Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Doctor Strange' started by KDM1986, Oct 29, 2014.
Budgets are rarely taken into account as well. MOS 225M. DS 165m.
The quality of the films might possibly maybe have something to do with it as well. Maybe.
Then it appears that you are using the term backwards. The initial post was:
Saying that Marvel fans are wont to take adjusted box office figures into account means that they usually do take them into account. Your "see it more often from Marvel fans" seems to be saying that they don't.
More directly, your initial post:
is self-contradictory. If they are wont to take adjustments into account, then they wouldn't be rarely mentioned.
If there's a bias, I think it's based on the perceived quality of the product. Let me give you a concrete example. While some people don't like TDK or Heath Ledger's joker (which I find baffling), a great number of people, and this includes a LOT of MCU AND DCEU fans....and me, think the movie is the very best SH movie ever made. There may be some people out there who don't like TDK because they love all things Marvel, but they are in the vast minority. There are also people out there who like anything DCEU and think even Marvel's best efforts aren't worth watching (Like my buddy Mandon; whose posts I get a kick out of reading and am on friendly terms with).
Regarding adjusted box office......it's a lazy, sham way of trying to compare box office totals. I used to be a statistician and taught probability and statistical analysis at the University of California and I can tell you that there are too many factors that you can't quantify to justify a comparison and it gets more and more difficult the further apart the movies are in time. Things like Blu Ray release dates, the advent of home theaters (like mine t: ), more entertainment choices (like gaming), other new technologies, etc.
Think of error as being on either side of a straight line. If you are one degree off one foot out (call it early in time), you aren't far from the straight line. If, however, you are one degree off 100 yards out (call it much later in time), the absolute error is dramatically increased. It's not a perfect analogy as, over time, new errors are introduced due to changing technologies and so forth. Suppose the way movies are released is changed....say that we have a lot more quality movies released directly to one time streaming or something like that. How in the world would you compare the popularity (or BO #s) of the movies by looking at INFLATION? This is an extreme example to illustrate a general point that technologies change and inflation has nothing to do with the effect on BO #s.
I could go on and be more precise, but I think people get the gist of what I'm saying.
THANK YOU for demonstrating a point I will be addressing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh..without doubt. Unfortunately this often leads to assertions/arguments that are SUBJECTIVE in nature.
Not using it backwards AT ALL. Perhaps my initial post was a bit confusing (I probably should have added a little more content or a sarcasm tag). Often times whenever an analysis/comparison of the two franchises is at hand (and things start to swing in favor of one side) the opposing team is "wont" to bring up box office adjustment figures (or A-list vs. B-list, or production budgets - see Adder's post above, etc.) to counter...anything to validate their argument. There is a recent example of this in the Suicide Squad box office thread. It was related to box office performance between the two franchises. I brought up OBJECTIVE data that showed the first 3 movies of the DCEU had out performed the first 3 of the MCU. This was quickly discounted and a counter argument was made that involved bringing up adjusted figures, production budgets, and the A-list/B-list argument. I reconfigured the OBJECTIVE data to include these factors (which involved adding a 4th MCU movie vs 3 for DCEU) and the DCEU still came out on top. A sh !t storm ensued that resulted in a bunch of posts being deleted and folks (mainly me) being warned by the moderators. Keep in mind, none of the arguments were incendiary in nature. We were having a very constructive discussion (FAR from heated). These posts were completely OBJECTIVE and clearly backed up my argument, however, they were wiped from existence. Some might conclude it was too much for certain (Marvel biased) individuals to take. In a nutshell, my Dr. Strange comment was merely sarcastically taking a page from something I had recently had first hand experience with.
BTW...that last quote you quoted wasn't mine, it was Vincanws' so I wasn't contradicting myself... AT ALL...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Beautiful!!! I could not agree more...yet it's brought up/used to defend a positon ALL the time.
Agreed. Perception, though, is often based on SUBJECTIVE notions. I'm one of those individuals that was not completely behind the TDK's take on the Joker. The performance was without question BRILLIANT (a well deserved Oscar for Mr. Ledger that was NOT simply a sympathy vote...as some have asserted) however, I had a problem with the look of the character. It was difficult for me to get past the "Hobo" Joker look. But, again, this is simply how I FELT (the very definition of subjective) about the character. I prefer to take an objective look at an issue, concern, assertion, argument, etc. (whenever possible).
Yeah. Most of what we talk about is subjective. One of the few things that isn't are "unadjusted" BO totals within a few years of each other, but it doesn't mean the one that made more money was a "better" movie.
I don't think I have EVER used "adjusted" totals. It's true some people do that to defend "their" movies. Silly really.
I don't know which 3 DCEU movies outperformed the 3 MCU ones and don't really care one way or the other. IM (a lesser known character) got the ball rolling and Marvel has had it in gear ever since. I would expect a character like BM and SM (and WW for that matter) to outperform IM. Who wouldn't?
I'd also expect Supes to outperform DS, but that didn't happen this time around. "Somebody" brought up the adjusted total issue with regard to MoS and DS. Maybe you remember who it was? t:
You're absolutely right; I got them jumbled. My apologies.
I posted the quote you are talking about. And I think you know what I was trying to say, seeing as you're so smart.
No, I genuinely misunderstood; again, my apologies.
You know a boxoffice thread has run its course when the "adjusted" numbers debate pops up...
Anyways, Dr Strange beat MOS, that's all I could've hoped for, on to GOTG2.
Also, the reason nobody takes seriously the "first three movies comparison" argument is that its a crappy argument.
1. It ignores budget, looking solely at gross rather than actual profitability
2. Comparing B/C list characters to A list characters is apples and oranges
3. One set is the first three movies produced by a studio, ever, the other are three movies from a studio that has produced a lot more movies *just in those franchises* before
4. Different movies have different expectations, and WB most certainly had vastly different expectations for their films than they got
5. Picking a comparison that *just happens* to include the worst performing movie in the entire orveau smells an awful lot like bad faith
Also you don't adjust international numbers so comparing ww totals is a moot point.
It's fair to use that tool to compare domestic numbers in a limited timeframe but beyond that it doesn't really work that way.
The "first three movies" argument is so intellectually bankrupt that I'm shocked it still gets bandied about every now and then. Your reasons are all sound, and moreover, the second of the three movies in the DCEU is most comparable to the sixth in the MCU; WB/DC rushed to their first big superhero crossover using the three most iconic superheroes of all time, so of course it was going to make oodles and oodles and money.
Although I still sit here amazed that they couldn't generate $1B out of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, the Holy Trinity of Superheroes, at a time when superhero films are red hot.
If I said at this time last year that 4 films would crack $1B worldwide, I think everyone would have BvS on their list of 4 films. That it didn't make even $900M has to be seen as a failure.
The notion of a crappy argument TOTALLY depends on the context in which it is brought up, which (for the record) was in response to someone claiming the first 3 movies of the MCU made more money than the first 3 of the DCEU. When it was shown this was not the case, then (of course) the often used adjusted figures/budgets and A-list/B-list argument was employed. I'm not positive, but I think you may have been a participant in that thread (Suicide Squad box office). So many of the posts were deleted by moderators, I can't say for sure. Apologies if this is not the case. If you were part of it, though, you should be able to verify what I'm saying is true.
1. Not correct...the analysis I posted (which, as I indicated earlier, was deleted by moderators) made concessions for adjusted numbers (both total gross and budgets) and the A-list/B-list argument. Please keep in mind, this was a 2ND analysis! It was only used after the adjusted figures argument was brought up. As I (and InCali) have always said, the only true OBJECTIVE analysis comes from unadjusted box office numbers. When you look at these figures and include budget, the DCEU's first 3 films are more profitable than the first 3 MCU films. Period. Facts can sometimes be a beyatch and SOME folks have a hard time accepting them (which is why they bring up all the "silly" adjusted numbers arguments).
2. Could not agree more. However, as I have said many times before, it tends to be a fallback argument when things OBJECTIVELY shift in a direction that is not, shall we say, optimal for their side. It is the reason the 2nd set of numbers included 4 movies for the MCU vs 3 movies for the DCEU
3. Again...this was in RESPONSE to an assertion made by a Marvel fan. I was simply pointing out their statement was incorrect. They made the comparison between the MCU and DCEU. None of the previous incarnations (Nolan movies, Reeve's Superman movies, Raimi Spidey movies, X-men movies, etc.) were even considered.
4. For sure. I don't think anyone can argue WB left a lot of money on the table.
5. Again...the parameters of the original assertion was with respect to the first 3 films of the MCU and the first 3 films of the DCEU.
I would love to re-post the numbers here but they would probably just be deleted. In short, with regard to the first 3 movies of each franchise, the OBJECTIVE fact of the matter is DC comes out on top. When you include the 'apples and oranges' factors that were brought up to counter, DC still comes out on top. In the grand scheme of things, does this even matter? Probably not, but again, it was only pointed out as a rebuttal to some incorrect assertions.
Agreed. This point was actually addressed when I originally submitted my analysis. Many factors are difficult (if not impossible) to arrive at with regard to adjusted WW numbers (primarily due to different rates of inflation, etc.) which is probably why there isn't a metric for them. I came up with a method that (while certainly not EXACT) was pretty much in the ballpark. Nobody took issue with the numbers I came up with. I actually rounded up in many instances, which was beneficial to Marvel.
It passed 675M WW over the week end, which is probably its last milestone:
It is the biggest MCU solo origin story passing Iron Man, it's also the 4th biggest solo origin story in the genre, behind the two Spider-Man movies and Deadpool (not in that order). Within the MCU it is the 7th highest grossing film WW. Outside of the genre it crashed the top 100 WW, passing Interstellar, Man of Steel, Pirates of the Carribean The Curse of the Black Pearl and Star Wars Episode II in the process.
what do you guys feel is the biggest contribution to the box office success of Dr. Strange? Wasn't he a C-list character for Marvel and yet they drop the film to nearly $700 million worldwide. That's Insane/
Biggest factor of Dr Strange's success is that every other movie Marvel has done have had quality production, agreeable characters played by actors who were playing a character, rather than just wearing a costume.
Doctor Strange may be considered C list, but his unique position in Marvel has had him interact with just about everyone in his 50+ year history. He has also been important parts of major storylines secondary to his powerset. That in itself opens up every other corner of the Marvel universe. So he was an important character to introduce, because they can literally segue to everyone, every where and everything else from him.
I think casting Benedict, who has his own following, and world-wide popularity had a lot of impact as well.
Couldn't have said it better SF lol
A lot of the Marvel Studios characters really fit that description, more or less. Maybe they would have been seen as B-listers in the comics, compared to Spidey and the X-Men, rather than C-listers, but many of them would have been essentially unknown to general audiences.
It's easy to forget now, but for most people, Iron Man was essentially unknown at one time also. Guardians of the Galaxy, same thing.
Marvel Studios has really built up its brand and a loyal audience.
Combined with Cumberbatch and a very solid, entertaining film, I guess that was enough.
It's still very impressive, though.
This movies box office might give Justice League a run for its money.
I was right!