Showtime]

After a modest search of my own, I came across a journalist and author named Edward Jay Epstein who specializes in the business of Hollywood. According to him, studios take about 50% of the domestic BO. (This I knew already.) But Epstein does go on to mention what the foreign percentage is. It’s less – but not a lot less.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money

Not sure where you are getting 40 percent? If you dig a little bit into the article, the author states that the studio is lucky to take in 15 percent of a foreign box office gross. That seems like a lot less than 50 percent of the domestic...

So, all things being equal, the foreign BO is slightly less “relevant” than the domestic. But it turns out that all things are not equal. On a film like Quantum of Solace, for example, 40% of its “foreign” $418 million amounted to more actual dollars than 50% of its “domestic” $168 million.

Well sure. Exception to the rule. I might be off on this, but hasn't EVERY Bond movie made more overseas than domestic? If you want to look at this generically using the example you actually linked to above. Quantam of Solace would have made 50 percent on the domestic which is 84 Million and 61 million overseas, or 15 percent of its box office. Again, a generic way to look at it but you get the point.

Of course, we must extend the numbers beyond a single example. And according to a WSJ article, the advantage goes decisively to “foreign”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704913304575371394036766312.htm

The rising clout of international audiences is a sea change for Hollywood. Decades ago, a movie's foreign box office barely registered with studio executives. Now, foreign ticket sales represent nearly 68% of the roughly $32 billion global film market…

Well that is 68 percent of ticket sales, as we know if they aren't making the same percentage foreign as they are domestic, this doesn't really mean all that much does it?

So, by the numbers, foreign revenues are more relevant to the studios’ bottom line than domestic.

Well...actually, it is less relevant.

 

[Dr.]

Not sure where you are getting 40 percent?

Hmmm. Well, I cited an authority by name, gave his credentials, quoted him directly and then provided a link to his article. So I’m not quite sure what to make of your question.

If you dig a little bit into the article, the author states that the studio is lucky to take in 15 percent of a foreign box office gross. That seems like a lot less than 50 percent of the domestic...

...If you want to look at this generically using the example you actually linked to above. Quantam of Solace would have made 50 percent on the domestic which is 84 Million and 61 million overseas, or 15 percent of its box office. Again, a generic way to look at it but you get the point.

Yes and no. As Epstein points out, the studios have additional expenses (advertising, prints, taxes) which need to be deducted from foreign revenues. And he gave numbers from a particular film to calculate a 15% net profit. But expenses also apply to domestic revenues. So even though it was a bit of an oversimplification, I was doing my best to compare apples to apples. If expenses are to be deducted, then this should be done for both foreign and domestic.

Well that is 68 percent of ticket sales, as we know if they aren't making the same percentage foreign as they are domestic, this doesn't really mean all that much does it?

The 68% figure is significant because it’s the necessary basis for the subsequent calculations. Evenly split, 50% of domestic is obviously bigger than 40% foreign. But 40% (or even 25%) of 68 returns more actual dollars than 50% of 32. So it does mean much. (And as mentioned, if you wanted to go as low as 15% for foreign to account for expenses, a corresponding deduction would need to be applied to the 50% domestic. Again, apples need to be compared to apples.)

Cheers,

 

[Dr.]

You can't just slap on the \S/ logo on one-sheets and flash a Christmas Day 2012 release and say, "Now...it's time to let the money pour in!" They did that on Superman Returns and the grosses fell short of expectations because they, foolishly, didn't think beyond that with general audiences. Again something the Trek people made a point to avoid with their marketing - much to their credit and success.

Exactly. There seems to be some weird (but familiar ) posturing here. I don’t think anyone disputes that Superman (or the ) is one of the most popular cultural icons in the world. But that doesn’t automatically translate to box office gold. A Supes movie has to earn its place (in a crowded field) like any other.

Analogously, it may be cute fun for a lot of folks to have Mickey Mouse watches and bumper stickers. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that dear old Mickey can carry a feature film. Success is not an entitlement.

 

[Sam]

have me wondering how much change Superman is going thru new DC Universe:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269?refCatId=13

 

[The Batman]

your right, S:TM was better than TDK.

And Christopher Nolan himself has said this.

 

[Sabaoth]

have me wondering how much change Superman is going thru new DC Universe:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269?refCatId=13

Perhaps after Flashpoint, Krypton did not blow up and Kal El was sent to earth as an infant as part of a sleeper alien invasion brigade. Maybe he was sent to earth as a teenager?
We don't know.
I think they will tweak the origin here and there to have it resemble the creators' story as little as possible.
It's business.
At least we will have time to become familiar with the new suit before Cavill wears it (and I think he will.)
I'm glad DC is putting common sense and progress above sentimentality and nostalgia.

 

[Godzilla2014]

your right, S:TM was better than TDK.

Totally disagree. The Dark Knight is far better than Superman: The Movie, as is Batman Begins.

erm...i love S:TM but it's nowhere near the same level of TDK. i'm not a TDK nut or anything, i just judge on entertainment value. TDK is much more entertaining than S:TM.......imo

I agree.

 

[HighFivingMF]

You know what's good? Both of them.

 

[bullets]

You know what's good? Both of them.

Thank you. Sometimes it seems like there's a rule around here where you can only show allegiance to one superhero film at a time or one has to be "the best"

 

[Solidus]

Well Tuesday I'm spending 90 bucks....

Anyone else getting the Superman Anthology on blu?

 

[Showtime]

Hmmm. Well, I cited an authority by name, gave his credentials, quoted him directly and then provided a link to his article. So I’m not quite sure what to make of your question.

Yes and no. As Epstein points out, the studios have additional expenses (advertising, prints, taxes) which need to be deducted from foreign revenues. And he gave numbers from a particular film to calculate a 15% net profit. But expenses also apply to domestic revenues. So even though it was a bit of an oversimplification, I was doing my best to compare apples to apples. If expenses are to be deducted, then this should be done for both foreign and domestic.

The 68% figure is significant because it’s the necessary basis for the subsequent calculations. Evenly split, 50% of domestic is obviously bigger than 40% foreign. But 40% (or even 25%) of 68 returns more actual dollars than 50% of 32. So it does mean much. (And as mentioned, if you wanted to go as low as 15% for foreign to account for expenses, a corresponding deduction would need to be applied to the 50% domestic. Again, apples need to be compared to apples.)

Cheers,

Yes, you cited an authority by name, gave his credentials, quoted him directly and then provided a link to his article, but then you proceeded to completely misrepresent the article.

The direct quote is "Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15 per cent of what is reported as the foreign gross" In regards to the 15% he's not talking about a particular film, he's talking about foreign take overall.

How can foreign costs be applied both to foreign and domestic takes for a studio? It can't be apples to apples as you say. It would be pretty strange for a studio to pay currency conversion, foreign trade dues, and foreign shipping on the domestic front don't you think?

A studio paying for advertising in the U.S, well that is one language. Translating advertising in dozens of countries would reasonably cost the studio more. Never mind the dozens and dozens of countries receiving foreign prints and the also paying each of the countries taxes.

 

[Showtime]

Bond may have more problems than the Trek sequel right now, mainly with the studio financing and lawsuits and bankruptcy stuff.

There is nothing set in stone for the Bond film.

Last I heard, is that there was still problems that needed to be resolved. Mendes is ready, but the studio still has some loose ends to tie up.

When are they going to OFFICIALLY start filming?

Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of EON Productions, together with Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, Co-Chairmen and Chief Executive Officers of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., today announced that the 23rd James Bond film will commence production in late 2011 for a worldwide release on November 9, 2012. The UK and Ireland will be getting the movie two weeks earlier, on October 26.

Daniel Craig will be returning as the legendary British secret agent, with Sam Mendes directing a screenplay written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan.

The film will be produced by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.

​

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78328

 

[Doc Ock]

You know what's good? Both of them.

Yuppers!

Well Tuesday I'm spending 90 bucks....

Anyone else getting the Superman Anthology on blu?

I would say yes. But I don't have 90 bucks I can spend right now. LOTR and Star Wars will come first.

 

[Solidus]

I'm getting all of em. Tuesday will be a lot though. I got Infamous 2, Superman Anthology, and True Grit coming out. Then soon the LOTR EE Blu, which I will get as well.

 

[Herolee10]

In regards to the Superman Anthology, I still can't believe that we're FINALLY getting the Return to Krypton sequence. I never thought that I'd ever see that scene in my lifetime; well that, or I'd have to wait for as long as fans had to for Donner's clips from SII to come out.

Before MOS was released in Theaters, I wish they would release a extended version of SR, with the color filter removed from it, to see on what it would have looked like if most of BR's scenes in it especially weren't removed from the cut.

 

[Doc Ock]

I'm getting all of em. Tuesday will be a lot though. I got Infamous 2, Superman Anthology, and True Grit coming out. Then soon the LOTR EE Blu, which I will get as well.

I'll get them all eventually.

 

[SuperDaniel]

your right, S:TM was better than TDK.

In your dreams maybe...

 

[SuperDaniel]

Yuppers!

I have one word for you: Otis...

 

[Herolee10]

The sad thing about all of this, is that MOS may most likely be the last time we see an origin film based on the origin tale that most of us are familiar with since who knows on what would happen if the Siegals are granted custody of certain key aspects to the origins and certain central and pivotal characters in the Superman Lore?

Frankly, there IS no real winner in this, and the fans are going to be the ones that get hurt the most from all of this ********.

 

[Sam]

Well Tuesday I'm spending 90 bucks....

Anyone else getting the Superman Anthology on blu?

I already pre-ordered Superman Anthology on blu-ray at Amazon.com

 

[Dr.]

Yes, you cited an authority by name, gave his credentials, quoted him directly and then provided a link to his article, but then you proceeded to completely misrepresent the article.

Okay, I understand now. When you asked where I got the 40% figure, I took the question literally. What you meant was, I was misrepresenting Epstein’s figure as final foreign profits.

The direct quote is "Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15 per cent of what is reported as the foreign gross"...

How can foreign costs be applied both to foreign and domestic takes for a studio? It can't be apples to apples as you say. It would be pretty strange for a studio to pay currency conversion, foreign trade dues, and foreign shipping on the domestic front don't you think?

A studio paying for advertising in the U.S, well that is one language. Translating advertising in dozens of countries would reasonably cost the studio more. Never mind the dozens and dozens of countries receiving foreign prints and the also paying each of the countries taxes.

The main reason I cited Epstein’s article was because it appeared to answer the original question I posed: is a studio’s approximately 50% share of the domestic BO the same for the foreign BO? No, it’s approximately 40% for foreign. Interesting. And, importantly, a useful “apples to apples” comparison.

Now it’s true that Epstein breaks that 40% down further – taking into account additional fees and expenses that must be subtracted. In doing so, he comes up with his 15% figure. Yes (as you point out) some of those expenses are particular to the foreign market. But - most definitely - similar expenses exist for the domestic market. (Since the article was all about foreign BO, it’s not that surprising that Epstein didn’t enumerate the domestic expenses.) Film prints for 3000+ domestic screens costs money; advertising on American media costs money; domestic taxes and fees costs money; domestic “revenue sharing” by big-name talent costs money.

The bottom line here is - if it’s correct to reduce the 40% foreign “profits” to 15% because of expenses, then a commensurate deduction must be applied to the 50% domestic “profits.” Quite simply, it’s not “apples to apples” to place an unadjusted 50% up against an adjusted 15%.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Alright, as promised... the WEEKLY SUPERMAN NO NEWS RECAP!

This week, Dr. Kevorkian died. Despite a name that sounds like a comic book supervillain and the fact that his contraversial practice of euthanasia has caused some people to brand him a murderer, Dr. Kevorkian never crossed paths with the Man of Steel. We just brought him up because, well... what the hell else is there to talk about?

Also this week, Ryan Gosling's name was mentioned in connection with Superman! What is the connection you might ask? Might this young, popular, extremely talented young actor be appearing in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel?!!!

Wait for it...

NOPE! The big scoop this week is that Gosling turned down a role in the film! But wait... maybe this will at least give us a clue as to other characters that might be in this film, right? Maybe Gosling was in consideration for Lex Luthor, a key role that has yet to be cast! Well, here's the part that makes this a NO NEWS EXCLUSIVE... we don't have a f**king clue! Truth be told, we're not even sure if the story about Gosling has any truth to it whatsoever. But we're sure about one thing. As of right now... Ryan Gosling has nothing to do with the new Superman movie!

Finally, this week we got a picture of DC's apparently revamped concept of Superman (in the comics). It's not a drastic departure, but fans will note the high collar, the altered Superman "S" and the apparent lack of briefs. Some have speculated that this could be a glimpse of what Superman's costume will look like in the Man of Steel film.

Well, NO NEWS has an answer for you: again, we've have no f**king idea! But we do know that the changes in the comic were made specifically to appease Jim Lee, who still can't draw a traditional Superman "S." When asked to elaborate, Lee gave the following explanation: "Yeah, I don't really give a crap because it's an easy paycheck for me. Everyone just kisses my ass and tells me how great I am, so when I wake up one day and decide to change the 'S' symbol to a backwards 'Z' sort of thing, they're like, 'Okay, no problem, Jim! We'll just revamp the entire universe!' It's pretty sweet."

And so there you have it. Get ready this weekend for another SUPER NO NEWS SUNDAY in which we'll find out more actors that WON'T be appearing in Man of Steel. Also, don't miss The Killing on AMC, just because it's better than any of the other crap on TV right now. See you next week!

 

[GreenKToo]

You mad?