Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[Hunter Rider]

All the drama aside, is there any truth in Carnahan directing Daredevil?

 

[Project862006]

^just talks but i hope it comes to fruition

he is fox's #1 choice atm tho

 

[cherokeesam]

Add to that the article even blames it on the timing and not the film... Ending with the fact that Sony will have a nice pay off at the quarters end.....

Exactly. I don't think Shifty read that article at all....it actually works *against* his argument.

All the article was saying was that the timing of TASM's marketing hurt Q2 revenue, as the profits won't be seen until Q3.

 

[batsfan81]

Hope Joel Edgerton gets looked at for this.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Exactly. I don't think Shifty read that article at all....it actually works *against* his argument.

All the article was saying was that the timing of TASM's marketing hurt Q2 revenue, as the profits won't be seen until Q3.

 

[Shifty]

Spidey got a 73% on rt . What abundant majority you seem to claim is so negative about it? 73% is a pretty decent rating

And your point won't be proven till the end of the current quarter considering. Did you even read the article?? Movie studios losing money during one quarter only to pick it up the next is fairly common.... Its no reflection on the film. Even if it made a billion Sony would have still been down that quarter considering the quarter ended before the US release ..

Again look at the daily numbers, if it was so enjoyed why did it not gross more? Why did not more people see the film? Don't say TDKR, it was already low and performed below expectations before that film even came out.

I posted the article to show that the marketing and distribution costs for the film could be around $150 million. A $230 budget and $150 marketing/distribution costs = $380 million. That's a $30 million loss with the gross it has right now. Again I never said it wouldn't be profitable, just that the profit will be lower than what Sony wanted based on the high costs to make, market and release the film.

 

[marcvader]

I personally don't go to the movies that frequently so having the choice of the Dark Knight trilogy finale and Spidey reboot within 2 weeks if each other I chose TDKR. Had the ASM been earlier in the summer or later in the year I may have gone but it being just 2 weeks before TDKR did affect me.

 

[Aztec]

All the drama aside, is there any truth in Carnahan directing Daredevil?

It does not look like it will be possible for Fox to start filming before 10/10. So it will almost certainly revert back to Marvel. Unless Fox changes their mind and are willing to trade Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Again look at the daily numbers, if it was so enjoyed why did it not gross more? Why did not more people see the film? Don't say TDKR, it was already low and performed below expectations before that film even came out.

I posted the article to show that the marketing and distribution costs for the film could be around $150 million. A $230 budget and $150 marketing/distribution costs = $380 million. That's a $30 million loss with the gross it has right now. Again I never said it wouldn't be profitable, just that the profit will be lower than what Sony wanted based on the high costs to make, market and release the film.

the only "below expectations" it performed, were your own. The movie has made very decent money, and has gotten decent reviews. No one is saying that it did "Amazing" because it didn't. But it also didn't flop, didn't under-perform, and was still a successful film, especially when compared to it's obvious obstacles, and it still made more of a profit than it's most comparable film (batman begins (this isn't a batman vs spidey debate) which is a reboot taken in a new direction with a bad taste left in the audiences mouth from it's previous outing)

you're also only figuring US expenditures.. which in the grand scheme of things speaks nothing about profit.. because the world wide factor comes into play with that... and seriously? $150 mil for advertising? you've got to be kidding. thats only 80mil less than the cost of the film...... Hell.. even the article you posted SAID sony would see a profit.

AMZ will brake 700mil by the end of it's run... which is not too shabby what so ever.

maybe this will put things into perspective for you...

Superhero films over the last decade or so..

Avengers = $1,461,368,487
The Dark Knight = $1,001,921,825
Spider-Man 3 = $890,871,626
Spider-Man = $821,708,551
Spider-Man 2 = $783,766,341
The Amazing Spider-Man = $678,526,210*
Iron Man 2 = $623,933,331
Iron Man = $585,174,222
The Dark Knight Rises* = $552,245,972
X-men The Last Stand = $459,359,555
Thor = $449.3 million
X2 = $407,711,549
Superman Returns = $391,081,192
X-men Origins: Wolverine = $373,062,864
Batman Begins = $372,710,015
Captain America:The First Avenger = $368,608,363
X-men: First Class = $353,624,124
Fantastic Four = $330,579,719
X-men = $296,339,527
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer = $289,047,763
The Incredible Hulk = $263,427,551
HULK = $245,360,480
Constantine = $230,884,728
Ghost Rider = $228,738,393
Green Lantern = $222,001,172
The Watchmen = $185,258,983
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen = $179,265,204
DareDevil = $179,179,718
Hellboy II = $160,388,063
Blade II = $155,010,032
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance = $132,563,930
Blade = $131,183,530
Blade Trinity = $128,905,366
Hellboy = $99,318,987
Kick Ass = $96,188,903
Catwoman = $82,102,379
Elektra = $56,681,566
The Punisher = $54,700,105
Jonah Hex = $10,903,312
The Punisher: Warzone = $10,100,036


* And counting....

spidey's in good company

another more recent comparison... since you seem so keen on inflation... would be X-men First Class, which is deemed successful and praised, yet... budgeted between 140-160 mil and made 350 mil which is about the same percentile increase as AMZ. A simple rule of thumb tends to be "if a movie makes double it's budget, than it's profitable and successful" If a movie triples+, it's performed outstandingly.

 

[Destructus86]

For the next Daredevil film...i'd really like to see him move like the comics. With some pretty freaking amazing acrobatics...the kind that just makes your draw drop like "Is that even possible??"

 

[X Knight]

For the next Daredevil film...i'd really like to see him move like the comics. With some pretty freaking amazing acrobatics...the kind that just makes your draw drop like "Is that even possible??"

me too.

and I hope Marvel gets the rights back, and they make it darker and more grittier......

 

[MadVillainy]

If Marvel gets it back I doubt they'll make it darker and grittier

 

[spideyboy_1111]

If Marvel gets it back I doubt they'll make it darker and grittier

depends. marvel's not just going to waste a whole bunch of characters. Put them under the MK label.. and you can go as dark as you want.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

For the next Daredevil film...i'd really like to see him move like the comics. With some pretty freaking amazing acrobatics...the kind that just makes your draw drop like "Is that even possible??"

me too

 

[MadVillainy]

depends. marvel's not just going to waste a whole bunch of characters. Put them under the MK label.. and you can go as dark as you want.

That's what I want to happen

 

[MarvelKnight]

If Marvel gets it back I doubt they'll make it darker and grittier

True, but if it does come back maybe they will and then use it as a test to see if an MK film division -which has been a hot topic lately- could be plausible.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

True, but if it does come back maybe they will and then use it as a test to see if an MK film division -which has been a hot topic lately- could be plausible.

it'd be the smartest route to take. They already have 2 films with the production label of it (GRSoV and PWZ). Which means the label already exists... might as well keep it around for a studio subcategory

 

[Shifty]

the only "below expectations" it performed, were your own. The movie has made very decent money, and has gotten decent reviews. No one is saying that it did "Amazing" because it didn't. But it also didn't flop, didn't under-perform, and was still a successful film, especially when compared to it's obvious obstacles, and it still made more of a profit than it's most comparable film (batman begins (this isn't a batman vs spidey debate) which is a reboot taken in a new direction with a bad taste left in the audiences mouth from it's previous outing)

you're also only figuring US expenditures.. which in the grand scheme of things speaks nothing about profit.. because the world wide factor comes into play with that... and seriously? $150 mil for advertising? you've got to be kidding. thats only 80mil less than the cost of the film...... Hell.. even the article you posted SAID sony would see a profit.

AMZ will brake 700mil by the end of it's run... which is not too shabby what so ever.

maybe this will put things into perspective for you...

Superhero films over the last decade or so..

Avengers = $1,461,368,487
The Dark Knight = $1,001,921,825
Spider-Man 3 = $890,871,626
Spider-Man = $821,708,551
Spider-Man 2 = $783,766,341
The Amazing Spider-Man = $678,526,210*
Iron Man 2 = $623,933,331
Iron Man = $585,174,222
The Dark Knight Rises* = $552,245,972
X-men The Last Stand = $459,359,555
Thor = $449.3 million
* And counting....

spidey's in good company

another more recent comparison... since you seem so keen on inflation... would be X-men First Class, which is deemed successful and praised, yet... budgeted between 140-160 mil and made 350 mil which is about the same percentile increase as AMZ. A simple rule of thumb tends to be "if a movie makes double it's budget, than it's profitable and successful" If a movie triples+, it's performed outstandingly.

If you're comparing films from 3-10 years ago, yeah you should take into account inflation given the rise of prices and especially when TASM isn't even in the top 200 domestic films adjusted for inflation. That's not even taking in account 3D prices.

The original Spider-Man adjusted for inflation took in over $1.1 billion while SM2 just over $1 billion worldwide.

Also Sony and all studios take a smaller cut from foreign grosses as countries don't want large amounts of money to leave their country.

The $150 million comes from the LA Times not me. Its not just marketing its actually distributing the films to the 1000s of theaters in a hundred countries around the world.

I don't work for Sony or own Sony stock so whatever, we're never going to convince each other. You're welcome to make your case in the box office thread in the Misc. Films forum. I'm not alone in believing it under performed and neither are you alone believing it did not.

 

[MadVillainy]

are people still talking about TASM?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

If you're comparing films from 3-10 years ago, yeah you should take into account inflation given the rise of prices and especially when TASM isn't even in the top 200 domestic films adjusted for inflation. That's not even taking in account 3D prices.

The original Spider-Man adjusted for inflation took in over $1.1 billion while SM2 just over $1 billion worldwide.

Also Sony and all studios take a smaller cut from foreign grosses as countries don't want large amounts of money to leave their country.

The $150 million comes from the LA Times not me. Its not just marketing its actually distributing the films to the 1000s of theaters in a hundred countries around the world.

I don't work for Sony or own Sony stock so whatever, we're never going to convince each other. You're welcome to make your case in the box office thread in the Misc. Films forum. I'm not alone in believing it under performed and neither are you alone believing it did not.

for me the term underperformed means it went below an expected bar. Which the studio (the ones who set that bar, not the viewer) said it did not. I realize most films don't make money for studios... even when they double their budget. and inflation also really doesn't grow that much in 3 years.. 10 yeah. but 3?. Maybe we're arguing semantics here... I think "underperform" is a harsh word for doing "average" i mean, look at TDKR which is at about 7mil and technically to your logic.. it's also under-performing

and unlike spidey.. i think bats actually was predicted at reaching about 1 billion. And it doesn't look like that's going to happen

 

[marcvader]

Just 2 people

 

[spideyboy_1111]

are people still talking about TASM?

on a connecting topic... with sony getting more friendly with MS, it wouldn't shock me if Spidey 2 has ties to the MCU... i mean... sony would do nothing but benefit from it.. and if anyone Daredevil should team up with.... it's spidey

 

[Project862006]

It does not look like it will be possible for Fox to start filming before 10/10. So it will almost certainly revert back to Marvel. Unless Fox changes their mind and are willing to trade Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil.

based on what they got a script and zeroing on a director

yes deadline is 2 months away but vaughn was signed on about 2-3 months before he shot first class after singer left project

 

[Hunter Rider]

on a connecting topic... with sony getting more friendly with MS, it wouldn't shock me if Spidey 2 has ties to the MCU... i mean... sony would do nothing but benefit from it.. and if anyone Daredevil should team up with.... it's spidey

I'd love to see an adaption of the 2 part arc with Spidey and DD in SMTAS.

 

[cherokeesam]

based on what they got a script and zeroing on a director

yes deadline is 2 months away but vaughn was signed on about 2-3 months before he shot first class after singer left project

Apples, meet oranges.
Totally different situations. With X3, Fox was in a rush to get a major motion picture sequel in the can before a deadline that had crapped out on them because of directors deserting the project; in the case of DD, you're looking at a reboot that nobody asked for of a franchise that nobody ever gave a damn about in the first place.