State your unpopular film related opinion - Part 8

[Majik1387]

Here's unpopular: I liked the movie ending of Watchmen more than the book ending. At least I liked the switch they made from [BLACKOUT]Monster to Dr. Manhattan as the cause of the attack[/BLACKOUT]

I did as well.

 

[CConn]

I preferred the movie ending as well.

I always thought the creature in the original comic looked like a giant vagina monster.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Luke Cage or Iron Fist could work easy on TV. The Human Target worked pretty well for what it was, but as a show it couldn't find it's voice and changed so much from the first to second season (not to mention within the second season) that it was a bit jarring.

What would you need for both shows, not much. Keep it episodic but keep a larger arc going, both characters lend themselves to good fight scenes too so you could have a good fight every show.

 

[MadVillainy]

well i dont know about all that lol

but idk I thought it was random. I mean I know they alluded to it, but it still felt so out of the blue

 

[CConn]

well i dont know about all that lol

but idk I thought it was random. I mean I know they alluded to it, but it still felt so out of the blue

I actually disagree with that.

It was a pretty large subplot in the comic - having all of these artists and scientists design this creature to end mankind's destructive behavior.

I'm sure it's loaded with tons of subtext that I've never had the patience to really figure out.

 

[MadVillainy]

Thats what I meant by it was alluded to, they showed the concept of it being made and all of that stuff, but the movie ending,I felt, tied in the threat more to the group of Watchmen itself/what theyve been fearing all along, if that makes sense. Which made it better to me

 

[DawnWarrior]

Here's the long version of why:


Let's start with a potential Batman minseries: I'm going to compare the potential budget to that of Game of Thrones, which is $6 million per episode. Let's say it's that, and the budget for the season is $72 million, and say that the advertising budget for the show is half. It would cost $108 million dollars to produce.

To put it in perspective, let's a 12 episode Batman miniseries grosses $14 million in ad revenue per episode (which is would be a record, by the way). That would be only $168 million, but it would be successful enough with multiplier of 1.55 of its budget though.

Let's look at TDK in comparison. TDK grossed over $1 billion. The budget was $185 million and let's estimate the advertising budget is $100 million. To be generous, let's say the advertising budget is $115 and put it at $300 million. TDK made a profit of over $700 million, and a multiplier of 3.33 profits.


And the TL; DR version.

Batman tv show costs:

Per episode: $6 million
Per season: $72 million
Advertising: $36 million
total: $108 million

Batman tv show profit:
Per episode: $14 million
Season total: $168 million
Profit $60 million
Multiplier: 1.55

The Dark Knight Costs:

Budget: $185 million
Advertising: $115 million
Season total: $300 million

The Dark Knight Profit:
Total: $ 1 billion
Profit: $700 million
Multiplier: 3.33


The most successful movie always trumps the most successful tv show in profits and with some franchises it's about maximizing your brand, and a tv show would never get the budget of a blockbuster movie because it wouldn't be justifiable.

I'm liking these stats, Parker Wayne. I think there's one more factor we need to consider: the turnaround time. A movie will make more money than a season of television, but it takes 2-3 years to make a movie, while a TV show gets pumped out every year. Doesn't that affect the figures in the long term? Let's say 2 movies in 6 years. That's...1.4 billion dollars over 6 years. 6 long TV seasons comes to...660 million in profits. Still less, but the margin is quite different. Also, there's no way a Batman show would need to be 6 million an episode. Much smaller cast, much more interior sets and less location shooting (unless Bats needs to visit Ra's al Ghul or something). I believe they could do it with a budget like Fringe or Hawaii Five-0.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I was just going with the most expensive costs, because high risk equals high reward.

To be more realistic, Batman would probably require less "period" wear but if you want a faithful adaptation it would still cost much to build sets and a believable Gotham City.

But let's say that it does cost $4 million per episode. Realistically, it's not going to make $14 million in advertising per episode anyway since there are only 2 things on tv that makes double digits in advertising (American Idol and Sunday Night Football). In fact, the biggest moneymaker in advertising for a scripted show is Glee at $5.86 million per episode (Glee is an hour long show). A Batman miniseries would be even harder to justify.

And actually, if I really to do the math, Fringe, a show that's said to cost more than $4 million per episode, actually loses money as it costs only $57,500 per 30 second commercial.

57,500 x 2 (to put it to minutes) = $115,000
115,000 x 17 (the average number of minutes of commercials there are in a 1 hour series) = $1,955,000

Fox loses money on Fringe and has been for years. I'm shocked it's still on air.

 

[CConn]

Oh! You are forgetting one factor though; merchandising. With TV series, you have years and years of Toys, lunch boxes, etc., etc. that you can flood the market with.

With a movie, you really only have that year or so time frame for having merchandise out.

 

[Majik1387]

Oh! You are forgetting one factor though; merchandising. With TV series, you have years and years of Toys, lunch boxes, etc., etc. that you can flood the market with.

With a movie, you really only have that year or so time frame for having merchandise out.

Tell that to Star Wars.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Oh! You are forgetting one factor though; merchandising. With TV series, you have years and years of Toys, lunch boxes, etc., etc. that you can flood the market with.

With a movie, you really only have that year or so time frame for having merchandise out.

I say it's the same with both to be honest.

With successful show, merchandising you can make much money with. It's the same with a successful movie. Most likely there will be a sequel to a successful movie that keeps the merchandising train rolling.

Sometimes you don't even need a sequel. Cars (before Cars 2) was averaging $2 billion in sales per year even before Cars 2 was even created.

Cars 2 was purely a merchandise driven project. It generated so much money in merchandising for Pixar, including Cars Land.

 

[Jordacar]

We may have to start a whole new thread for this.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Haha I don't think that needed. I don't think this conversation is going to last that long that it needs a new thread.

 

[CConn]

I say it's the same with both to be honest.

With successful show, merchandising you can make much money with. It's the same with a successful movie. Most likely there will be a sequel to a successful movie that keeps the merchandising train rolling.

Sometimes you don't even need a sequel. Cars (before Cars 2) was averaging $2 billion in sales per year even before Cars 2 was even created.

Cars 2 was purely a merchandise driven project. It generated so much money in merchandising for Pixar, including Cars Land.

Yeah, but I'm talking about superhero movies. Batman specifically since that's the example you used.

There were no movie Bamtan figures on the shelves for around three years in between TDK and TDKR, yet there were tons of Brave and the Bold figures being produced and sold instead.

While properties like Star Wars and Cars do have pretty constant product lines (and if you can have that, that's great), most superhero movies don't, and that may be one aspect of it that would make a long running series as lucrative as a movie. Or at very least be more competitive.

 

[munchie64]

You know what superhero and horror comics would work as a tv show? None of them.

Umm...

I know what you mean though.



I would however love a 5 season, hundred episode Batman series that costs $20 million per episode.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, but I'm talking about superhero movies. Batman specifically since that's the example you used.

There were no movie Bamtan figures on the shelves for around three years in between TDK and TDKR, yet there were tons of Brave and the Bold figures being produced and sold instead.

While properties like Star Wars and Cars do have pretty constant product lines (and if you can have that, that's great), most superhero movies don't, and that may be one aspect of it that would make a long running series as lucrative as a movie. Or at very least be more competitive.

Plenty of Batman merchandise has been sold over the years. Just because it isn't specifically movie Batman does not mean the movies aren't helping to expand the brand and encouraging people to buy Batman toys and other merchandise.

I would however love a 5 season, hundred episode Batman series that costs $20 million per episode.

 

[DawnWarrior]

I would however love a 5 season, hundred episode Batman series that costs $20 million per episode.

I would too, but I'd settle for $3 million an episode if the writing was strong enough.

 

[El Payaso]

Tell that to Star Wars.

Or Batman.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I was just going with the most expensive costs, because high risk equals high reward.

To be more realistic, Batman would probably require less "period" wear but if you want a faithful adaptation it would still cost much to build sets and a believable Gotham City.

But let's say that it does cost $4 million per episode. Realistically, it's not going to make $14 million in advertising per episode anyway since there are only 2 things on tv that makes double digits in advertising (American Idol and Sunday Night Football). In fact, the biggest moneymaker in advertising for a scripted show is Glee at $5.86 million per episode (Glee is an hour long show). A Batman miniseries would be even harder to justify.

And actually, if I really to do the math, Fringe, a show that's said to cost more than $4 million per episode, actually loses money as it costs only $57,500 per 30 second commercial.

57,500 x 2 (to put it to minutes) = $115,000
115,000 x 17 (the average number of minutes of commercials there are in a 1 hour series) = $1,955,000

Fox loses money on Fringe and has been for years. I'm shocked it's still on air.

You don't need that many sets for say a Batman show. Think BSG, Sanctuary, Eureka, etc. A couple really good interiors and some green screen stuff. Half the time I watched Sanctuary to see just how gorgeous it was. You can do alot with a digital backlot. Aside fro,m that you need a Batcave, a couple rooms in the house (kitchen, sitting room, bedroom, one hallway).

Look at BSG, a show done all in hallways and rooms except for the occasional big outer space scene or occasional location. SG1 too. Heck, every version of Star Trek too.

There are enough productions going on or recently ceased that are doing something in a vein that I can see working for this type of show. An efficient model of an action/sfx show with a quick turnaround is something WB should look into more.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Enough math!

 

[Batman jr.]

This is mine:

As some of you might know, I have a utter dislike for 3D movies. I live Europe, and here it's more popular than in the US (I've been told). It's in my country almost impossible to see the 2D version of, shall we say, The Avengers. Animated 3D is possible, but from what I've seen, only the dubbed (in Dutch) version, so no thx.

Why do you hate it? Look at the success of Avatur… I mean tar!!!!

Since 2009, the bo numbers are dominated by 3D. But in all honesty: that is because of the higher ticket prices. I mean: what extra coolness was coming from all those 3D movies? After a while, you get tired of the "effect", but you've still lost your money.

Avatar is responsible for this stupid craze, and the worst part of it is that some movies have been converted to 3D in post production. Yes, you see that easily: just look at Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, seems like cardboard cutouts to me. Nothing against that if you want to see Johnny Depp playing the exact same goofy role once again. With the exact same director.

I, the big Scorcese-fan, am very disappointed in the fact that he plans to make all of his future movies in this overhyped format. Let's hope he goes back to some "old school action-gangsta-stuff" and forget it.

Kudos for Nolan for "going against the grain". I hope TDKR will kill this bs once & for all.

 

[Figs]

I don't need to relate to or even like characters to enjoy a movie. I'm there to see a story unfold, not to make imaginary friends or see characters that make me think of friends because to be honest...that will take me out of the movie a bit.

 

[Travesty]

I can't wait for Nolan to do a 3D film.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't need to relate to or even like characters to enjoy a movie. I'm there to see a story unfold, not to make imaginary friends or see characters that make me think of friends because to be honest...that will take me out of the movie a bit.

Yes, I can't agree more. ANd I usually find the whole relatability thing kinda stupid when it comes to big blockbuster spectacles...and most things in general

 

[Figs]

Yes, I can't agree more. ANd I usually find the whole relatability thing kinda stupid when it comes to big blockbuster spectacles...and most things in general

The thing is that I'm not against being able to relate to a character or characters, it's just not something I need to feel to enjoy a movie. I've seen so many people trash a movie because they couldn't relate to anyone. Reminds me of the complaints for Inception, that none of the characters were likeable because they were all technically doing something illegal. Umm...it's a heist/con film, none of those films usually have redeeming characters.