Justice League Justice League Box Office Prediction - Part 5

[I Am The Knight]

How is a movie that could cost the studio 50M - 100M after a 3 year investment not a disaster?

Fixed

 

[MbJ]

I know, it's utterly ridiculous to be labeling it as 'disaster'.

WB spent 300 million, the most amount of money ever spent on a film of this genre btw, on a movie starring a team of their most iconic and recognizable superheroes, and not only did it have the lowest opening of the franchise, but it got pummeled into bloody submission by Thor, a character who until this year was probably the least loved of Marvel's solo movie franchises. We were already living in a world where the first cinematic meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman became a pop culture punchline and got beat by the flippin' third Iron Man movie of all things, but this was supposed to be DC's Avengers.

That's a disaster. That's an embarrassment. That's the end result of several years of damage done to what could have and should have been a key rival to Marvel's movieverse.

 

[Patchwork Man]

...Except WB is only getting about half of that 482 million. So the film still hasn't even made it's budget back yet. By the end of its box office run, it isn't even projected to break even.

People tend to forget that studios don't pocket the entirety of a box office take. Plenty of movies, even Marvel films, have a narrower profit margin than it at-first may seem.

Fully aware of all this. I didn't say that was all going into WB's coffers. They get about half of the domestic, roughly a quarter of the foreign. Again, roughly.

 

[Patchwork Man]

WB spent 300 million, the most amount of money ever spent on a film of this genre btw, on a movie starring a team of their most iconic and recognizable superheroes, and not only did it have the lowest opening of the franchise, but it got pummeled into bloody submission by Thor, a character who until this year was probably the least loved of Marvel's solo movie franchises. We were already living in a world where the first cinematic meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman became a pop culture punchline and got beat by the flippin' third Iron Man movie of all things, but this was supposed to be DC's Avengers.

That's a disaster. That's an embarrassment. That's the end result of several years of damage done to what could have and should have been a key rival to Marvel's movieverse.

Again, an extra 100 million to go to Joss doing reshoots, changing VFX and colors, adding more CGI, removing Henry's moustache and so on. Also bringing on a veteran composer who no doubt commands a larger paycheck.

WB would have saved money letting Zack finish the movie.

 

[InCali]

WB spent 300 million, the most amount of money ever spent on a film of this genre btw, on a movie starring a team of their most iconic and recognizable superheroes, and not only did it have the lowest opening of the franchise, but it got pummeled into bloody submission by Thor, a character who until this year was probably the least loved of Marvel's solo movie franchises. We were already living in a world where the first cinematic meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman became a pop culture punchline and got beat by the flippin' third Iron Man movie of all things, but this was supposed to be DC's Avengers.

That's a disaster. That's an embarrassment. That's the end result of several years of damage done to what could have and should have been a key rival to Marvel's movieverse.

I'm not going to get into a "disaster" "not a disaster" discussion, but no one even thought to add 600-700M to this poll and only 1 in 6 thought it would be as low as 700-800M. This tells us something about the expectations for this movie until it was released.

 

[Playco Armboy]

Losing $50m on a $300m investment is the definition of a disaster. This movie is one big overpriced flop. No getting around it.

People waving their hands saying these results are alright by WB and aren't highly concerning are clueless to an incredible degree.

And so because we have to clear this up again: YES, the $50m loss projections INCLUDE ANCILLARIES like VOD and Blu-Ray.

 

[MbJ]

Again, an extra 100 million to go to Joss doing reshoots, changing VFX and colors, adding more CGI, removing Henry's moustache and so on. Also bringing on a veteran composer who no doubt commands a larger paycheck.

WB would have saved money letting Zack finish the movie.

I'm not sure what that has to do with disproving the claim that this has been a disaster.

 

[Patchwork Man]

I'm not sure what that has to do with disproving the claim that this has been a disaster.

Oh, I don't know. I thought it had to do with the size of the budget and what it needs to bring in, maybe?

 

[Playco Armboy]

Imagine SHH posters running WB, looking at sub-MoS numbers by their answer to The Avengers and going, "Nah, the numbers are just disappointing! Calling it a disaster is ridiculous!"

They'd run the business into the ground overnight.

 

[MbJ]

Oh, I don't know. I thought it had to do with the size of the budget and what it needs to bring in, maybe?

Not really, or at least not in that context. When I'm saying WB spent 300 million dollars on a movie that's now underperforming, telling me "Yeah but it was gonna be cheaper!" doesn't really mean or change anything. And it certainly doesn't make it less of a disaster. Yeah, the Hindenburg almost didn't crash, but it still did.

 

[Flint Marko]

Again, an extra 100 million to go to Joss doing reshoots, changing VFX and colors, adding more CGI, removing Henry's moustache and so on. Also bringing on a veteran composer who no doubt commands a larger paycheck.

WB would have saved money letting Zack finish the movie.

You don't fork over 100 million dollars unless you absolutely have to.

Imagine SHH posters running WB, looking at sub-MoS numbers by their answer to The Avengers and going, "Nah, the numbers are just disappointing! Calling it a disaster is ridiculous!"

They'd run the business into the ground overnight.

I'd like to see some of these claims made in WB's next shareholder meeting.

"But guys, you're going to make money off toys and blu-rays!"

 

[Patchwork Man]

Not really, or at least not in that context. When I'm saying WB spent 300 million dollars on a movie that's now underperforming, telling me "Yeah but it was gonna be cheaper!" doesn't really mean or change anything. And it certainly doesn't make it less of a disaster. Yeah, the Hindenburg almost didn't crash, but it still did.

Because spending all that money was a mistake. The movie cost 300M and it doesn't look it. Letting Joss making unnecessary changes (and change composers) cost (a lot of) money, and that was a mistake.

Simple enough?

 

[Patchwork Man]

You don't fork over 100 million dollars unless you absolutely have to.

They didn't have to.

 

[MbJ]

Because spending all that money was a mistake.

Okay but what does that have to do with saying this movie wasn't a disaster? Because that's what the discussion was about.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Okay but what does that have to do with saying this movie wasn't a disaster? Because that's what the discussion was about.

I thought this was the box office thread. Are you saying it's a financial disaster? I thought you were.

 

[Playco Armboy]

Because spending all that money was a mistake. The movie cost 300M and it doesn't look it. Letting Joss making unnecessary changes (and change composers) cost (a lot of) money, and that was a mistake.

Simple enough?

This is a worthless deflection you got going on here. Point is, WB spent that money, and it counts as part of why JL can be classified as a disaster.

 

[MbJ]

That's what the line of discussion you replied to was about.

 

[Flint Marko]

They didn't have to.

Oh cool, you've seen the original cut?

 

[Patchwork Man]

This is a worthless deflection you got going on here. Point is, WB spent that money, and it counts as part of why JL can be classified as a disaster.

That's what I'm saying. They shouldn't have made the changes that led to that. I would have rather seen a 100% Zack film with Junkie's score.

Simple enough?

 

[Playco Armboy]

Oh cool, you've seen the original cut?

Yeah, seriously, didn't WB do all that reshoot business because test screenings panned Zack's version?

 

[Playco Armboy]

That's what I'm saying. They shouldn't have made the changes that led to that. I would have rather seen a 100% Zack film with Junkie's score.

Simple enough?

That's cool and all, but that has nothing to do with the post you were originally replying to.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Oh cool, you've seen the original cut?

Yeah, the DVD's right next to me. There's this great scene where Batman goes "My turn!" in lieu of "Sorry guys, I didn't bring a sword!"

Did you actually see the movie, Flint?

 

[Playco Armboy]

Yeah, the DVD's right next to me. There's this great scene where Batman goes "My turn!" in lieu of "Sorry guys, I didn't bring a sword!"

Did you actually see the movie, Flint?

Going by Zack's track record, trusting him to have put out a movie slightly better a piece of garbage than the current JL is dubious at best.

 

[Patchwork Man]

I'm starting to think some of the commentators in this thread haven't seen the movie.

 

[Playco Armboy]

I'm starting to think some of the commentators in this thread haven't actually watched the movie.

Or maybe we're not cradling Zack's balls, that could be it as well.