Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511601[/split]
Suicide Squad's budget was 175 million and it's BO tally was 745.6 million. That's a net gain of 570.6 million dollars.
BvS' budget was 250 million and it's BO tally was 873.3 million, which is a net gain of 623.3 million dollars, so I'll ask again: how is earning more than 1 million in combined profit performing "below expectations"?
I specifically mentioned Snyder's films, didn't I?
Clearly you don't know the way box office revenue works.
First of all, the film has an estimated adjusted budget of $410 million (~$250 for production and ~$160 million for marketing). BvS only generated revenue amounting to a little over twice it's overall investment.
Second, there is the revenue share between theaters and studios. On average (each studio makes different contracts for different films), the share is ~55/45, with the studio getting the larger portion. So of the $897 million this film made, $410 million doesn't count because that is just the return on the initial investment.
The profitable portion of the revenue comes from the remaining $487 million, meaning the studio is only earning ~$267 million off of their $410 million investment. But even this is not an adequate overview, because the share taken by the studio is even smaller overseas (~40%) than the average I listed above. In other words, the actual revenue earned is likely less than $267 million.
So, no, the film did not perform at or above expectations. Warner Bros. will make money thanks to licensing and video sales, but "making back money while dividing the fanbase" is not crossing expectations. This film would have needed to cross the $1 billion mark to hit that mark. As of right now, Warner Bros. is mostly in the position to break even, since the rule of thumb is that a film should earn twice its total production budget to break even. It hit that, but suffered one of the most massive box office-drops in history against no competition and continued to bleed in a way that clearly showed that the film did not resonate with audiences.
So, again, I'll ask you: how can you say the movie performed to expectations when the studios action's afterwards clearly say otherwise? Do studios that are satisfied with a film's performance fly out reporters to the set of their next movie to assure fans that they're going to course correct? Do studios that are satisfied with a film's performance have notable internal shake-ups among executives?
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
qftwell, there always is hope.
They just need to have a clear direction and stick to it.
The worst thing for them to do is get nervous and start making last minute changes.
That's when things really start falling apart.
It outgrossed everything. A lesson worth learning.A R rated Deadpool with no 3d and no China was more of a success overall. Deadpool out grossed BvS in the US. Just think about that for a second.
I don't need another Batman solo for a long whileThe Batman is in trouble
Gotham City: Sirens was fast tracked because they could not find a third director for The Flash
Seriously how fast was the Sirens script written thats what I wanna know
Things will never get better as long as the same people / CEO is in charge of WB thats a fact at this point
I don't need another Batman solo for a long while
Good luck to The Flash
F***ing Skwad all over again
The first sign of change is bound to be felt - 2018
Notice anything?
uh............................................................................................................................................................[BLACKOUT]sure?[/BLACKOUT]All in house people no one outside looking in wants to touch a DC property that will just get destroyed in the editing room
uh............................................................................................................................................................[BLACKOUT]sure?[/BLACKOUT]
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
I just realized a problem the DCEU has and it sorta competing with the DCCWU or "Arrowverse" as it were.
Because the DCEU and the Arrowverse are two different entities, they can tell stories with the same character played by different actors. However, the DCEU has to have movies strong enough where the general public would be willing to go to the movie theater and spend money. It has to be very different from the 'Arrowverse' where it doesn't feel like the movie is retreading old plots from the TV shows. And they have to do that with a Hollywood blockbuster budget.
I mean, why should I watch a possible Man of Steel 2, when there's a Supergirl show that has a, well, more 'characterized' Superman in it?
Why do people care about how much money it makes as long as it's enough to make more movies?
I'm done arguing with you. You go right ahead and keep on seeing the DCEU films as dismal failures, and I'll go on seeing them as the successes they are.
Why do people care about how much money it makes as long as it's enough to make more movies?
Talk to me when the facts line up with your claims, sweet'ems