Reality Check(Budget vs. Profit)

[danoyse]

It also had a more favorable profit% of its budget(61.6%). It was a big financial success. It was not a part of a movie franchise. Sony accomplished their goal by making a lot of money off a popular book. Was Sony planning on making any other Davinci code movies?

Yes. "Angels & Demons." It's the prequel story to DaVinci Code (and in my opinion, a better book), and it was announced they were making the movie right after DaVinci's opening weekend.

In fact, Robert Langdon was listed in Entertainment Weekly's list of "most important" fictional characters--meaning the most profitable.

Wolverine was #1.

 

[danoyse]

If you want to compare The Last Stand's merchandising with the likes of the insane merchandising held by any Star Wars, Batman, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, and Superman films be my guest . . . but I'm guessing that's simply going to make The Last Stand look worse. Honestly, aside from a couple of toys, I have hardly seen any merchandising from The Last Stand touch the likes of half of the examples listed in Theweepeople's initial post . . .

Superman's even got nicer Slurpee cups.

I don't think there was any merchandising for X3, outside of the books, the video game, the soundtrack, and the aforementioned Slurpee cups. I was in the supermarket yesterday, and nearly everything in the store had either Superman and Captain Jack on it.

You have to imagine if they spent a ton of money on toys and Wolverine breakfast cereal, it would cut into the movie's profits. I believe I read that the X2 toys didn't sell well...maybe that figured into the decision this time around?

 

[Theweepeople]

"WAIT!! WAIT!! my freind.

The production budget of SR alone is $260 million my freind. BOM has NOT added the previous 50 million spent before SR to its budget. If u add that it will become $310 million +add marketing+distribution which is probably around $90-110 million. SR has a TOTAL budget between $400-420 million."

Okay? Your obsession with Superman failing is scary. You said earlier that X-Men has a budget of 165 million(which is confirmed on Lee's box office report which also confirms that Superman has a budget of 180,000,000). Yet box office mojo has Superman at 260 million and X-Men at 210 million. My interpretation of this information is Fox has spent 45 million on marketing and Warner Brothers either spent 80 million on marketing or a combination of 80 million on marketing and money spent on the previous films. How can you be 100% sure about what BOM has added? For you to be completely sure Superman's budget is 400-420 million is ridiculous.

 

[Theweepeople]

"Yes. "Angels & Demons." It's the prequel story to DaVinci Code (and in my opinion, a better book), and it was announced they were making the movie right after DaVinci's opening weekend.

In fact, Robert Langdon was listed in Entertainment Weekly's list of "most important" fictional characters--meaning the most profitable"

I guess I was wrong about Davinci Code(I did not know about Angels and Demons.). Sony probably made a mistake with development of the film if it got mixed reviews. This movie has similarities with Batman Forever. That movie got mixed reviews, made a lot of money, and destroyed the Batman franchise. It's no coincidence that Batman and Robin flopped domestically. Angles and Demons will probably fail because the Davinci Code fan base was turned off by this movie.

 

[BMM]

It was certainly no different in quality then the first 2 x films. X3 had the same amount of special effects if not more then the first 2. And I notice some people say the dialogue was cheesy. But it was no more cheesier then the first 2 (remember Storms famous Toad line?). I think the reason why people didnt like it is because they got there hopes up knowing it may very well be the last x men film and the ending to a trilogy. Also it dissapointed fan boys because they were expecting things to look forward to (Iceman icing up, Pheonix, Psylocke, Iceman-Pyro fight) and then realizing that what they see in the preview is basically what they get. But they would have thought it was cool, had they not seen or heard about it and getting their hopes up. Another major reason this dissapointed was because of the major deaths. The reason Cyclops died was because of scheduling conlict with James Marsdens. He couldnt be there and that is the easiest way to dispose of him. And Jean had to die, it was the only way to get rid of the Pheonix in this movie, seeing as the Pheonix personality will always be a part of her and without Prof X there is no way to supress it. It also makes it more emotional to have Pheonix sacrifice herself. And Im not sure why they killed of Prof X, but nonetheless people die in movies and its not a valid reason to complain about a movie.

Regarding your first sentence, the general consensus via everything I previously mentioned among comic fans and non-fans seems to point otherwise. Also, the special effects are not something naysayers are complaining about. If anything, they seem to be the only positive thing highlighted across the board for The Last Stand. In so far as dialogue cheesiness is concerned, I can certainly list more examples in The Last Stand than in the previous two films combined--Everyone will agree with you regarding Storm's one line in X-Men . . . but, I need only look to the President in The Last Stand to come up with more and with equally bad delivery-- if anything the movie suffers from (which again seems to be agreeable to a majority of people) it appears to be a weaker script (especially concerning the potentially powerful subject matter) . . .

Regarding fans getting their hopes because "what they saw" in the previews is "what they got" in the film . . . that's typically a bad sign. If the best moments in the movie are actually almost completely shown and ruined in the previews, it means there is little else in the movie actually worth watching (case in point--Iceman vs. Pyro). The previews are there to make the audience get excited and to get their hopes up. It's the driving force that makes the audience want to see the movie. It is the movie's job to follow through on this.

Also, most people aren't complaining that Dark Phoenix dies . . . because that's how it should be . . .

 

[Theweepeople]

"They weren't "promises," they were plugs from a studio who wanted you to see their movie. Welcome to show business."

You can spin this any way you want but, a lie is a lie.

"Keep in mind..."Return of the King" was also the third movie based on a book that stayed reasonably closer to the source material. Aspects of Dark Phoenix story as told in the comics (the Shi'ar, etc.) would not have a translated in the story arc of the movies. It was also a success on the momentum of 2 movies that were released each year. There are 3 year gaps between X-Men films, and that series was never as big as LOTR."

Thanks for stating this. I already stated that no movie will be pefectly adapted from a tv show, book, or comic book but, when a movie company blatantly deviates from source material and ticks off a fan base they should prepare for the worse.

"And unless he releases a string of box-office disasters of "Poseidon" proportions, Tom Rothman isn't going anywhere soon. X3 may not have been as profitable as the first 2 movies, but it still made it's money--and it pushed the series over the $1 billion mark."

No debating any of this. However X3 may have killed the the franchises future and spinoffs. This is what I have been saying all along.

"Now I do believe that Fox handled things badly for X3 (although I did enjoy the movie), and ticking off a lot of the comic fans did cause a hit in the repeat business. But then again, I still think Singer shouldn't have ended X2 teasing the Phoenix story when no one was signed for an X3 yet."

How was Singer supposed to know it would take more than a year to negotiate his contract?

 

[danoyse]

I guess I was wrong about Davinci Code(I did not know about Angels and Demons.). Sony probably made a mistake with development of the film if it got mixed reviews. This movie has similarities with Batman Forever. That movie got mixed reviews, made a lot of money, and destroyed the Batman franchise. It's no coincidence that Batman and Robin flopped domestically. Angles and Demons will probably fail because the Davinci Code fan base was turned off by this movie.

Not at all. Most DaVinci fans think "Angels" was the better book.

It wasn't so much the development of the film--the film was incredibly faithful to the book. It just didn't translate well to film.

"Angels & Demons" will translate much better--it's more of an action story about missing cardinals and a bomb planted under the Vatican while a new pope is being chosen. Much faster paced and without the religous theories that scared off a lot people from DaVinci.

 

[danoyse]

You can spin this any way you want but, a lie is a lie.

This is Fox. They spin. Lying would be telling you it's an X-Men movie, and showing you Nacho Libre instead.

Thanks for stating this. I already stated that no movie will be pefectly adapted from a tv show, book, or comic book but, when a movie company blatantly deviates from source material and ticks off a fan base they should prepare for the worse.

Well, then Fox has been doing it with X-Men since the first movie. Hasn't hurt the success of the series (yes, even X3)...but now there's a movie-only audience that they need to stick someone to the paramaters of, at least within this trilogy.

Not to say Fox has done it right all along, but idea hasn't been to just make the movies to screw the fans.

No debating any of this. However X3 may have killed the the franchises future and spinoffs. This is what I have been saying all along.

The Wolverine spinoff is definitely happening. X-Men is certainly not a dead series.

How was Singer supposed to know it would take more than a year to negotiate his contract?

They bumped up the release date on X1 by 3 months (it was supposed to be released in November 2000), which gave them no post-production time, they've apparently given him difficulties with shooting and the storylines. Why would X3...knowing they would have re-sign everyone for a whole lot more than they did for the first two movies...be any easier??

 

[BMM]

Superman's even got nicer Slurpee cups.

I don't think there was any merchandising for X3, outside of the books, the video game, the soundtrack, and the aforementioned Slurpee cups. I was in the supermarket yesterday, and nearly everything in the store had either Superman and Captain Jack on it.

You have to imagine if they spent a ton of money on toys and Wolverine breakfast cereal, it would cut into the movie's profits. I believe I read that the X2 toys didn't sell well...maybe that figured into the decision this time around?

I really did see very little merchandising for The Last Stand . . . Haha--aside from the Slurpee cups.

They bumped up the release date on X1 by 3 months (it was supposed to be released in November 2000), which gave them no post-production time, they've apparently given him difficulties with shooting and the storylines. Why would X3...knowing they would have re-sign everyone for a whole lot more than they did for the first two movies...be any easier??

Yes, but this is somewhat different. X-Men was underway during some of the release date bump-ups--I believe one of Singer's first notifications is actually shown in the "Making Of" video on the special features dvd found in X-Men 1.5. Literally, they are telling Singer on the spot that the release date has been bumped to July.

Simply signing the director should have occured before a year and half had passed after X2's release and subsequent success (especially in light of the financial jump between X-Men and X2). Previous issues or not, I would have expected at least signing the director responsible for the establishment and mass success of FOX's now most prominent cash cow to have occured sometime sooner--to me, in principle, this still seems like such a stupid move on FOX's part.

 

[danoyse]

I really did see very little merchandising for The Last Stand . . . Haha--aside from the Slurpee cups.

They started that whole "Take A Stand" poster promotion back in March, but it only lasted a month. When the movie opened, the only ads I found in NYC were on a few of the phone booths. That was it.

Yes, but this is somewhat different. X-Men was underway during some of the release date bump-ups--I believe one of Singer's first notifications is actually shown in the "Making Of" video on the special features dvd found in X-Men 1.5. Literally, they are telling Singer on the spot that the release date has been bumped to July.

I've seen it...and they didn't look too happy about it. It was definitely a reminder about why the extra features aren't rated.

Simply signing the director should have occured before a year and half had passed after X2's release and subsequent success (especially in light of the financial jump between X-Men and X2). Previous issues or not, I would have expected at least signing the director responsible for the establishment and mass success of FOX's now most prominent cash cow to have occured sometime sooner--to me, in principle, that still seems like such a stupid move on FOX's part.

A ridiculous move on Fox's part.

 

[Theweepeople]

"This is Fox. They spin. Lying would be telling you it's an X-Men movie, and showing you Nacho Libre instead."

Spinning, misleading, lying, or whatever you want to call it is all deceptive. I have no respect for what Fox said was going to be in this movie and wasn't. If Fox had actually spent a great deal of time making this movie(it took Singer 9 months to make X-Men 2.) and were forced to cut things then that is one thing. However Fox spent only 4 and half months to make this movie. Everyone involved with the production of this movie either knew there was no way they could make a great movie in this period of time or they purposely lied about what was going to be in it.

"Well, then Fox has been doing it with X-Men since the first movie. Hasn't hurt the success of the series (yes, even X3)...but now there's a movie-only audience that they need to stick someone to the paramaters of, at least within this trilogy.

Not to say Fox has done it right all along, but idea hasn't been to just make the movies to screw the fans."

I never thought Fox intentionally made this movie to screw fans. However it is apparent that Rothman has almost no clue about what makes a successful comic book franchise. Spider-man did not make over 750 million combined because the comic book fans enjoyed it. The movie appealed to all audiences.

"The Wolverine spinoff is definitely happening. X-Men is certainly not a dead series."

Only time will tell whether you are right or not. I think the Wolverine movie will happen. Just don't expect it to be a good movie in terms of quality and box office gross.

"They bumped up the release date on X1 by 3 months (it was supposed to be released in November 2000), which gave them no post-production time, they've apparently given him difficulties with shooting and the storylines. Why would X3...knowing they would have re-sign everyone for a whole lot more than they did for the first two movies...be any easier??"

Singer had reasons to believe things would get better. He proved to Fox twice that he could make successful comic book movies.

 

[gambitfire]

This is Fox. They spin. Lying would be telling you it's an X-Men movie, and showing you Nacho Libre instead.

So it's just a nicer way of saying lying

It's fine Studios have "spined" in the past but if you look at all the X3 stuff in comparison to anything else well it seems like they took "spinning" too a whole new level.

Well, then Fox has been doing it with X-Men since the first movie. Hasn't hurt the success of the series (yes, even X3)...but now there's a movie-only audience that they need to stick someone to the paramaters of, at least within this trilogy.

In the first 2 movies the adjustments where minor and livable in this one they just seemed down right wrong, fans got upset, if your favorite character bit the dust, took the cure, or had no lines your not going to be happy. Some ppl say they don't mind it's just a movie well i always say we are different ppl we will see things differentley.

Not to say Fox has done it right all along, but idea hasn't been to just make the movies to screw the fans.

No it hasn't but the main idea has been $$ no matter what.

The Wolverine spinoff is definitely happening. X-Men is certainly not a dead series.

You know this for a fact?
you've been saying that alot of ppl you know liked the movie, well alot of ppl i know hated it. It doesn't mean neither of us is right everyone is different. When X4 comes out and does good or flops then we'l know wheather the series lives or dies.

They bumped up the release date on X1 by 3 months (it was supposed to be released in November 2000), which gave them no post-production time, they've apparently given him difficulties with shooting and the storylines. Why would X3...knowing they would have re-sign everyone for a whole lot more than they did for the first two movies...be any easier??

i dunno how that responds to wee's post

but on a side note.
They lost about 2 months going through directors.

 

[gambitfire]

Dammit!! wee beat me too the post even though it was his too respond

 

[danoyse]

Everyone involved with the production of this movie either knew there was no way they could make a great movie in this period of time or they purposely lied about what was going to be in it.

And they wanted you to see it no matter what they did.

Spider-man did not make over 750 million combined because the comic book fans enjoyed it. The movie appealed to all audiences.

And for the most part, so did X-Men. In fact, it pretty much restarted the comic-book movie genre.

Only time will tell whether you are right or not. I think the Wolverine movie will happen. Just don't expect it to be a good movie in terms of quality and box office gross.

It is happening. And it's in development now...not like X3, which was rushed into production a year ago. Hugh Jackman's production company is producing it with Fox, and David Benioff is on the 3rd draft of the script. It's pretty well underway right now.

Singer had reasons to believe things would get better. He proved to Fox twice that he could make successful comic book movies.

But why should he have assumed they believed that?

I worked for Fox once, trust me...I know the stuff they can pull.

 

[gambitfire]

And they wanted you to see it no matter what they did.

Which explains the opening weekend as well as the Drop it had.

And for the most part, so did X-Men. In fact, it pretty much restarted the comic-book movie genre.

Agreed, the first 2 did so anyways.

It is happening. And it's in development now...not like X3, which was rushed into production a year ago. Hugh Jackman's production company is producing it with Fox, and David Benioff is on the 3rd draft of the script. It's pretty well underway right now.

Of course FOX wouldn't rush a film about their precious Wolverine, he's their cash crop. We'll see how good this will be, Spin-offs arn't really known for their success.

But why should he have assumed they believed that?

I worked for Fox once, trust me...I know the stuff they can pull.

so of course you saw all this coming? i suppose.

 

[danoyse]

It's fine Studios have "spined" in the past but if you look at all the X3 stuff in comparison to anything else well it seems like they took "spinning" too a whole new level.

Was this honestly the first time people have called their new movie the best of the 3??

Johnny Depp has just been quoted as saying he'd be willing to do more "Pirates" movies after the 3rd film. If he doesn't, is he lying?

They've been promising a new "Indiana Jones" movie for years now. Are they lying every time they push it back again?

Honestly, people acting like Fox purposely lied to them sounds like my friend's 6-year-old at Islands of Adventure last summer. We told him we were going to have lunch at the dinosaur restaurant, but when we got there and found out it was closed for renovations. As we left to find another restaurant, he stomped his feet and cried that we had all lied and tricked him about the dinosaur restaurant.

In the first 2 movies the adjustments where minor and livable

Are you kidding? Fans complained about the costumes so much that they added a line about it in the first movie. There are ton of character changes in the first two movies from the comics.

No it hasn't but the main idea has been $$ no matter what.

Welcome to show business.

you've been saying that alot of ppl you know liked the movie, well alot of ppl i know hated it. It doesn't mean neither of us is right everyone is different. When X4 comes out and does good or flops then we'l know wheather the series lives or dies.

But there's not going to be an X4. They left it open for characters to come back in spinoffs (they won't all be prequels)...but this series ended with X3.

 

[danoyse]

Of course FOX wouldn't rush a film about their precious Wolverine, he's their cash crop. We'll see how good this will be, Spin-offs arn't really known for their success.

Well, exactly. He's their cash cow.

Why do you think he had such a prominent role in X3? Because they're setting up a spinoff series. You can't put a popular character in the backseat in the finale, and expect people to wait for another movie series to see him back in action.

No, I don't like the way Cyclops was handled, but I understand why they did the things they did with Wolverine.

 

[Theweepeople]

"But why should he have assumed they believed that?"

I never said he should have assumed it. However, it would not be farfetched for Singer to believe that things would get easier. Things must have gotten better after the first film or Singer wouldn't have returned. Fox gave him more money and time to develop X2. The only logical conclusion Singer would probably come to after X2 is that Fox would give him more money and time to make an epic film.

"I worked for Fox once, trust me...I know the stuff they can pull."

Like what.

 

[gambitfire]

Was this honestly the first time people have called their new movie the best of the 3??

Johnny Depp has just been quoted as saying he'd be willing to do more "Pirates" movies after the 3rd film. If he doesn't, is he lying?

They've been promising a new "Indiana Jones" movie for years now. Are they lying every time they push it back again?

Honestly, people acting like Fox purposely lied to them sounds like my friend's 6-year-old at Islands of Adventure last summer. We told him we were going to have lunch at the dinosaur restaurant, but when we got there and found out it was closed for renovations. As we left to find another restaurant, he stomped his feet and cried that we had all lied and tricked him about the dinosaur restaurant.

Um how does that compare to showing promotional pics of characters that didn't even wear the suites. Oh and great comparison........ , you didn't know that IOA restaurant wouldn't be open, i think they knew dam well what was going to happen to what character.

Are you kidding? Fans complained about the costumes so much that they added a line about it in the first movie. There are ton of character changes in the first two movies from the comics.

really because i don't remember this as being that big of a deal. I love how it can be held in comparison to destroying a character though.

Welcome to show business.

Sadly i know.

But there's not going to be an X4. They left it open for characters to come back in spinoffs (they won't all be prequels)...but this series ended with X3.

So if there isn't going to be an X4 X-Men is a dead series, Wolverine isn't X-Men he's just Wolverine, and besides him i doubt they would want any Spin-off with any other character in the movies.

 

[not_a_victim]

"Yes. "Angels & Demons." It's the prequel story to DaVinci Code (and in my opinion, a better book), and it was announced they were making the movie right after DaVinci's opening weekend.

In fact, Robert Langdon was listed in Entertainment Weekly's list of "most important" fictional characters--meaning the most profitable"

I guess I was wrong about Davinci Code(I did not know about Angels and Demons.). Sony probably made a mistake with development of the film if it got mixed reviews. This movie has similarities with Batman Forever. That movie got mixed reviews, made a lot of money, and destroyed the Batman franchise. It's no coincidence that Batman and Robin flopped domestically. Angles and Demons will probably fail because the Davinci Code fan base was turned off by this movie.

Wasn't it curious how TDC wasn't released for review before it was released to the box offices? That is usually an indication of a studio that knows it has a stinker on it's hands...

 

[Theweepeople]

"Honestly, people acting like Fox purposely lied to them sounds like my friend's 6-year-old at Islands of Adventure last summer. We told him we were going to have lunch at the dinosaur restaurant, but when we got there and found out it was closed for renovations. As we left to find another restaurant, he stomped his feet and cried that we had all lied and tricked him about the dinosaur restaurant."

This is a horrible analogy in comparison to what we are talking about.

Did Warner devote a whole year to misleading the fans about what was going to be in Batman Begins?

All I recall is that after the initial script review of Aint it Cool News Came out Fox released a statement about the script being old and that many changes were made to it. In reality 90% of what was in the original script was kept.

 

[ntcrawler]

Which explains the opening weekend as well as the Drop it had.



Agreed, the first 2 did so anyways.


Of course FOX wouldn't rush a film about their precious Wolverine, he's their cash crop. We'll see how good this will be, Spin-offs arn't really known for their success.



so of course you saw all this coming? i suppose.

It's a shame they couldn't have reversed it then (nothing against Wolverine, I just prefer the team as a whole). Have Wolverine be the crazy rushed mediocre movie, and then let the BIG one be the one that was done right.

 

[gambitfire]

Well, exactly. He's their cash cow.

Why do you think he had such a prominent role in X3? Because they're setting up a spinoff series. You can't put a popular character in the backseat in the finale, and expect people to wait for another movie series to see him back in action.

No, I don't like the way Cyclops was handled, but I understand why they did the things they did with Wolverine.

Well yea because alot of ppl have this wonderful notion that without him there are no X-Men.

We'll never know though.

 

[Theweepeople]

"Wasn't it curious how TDC wasn't released for review before it was released to the box offices? That is usually an indication of a studio that knows it has a stinker on it's hands..."

Which is why even TDC code be considered to be a failure(Not financially by itself.) because it destroyed the success of the prequel Angels and Demons.

 

[gambitfire]

All I recall is that after the initial script review of Aint it Cool News Came out Fox released a statement about the script being old and that many changes were made to it. In reality 90% of what was in the original script was kept.

Which i don't blame them for lying about because then we would of not liked what we where getting and they would of lost a lot of seats.

It's a shame they couldn't have reversed it then (nothing against Wolverine, I just prefer the team as a whole). Have Wolverine be the crazy rushed mediocre movie, and then let the BIG one be the one that was done right.

That's the way i feel it should of been.