|
Post by blockbusted on Oct 28, 2019 2:37:15 GMT
And it's well-known that Black Panther was given the Best Picture nomination because the Academy was afraid of being called racist if they didn't nominate Black Panther. The fact is Black Panther didn't earn the nomination on merit but by using the race card. Well known by who? The monkeys in your head? He still hasn’t explained how ‘Green Book’ won Best Picture over, say, ‘BlacKkKlansman’.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 28, 2019 12:02:07 GMT
Who decided Joker was the best CBM of the decade? Joker not only won the Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival Which is no indication whatsoever that it is the best film in that genre for even that year.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 28, 2019 13:59:19 GMT
Joker's worldwide gross is $849.1 million dollars.
Without China, without 3D charges (all 2D) and without the kiddies, since it's R.
US: $277M International: $571M
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 28, 2019 14:02:47 GMT
Superman 3 wasn't a flop at all, it was a moderate hit.
Constantine was a moderate hit:
Constantine opened theatrically on February 18, 2005, in 3,006 venues, earning $29.8 million in its opening weekend and ranking second behind Hitch's second weekend.[21] The film ended its run on June 16, 2005, having grossed $76 million in the United States and Canada, and $154.9 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $230.9 million against a production budget of $100 million.[4]
We already talked about Batman Begins. It was a hit. Disappointing, but a hit nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 28, 2019 21:23:31 GMT
Superman 3 wasn't a flop at all, it was a moderate hit. Constantine was a moderate hit: Constantine opened theatrically on February 18, 2005, in 3,006 venues, earning $29.8 million in its opening weekend and ranking second behind Hitch's second weekend.[21] The film ended its run on June 16, 2005, having grossed $76 million in the United States and Canada, and $154.9 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $230.9 million against a production budget of $100 million.[4] We already talked about Batman Begins. It was a hit. Disappointing, but a hit nonetheless. 1: I didn't say Superman 3 was a flop, learn to read I said it earned little money, but looking at it Superman 3 had a budget of $39m and a box office of $59m, which suggest yes it was a flop, back then movies needed to make about double their budget to make back their money, Superman 3 only earned an additional 33% therefor it likely failed to make money.
2: Constantine wasn't a hit, a hit doesn't mean it barely makes money in it's best case scenario, best case scenario has Constantine making half it's box office for the studio, that's $115m, but it made 2/3's of it's money internationally where the box office split is more towards the theatres, and that's not even considering the marketing cost, which back then though films like Batman Begins & Superman Returns spent upwards of $100m on marketing the industry standard at the time was closer to $30m, so basing it on low ball $30m marketing for a $100m movie, Constantine didn't turn a profit box office wise now was it a smash hit, hence why they never made a sequel.
3: Batman Begins had a $150m budget and a $100m marketing campaign, it grossed less than $375m world wide, that's a flop, due to Batman & Robin and maybe even Catwoman being such atrocious cock ups that fans were not ready to trust in another batman movie, thankfully word of mouth saved the franchise in DVD & blue ray sales that WB went ahead with a sequel and we got The Dark Knight, but Begins was not a hit but a flop box office wise, same thing goes with BVS, flops for movies refers to their theatrical runs, this is because studios own the rights to their movies to license them to different networks and streaming service, let alone home media sales, eventually most films become profitable in some way to the studios, unless they happen to be you know a $200m car crash that only grosses like $30m at the box office, then that maybe too steep a hill to climb.
So if a studio earns back less than it spent on a film from the box office that film is a flop, BVS earned $40m less at the box office than it spent to make and market the movie therefor it's a flop, Batman Begins in it's best case scenario would have needed to make $500m to cover the costs of making and marketing the movie, therefor the $375m didn't cover it and it was a flop, just because you or I like the movie doesn't alter this, which BTW I do, Batman Begins is a great movie and deserved to be a hit, sadly Schumacher & WB kneecapped it ahead of time due to the a string of bad "Bat" related films in the decade leading up to it, not the movies fault, but thank god for DVD & Blu Rays.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 28, 2019 21:33:58 GMT
Joker's worldwide gross is $849.1 million dollars. Without China, without 3D charges (all 2D) and without the kiddies, since it's R. US: $277M International: $571M Now that's the most impressive thing, no China & no 3d, though did they show it in IMax? as IMax is more expensive than 3D if I am right, but regardless that's an amazing haul Joker took in, to bad it probably wont overtake Passion Of The Christ for the top domestic Rated R movie, as that would be funny to see, especially with people making memes of Jesus being dethroned by Joaquin Phoenix in clown make up, but this is such a feather in the cap for DC to launch their new label off of, still cannot wait to see it but fuck paying those prices for a one time viewing, i'm buying it digitally in like 2 months...mother fucker it don't come out on home media till February, sons of bitches.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 29, 2019 0:07:50 GMT
I know how to read. Riddle me this: You don't know how much 'Superman 3' grossed in foreign markets. At the time, Box Office Mojo was sci-fi. I guess it reached the 80-90 million dollars mark easily.
The movie has been UNIVERSALLY recognized as a moderate hit, not a "flop". So forget the marketing campaign, they recouped those costs through many alternative ways. Studios do that all the time. The movie has been labelled as a "moderate hit" by almost anyone in the world, including Warner. It was never, never, never addressed as a "flop", only as a weird box office disappointment.
Home video sales were great, so that rounded it out.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 29, 2019 0:26:52 GMT
If Batman Begins was a flop, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have gotten a more expensive sequel a mere three years later, nor would Nolan have had as much creative control as he did. There is absolutely no proof to the claim that it needed to make $500 million in theaters just to break even.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 29, 2019 2:10:38 GMT
If Batman Begins was a flop, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have gotten a more expensive sequel a mere three years later, nor would Nolan have had as much creative control as he did. There is absolutely no proof to the claim that it needed to make $500 million in theaters just to break even. Well there is the budget and marketing cost totalling $250m, a box off haul of $374m iirc, combined with that the 50% revenue split for US domestic releases is the most beneficial split movies in general tend to get for theatrical releases, as they get less from international markets, and that even at a 60% split the film would have needed to earn like $420m to break even that way.
Batman Begins though obviously would have made money through other means, but by box office standards it flopped, but you know so did BVS when you look at the numbers, theatrically it flopped costing $40m more than it earned, but did WB announce that? no they announced the profits they made from it, ignoring best they could the parts where all of that profit came from out of theatre revenue.
That being said Batman Begins most likely made shit loads through licensing tie ins, merchandise, TV rights and lets not forget it did incredibly well on DVD, unsurprising the announcement of a 2nd Nolan Batman film came out right around the time Batman Begins had made over $160m in DVD sales in under a year, showing that word of mouth had made Batman Begins a hit after it's theatrical run where the stink of Batman & Robin and maybe Catwoman had made it a flop during said run.
Keep in mind Batman Returns was far less successful or profitable than Batman 89, but they upped the budget for Forever by 25%, both Returns & Forever did about the same ROI, x3.3ish so they then bumped Batman & Robin up even higher with the same director, which we saw how that worked out, TASM1 was a $100m+ decline from Spider-Man 3 and in response Sony signed the same guy to do TASM2 and gave him up to almost $300m, up from the max reported $230m they gave him for TASM1, so giving a the same director or same franchise more money despite not meeting expectations isn't an oddity in the CBM genre.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 29, 2019 2:23:01 GMT
I know how to read. Riddle me this: You don't know how much 'Superman 3' grossed in foreign markets. At the time, Box Office Mojo was sci-fi. I guess it reached the 80-90 million dollars mark easily. The movie has been UNIVERSALLY recognized as a moderate hit, not a "flop". So forget the marketing campaign, they recouped those costs through many alternative ways. Studios do that all the time. The movie has been labelled as a "moderate hit" by almost anyone in the world, including Warner. It was never, never, never addressed as a "flop", only as a weird box office disappointment. Home video sales were great, so that rounded it out. 1: No you cannot ecause I initially never called it a flop, I said it made little money, which going by the only information available suggests is true, I don't know it's international numbers but given they weren't listed I doubt they were major, and the only international release information is for the UK which tends to provide a revenue comparatively to the US as is the size difference between the two counties, not including horror or comedies as that stuff tends to not travel all that well, so about 1/5th to 1/6th of the domestic number, so between $10-12m, but again I cannot be sure hence me not stating such things as fact.
But again you couldn't read as I never initially said it lost money, but somehow you read made little money as it flopped, they are not the same thing you know that right?
2: WB didn't acknowledge BVS being a theatrical failure, a disappointment sure but that's bcause what else could hey call a Batman & Superman team up movie doing less than $1B which was being talked about as the absolute minimum it would make, but BVS as reported only grossed WB $367m at the box office whilst it cost $407m to make and market the movie, but did WB announce this? no they acknowledged the $100m in profit they made from the movie after you include TV licensing and home media sales.
It's typical Hollywood bs they announce to the public that they made all this money, but then to people they owe the money to they not only acknowledge those losses but make up additional ones, I mean you have heard the BS the Weinstiens tried feeding Kevin Smith about Clerks right? they brought it for $230k, it then grossed over $3m in theatres alone but they claimed it took till 2001 iirc for Clerks to turn a profit for the studio in anyway, thats just Hollywood man it's all bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 29, 2019 2:26:07 GMT
I don't know of any specifics but Batman Begins did underperform which was always blamed on Batman and Robin.
It didn't exactly make a lot of money after all, not not even half of Spider-man 2 the year before or even X-Men 2 or 3.
It had the same fate as Terminator though I suppose. A great movie that didn't do so well initially, blew up on home video, sequel ends up being amongst the most successful ever at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Oct 29, 2019 2:26:57 GMT
Nobody collectively decided Joker was the best comic book movie of the 2010s.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 29, 2019 2:27:57 GMT
If Batman Begins was a flop, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have gotten a more expensive sequel a mere three years later, nor would Nolan have had as much creative control as he did. There is absolutely no proof to the claim that it needed to make $500 million in theaters just to break even. Well there is the budget and marketing cost totalling $250m, a box off haul of $374m iirc, combined with that the 50% revenue split for US domestic releases is the most beneficial split movies in general tend to get for theatrical releases, as they get less from international markets, and that even at a 60% split the film would have needed to earn like $420m to break even that way.
Batman Begins though obviously would have made money through other means, but by box office standards it flopped, but you know so did BVS when you look at the numbers, theatrically it flopped costing $40m more than it earned, but did WB announce that? no they announced the profits they made from it, ignoring best they could the parts where all of that profit came from out of theatre revenue.
That being said Batman Begins most likely made shit loads through licensing tie ins, merchandise, TV rights and lets not forget it did incredibly well on DVD, unsurprising the announcement of a 2nd Nolan Batman film came out right around the time Batman Begins had made over $160m in DVD sales in under a year, showing that word of mouth had made Batman Begins a hit after it's theatrical run where the stink of Batman & Robin and maybe Catwoman had made it a flop during said run.
Keep in mind Batman Returns was far less successful or profitable than Batman 89, but they upped the budget for Forever by 25%, both Returns & Forever did about the same ROI, x3.3ish so they then bumped Batman & Robin up even higher with the same director, which we saw how that worked out, TASM1 was a $100m+ decline from Spider-Man 3 and in response Sony signed the same guy to do TASM2 and gave him up to almost $300m, up from the max reported $230m they gave him for TASM1, so giving a the same director or same franchise more money despite not meeting expectations isn't an oddity in the CBM genre.
I’m pretty sure that Hollywood accounting doesn’t entirely work that way. For one, BB made more than half of its money domestically and since studios gain a greater percentage of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do its international earnings, that’s not exactly bad news for the studio. I’m also pretty sure that studios usually get more than just 50% of a movie’s domestic total, although that can apparently vary depending on the studio. Also, as far as the marketing is concerned, I’m pretty sure that things like product tie-ins help pay for much of that stuff. While we’re at it, BvS definitely didn’t flop. There’s a difference between underperforming and losing money. BvS performed well below expectations, but WB didn't lose money from it. The reason they panicked after it was released was because it had terrible word of mouth and awful legs, which didn’t spell good news for the Justice League movie. TASM1 didn’t flop either. It was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film at the time, but it made a profit for Sony and since they needed to keep making Spider-Man films every five years, it’s not surprising that they fast tracked a sequel.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 29, 2019 2:58:55 GMT
Well there is the budget and marketing cost totalling $250m, a box off haul of $374m iirc, combined with that the 50% revenue split for US domestic releases is the most beneficial split movies in general tend to get for theatrical releases, as they get less from international markets, and that even at a 60% split the film would have needed to earn like $420m to break even that way.
Batman Begins though obviously would have made money through other means, but by box office standards it flopped, but you know so did BVS when you look at the numbers, theatrically it flopped costing $40m more than it earned, but did WB announce that? no they announced the profits they made from it, ignoring best they could the parts where all of that profit came from out of theatre revenue.
That being said Batman Begins most likely made shit loads through licensing tie ins, merchandise, TV rights and lets not forget it did incredibly well on DVD, unsurprising the announcement of a 2nd Nolan Batman film came out right around the time Batman Begins had made over $160m in DVD sales in under a year, showing that word of mouth had made Batman Begins a hit after it's theatrical run where the stink of Batman & Robin and maybe Catwoman had made it a flop during said run.
Keep in mind Batman Returns was far less successful or profitable than Batman 89, but they upped the budget for Forever by 25%, both Returns & Forever did about the same ROI, x3.3ish so they then bumped Batman & Robin up even higher with the same director, which we saw how that worked out, TASM1 was a $100m+ decline from Spider-Man 3 and in response Sony signed the same guy to do TASM2 and gave him up to almost $300m, up from the max reported $230m they gave him for TASM1, so giving a the same director or same franchise more money despite not meeting expectations isn't an oddity in the CBM genre.
I’m pretty sure that Hollywood accounting doesn’t entirely work that way. For one, BB made more than half of its money domestically and since studios gain a greater percentage of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do its international earnings, that’s not exactly bad news for the studio. I’m also pretty sure that studios usually get more than just 50% of a movie’s domestic total, although that can apparently vary depending on the studio. Also, as far as the marketing is concerned, I’m pretty sure that things like product tie-ins help pay for much of that stuff. While we’re at it, BvS definitely didn’t flop. There’s a difference between underperforming and losing money. BvS performed well below expectations, but WB didn't lose money from it. The reason they panicked after it was released was because it had terrible word of mouth and awful legs, which didn’t spell good news for the Justice League movie. TASM1 didn’t flop either. It was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film at the time, but it made a profit for Sony and since they needed to keep making Spider-Man films every five years, it’s not surprising that they fast tracked a sequel. In theatres it did though, BVS made WB $367m at the box office at a cost of $407m, every penny of profit from that movie comes from other sources of revenue, the overall revenue split thing does vary, and by different means but the typical rule of thumb is they get 50%, this differs depending on how they make that money, studios make more the first few weeks and less as the run goes along, so I think despite how much some put stock into a film having legs a studio would rather they get all that cash upfront, BVS in this regard probably benefitted much more from being so frontloaded rather than being drawn out, but going by about over I think 2 dozen or so financial breakdowns I read that were between 07 and 2017 typically the US split does work out to be 50-51% internationally I think it averaged about 38-40% and in china it went from anywhere between 25-33%.
Personally I always thought BVS had turned a profit theatrically until recently when I saw the actual breakdown of how it made it's profits that were announced, but turns out no it didn't turn a profit in the cinema's.
Product tie ins do pay for stuff but I don't think they get included in the costs, like there is a difference between a $200m marketing campaign and a studio spending $200m, FFH for example had I think a $200m+ marketing campaign value but that included the tie in stuff which Sony weren't paying for, where as with BVS WB actually spent over $150m themselves on the marketing, they weren't paying for the tie in travel campaign of whatever that Affleck & Eisenberg did, they probably got paid for it rather, but I am not 100% on this.
But again like I said even if Batman Begins took back 60% of all the box office revenue which it wouldn't have btw, it would have needed to make an additional $35m than what it had to break even based on what WB spent to make and market the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 3:28:24 GMT
A big congrats to DC. Let's admit it. the only marvel films that can even contend for this titles would be the Sony and Fox Marvel movies. their best ones. MCU Marvel is just too kiddie to be considered a best. Nope Infinity War, Iron Man and Winter Soldier can definitely compete as among the best.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 29, 2019 4:30:20 GMT
I’m pretty sure that Hollywood accounting doesn’t entirely work that way. For one, BB made more than half of its money domestically and since studios gain a greater percentage of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do its international earnings, that’s not exactly bad news for the studio. I’m also pretty sure that studios usually get more than just 50% of a movie’s domestic total, although that can apparently vary depending on the studio. Also, as far as the marketing is concerned, I’m pretty sure that things like product tie-ins help pay for much of that stuff. While we’re at it, BvS definitely didn’t flop. There’s a difference between underperforming and losing money. BvS performed well below expectations, but WB didn't lose money from it. The reason they panicked after it was released was because it had terrible word of mouth and awful legs, which didn’t spell good news for the Justice League movie. TASM1 didn’t flop either. It was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film at the time, but it made a profit for Sony and since they needed to keep making Spider-Man films every five years, it’s not surprising that they fast tracked a sequel. In theatres it did though, BVS made WB $367m at the box office at a cost of $407m, every penny of profit from that movie comes from other sources of revenue, the overall revenue split thing does vary, and by different means but the typical rule of thumb is they get 50%, this differs depending on how they make that money, studios make more the first few weeks and less as the run goes along, so I think despite how much some put stock into a film having legs a studio would rather they get all that cash upfront, BVS in this regard probably benefitted much more from being so frontloaded rather than being drawn out, but going by about over I think 2 dozen or so financial breakdowns I read that were between 07 and 2017 typically the US split does work out to be 50-51% internationally I think it averaged about 38-40% and in china it went from anywhere between 25-33%.
Personally I always thought BVS had turned a profit theatrically until recently when I saw the actual breakdown of how it made it's profits that were announced, but turns out no it didn't turn a profit in the cinema's.
Product tie ins do pay for stuff but I don't think they get included in the costs, like there is a difference between a $200m marketing campaign and a studio spending $200m, FFH for example had I think a $200m+ marketing campaign value but that included the tie in stuff which Sony weren't paying for, where as with BVS WB actually spent over $150m themselves on the marketing, they weren't paying for the tie in travel campaign of whatever that Affleck & Eisenberg did, they probably got paid for it rather, but I am not 100% on this.
But again like I said even if Batman Begins took back 60% of all the box office revenue which it wouldn't have btw, it would have needed to make an additional $35m than what it had to break even based on what WB spent to make and market the movie.
According to Deadline, BvS did in fact make a profit in cinemas. It just didn’t make as much of a profit as WB was hoping. It made $873 million. If something like that lost money, studios wouldn’t be making such expensive films to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 29, 2019 5:12:45 GMT
In theatres it did though, BVS made WB $367m at the box office at a cost of $407m, every penny of profit from that movie comes from other sources of revenue, the overall revenue split thing does vary, and by different means but the typical rule of thumb is they get 50%, this differs depending on how they make that money, studios make more the first few weeks and less as the run goes along, so I think despite how much some put stock into a film having legs a studio would rather they get all that cash upfront, BVS in this regard probably benefitted much more from being so frontloaded rather than being drawn out, but going by about over I think 2 dozen or so financial breakdowns I read that were between 07 and 2017 typically the US split does work out to be 50-51% internationally I think it averaged about 38-40% and in china it went from anywhere between 25-33%.
Personally I always thought BVS had turned a profit theatrically until recently when I saw the actual breakdown of how it made it's profits that were announced, but turns out no it didn't turn a profit in the cinema's.
Product tie ins do pay for stuff but I don't think they get included in the costs, like there is a difference between a $200m marketing campaign and a studio spending $200m, FFH for example had I think a $200m+ marketing campaign value but that included the tie in stuff which Sony weren't paying for, where as with BVS WB actually spent over $150m themselves on the marketing, they weren't paying for the tie in travel campaign of whatever that Affleck & Eisenberg did, they probably got paid for it rather, but I am not 100% on this.
But again like I said even if Batman Begins took back 60% of all the box office revenue which it wouldn't have btw, it would have needed to make an additional $35m than what it had to break even based on what WB spent to make and market the movie.
According to Deadline, BvS did in fact make a profit in cinemas. It just didn’t make as much of a profit as WB was hoping. It made $873 million. If something like that lost money, studios wouldn’t be making such expensive films to begin with. Except Deadline wasn't just including the box office, they included Home media & TV revenue, this is how Deadline calculated those numbers here the rentals are what WB earned off of the theatrical run, they amount to $367m but the costs of the production & marketing was a combined $407m, but with TV licensing and home media sales, that breakdown and report is from March 2017 a year after the movie came out.
Now those numbers only include the movie itself and what it made in terms of ticket, DVD and TV rights, but they do not include merchandise which is a huge thing, despite losing money at the box office BVS and WB's more recent stuff has just for Batman alone doubled what his merchandising was in 2013 coming off of Nolans trilogy, that's why with things like cbm's studios will eat a $40m theatrical loss because they can make $200m back on the toy sales and stuff for the movie alone, let alone the boost Batman and Superman get overall from such a huge marketing push, WB made more off of Wonder Woman merch the year following the movie than they did from the movie itself, I read Wonder Woman made like $1b in merch sales since the movie, so the toy sales out grossed the movie over all let alone WB's cut of the movie.
But as far is pure box office goes Batman has lost money in theatres numerous times, and keep in mind no one expected BVS to make less than $1b some thought it could go on to gross $2b before they saw it, and studios are stupid, they banked The Mummy would be either Tom Cruise's No.1 or No.2 movie and spent their money as such, it ended up needing to beat out his at the time highest grossing Mission Impossible movie to turn a profit, which it didn't do, studios like I said are stupid.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 29, 2019 11:35:39 GMT
According to Deadline, BvS did in fact make a profit in cinemas. It just didn’t make as much of a profit as WB was hoping. It made $873 million. If something like that lost money, studios wouldn’t be making such expensive films to begin with. Except Deadline wasn't just including the box office, they included Home media & TV revenue, this is how Deadline calculated those numbers here the rentals are what WB earned off of the theatrical run, they amount to $367m but the costs of the production & marketing was a combined $407m, but with TV licensing and home media sales, that breakdown and report is from March 2017 a year after the movie came out.
Now those numbers only include the movie itself and what it made in terms of ticket, DVD and TV rights, but they do not include merchandise which is a huge thing, despite losing money at the box office BVS and WB's more recent stuff has just for Batman alone doubled what his merchandising was in 2013 coming off of Nolans trilogy, that's why with things like cbm's studios will eat a $40m theatrical loss because they can make $200m back on the toy sales and stuff for the movie alone, let alone the boost Batman and Superman get overall from such a huge marketing push, WB made more off of Wonder Woman merch the year following the movie than they did from the movie itself, I read Wonder Woman made like $1b in merch sales since the movie, so the toy sales out grossed the movie over all let alone WB's cut of the movie.
But as far is pure box office goes Batman has lost money in theatres numerous times, and keep in mind no one expected BVS to make less than $1b some thought it could go on to gross $2b before they saw it, and studios are stupid, they banked The Mummy would be either Tom Cruise's No.1 or No.2 movie and spent their money as such, it ended up needing to beat out his at the time highest grossing Mission Impossible movie to turn a profit, which it didn't do, studios like I said are stupid.
Where are you getting this idea that WB only earned $367 million from the movie’s gross? Also, again, don’t product tie-ins help pay for the marketing? I remember reading a report that Man of Steel paid for itself with the sheer abundance of product placement it had. For the record, THR claimed that the movie made a profit while it was still in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 29, 2019 12:56:22 GMT
Except Deadline wasn't just including the box office, they included Home media & TV revenue, this is how Deadline calculated those numbers here the rentals are what WB earned off of the theatrical run, they amount to $367m but the costs of the production & marketing was a combined $407m, but with TV licensing and home media sales, that breakdown and report is from March 2017 a year after the movie came out.
Now those numbers only include the movie itself and what it made in terms of ticket, DVD and TV rights, but they do not include merchandise which is a huge thing, despite losing money at the box office BVS and WB's more recent stuff has just for Batman alone doubled what his merchandising was in 2013 coming off of Nolans trilogy, that's why with things like cbm's studios will eat a $40m theatrical loss because they can make $200m back on the toy sales and stuff for the movie alone, let alone the boost Batman and Superman get overall from such a huge marketing push, WB made more off of Wonder Woman merch the year following the movie than they did from the movie itself, I read Wonder Woman made like $1b in merch sales since the movie, so the toy sales out grossed the movie over all let alone WB's cut of the movie.
But as far is pure box office goes Batman has lost money in theatres numerous times, and keep in mind no one expected BVS to make less than $1b some thought it could go on to gross $2b before they saw it, and studios are stupid, they banked The Mummy would be either Tom Cruise's No.1 or No.2 movie and spent their money as such, it ended up needing to beat out his at the time highest grossing Mission Impossible movie to turn a profit, which it didn't do, studios like I said are stupid.
Where are you getting this idea that WB only earned $367 million from the movie’s gross? Also, again, don’t product tie-ins help pay for the marketing? I remember reading a report that Man of Steel paid for itself with the sheer abundance of product placement it had. For the record, THR claimed that the movie made a profit while it was still in theaters. Where in that article does it say it made a profit? It says how can $862m not be considered a hit? that DC were proclaiming it a massive success, and that it was a successful launch of the DCEU, none of that says anything about it being profitable.
As for where am I getting the $367m from, look at the link I provided, the domestic, international and china rental figures are what the studio earned from the films theatrical run, they total $367m, but the report also factors in the DVD, Blu Ray & Digital sales of the film as well as the TV licensing rights the film earned in the year since it hit the theatres, at the time of the article that is, which was March 2017, as well as participation fee's, residuals and overhead costs, which when combined together resulted in an overall profit for the movie, but theatrically BVS made $40m less than the studio spent to make it, it's all there.
Product placement does lessen costs obviously but you would expect to see that included in the reports, as for MOS I read it was 70%, which if that's the case what the fuck? where's my Man Of Steel 2 DC you bunch of bastards?!?, I mean BVS was rumoured to have spent $300m in production but it's stated to just be $250m, so this maybe where tax credits if they were awarded any and product placement come in, but I dunno that's just a guess, I am just going by the actual reported breakdown of what the movie made, if people don't believe the source that's fine, but you cant really claim to believe it only when it suits the narrative you want it to, that breakdown says the movie failed in the box office but made money on the ancillary revenue generated from it afterwards.
Which like I said these films always make their money back some way or another, that's why studios are putting so much into them, Batman in 2017 made more money in retail sales than any of his movies have ever made in theatres, that's where the money is and it doesn't cost them $300m+ to get that either, I mean BVS made $152m on home media sales in less than a year and overhead and interest costs for that time period only came up to $42.5m
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 29, 2019 14:17:10 GMT
Where are you getting this idea that WB only earned $367 million from the movie’s gross? Also, again, don’t product tie-ins help pay for the marketing? I remember reading a report that Man of Steel paid for itself with the sheer abundance of product placement it had. For the record, THR claimed that the movie made a profit while it was still in theaters.Where in that article does it say it made a profit? It says how can $862m not be considered a hit? that DC were proclaiming it a massive success, and that it was a successful launch of the DCEU, none of that says anything about it being profitable.
As for where am I getting the $367m from, look at the link I provided, the domestic, international and china rental figures are what the studio earned from the films theatrical run, they total $367m, but the report also factors in the DVD, Blu Ray & Digital sales of the film as well as the TV licensing rights the film earned in the year since it hit the theatres, at the time of the article that is, which was March 2017, as well as participation fee's, residuals and overhead costs, which when combined together resulted in an overall profit for the movie, but theatrically BVS made $40m less than the studio spent to make it, it's all there.
Product placement does lessen costs obviously but you would expect to see that included in the reports, as for MOS I read it was 70%, which if that's the case what the fuck? where's my Man Of Steel 2 DC you bunch of bastards?!?, I mean BVS was rumoured to have spent $300m in production but it's stated to just be $250m, so this maybe where tax credits if they were awarded any and product placement come in, but I dunno that's just a guess, I am just going by the actual reported breakdown of what the movie made, if people don't believe the source that's fine, but you cant really claim to believe it only when it suits the narrative you want it to, that breakdown says the movie failed in the box office but made money on the ancillary revenue generated from it afterwards.
Which like I said these films always make their money back some way or another, that's why studios are putting so much into them, Batman in 2017 made more money in retail sales than any of his movies have ever made in theatres, that's where the money is and it doesn't cost them $300m+ to get that either, I mean BVS made $152m on home media sales in less than a year and overhead and interest costs for that time period only came up to $42.5m
Also, there was a MoS2. That’s what BvS was. BvS would not have been made if MoS had been a flop.
|
|