|
Post by dazz on Oct 26, 2019 1:27:08 GMT
The only reason Sony is able to make a Venom movie is because he is a Spider-Man villain and the rights to put him in movies came with the rights to Spider-Man. The 2 are inseparable. They are one franchise. Character rights are separated from conceptual visions behind movies. Comic Book Venom is an accomplished standalone superhero and Cinematic Venom is millions of light years distant from Spider-Man. We're not talking about Spider-Woman, Spider-Gwen, Electro or the Black Cat. No it's not, you understand the movie was made to actually include Tom Hollands Peter Parker as a small part of the movie right? Sony removed it at the behest of Marvel because they didn't want to confuse fans into thinking Venom is connected to the MCU, but Venom is still connected to Spider-Man as it is the first film in Sony's plans for a Spider-Man universe, which will feature Spider-Man going forward, possibly as soon as Venom 2.
They even allude to Eddie's troubled past in NY within the film, they just don't outright say what that was, it has connections to the greater Spidey universe just not specific references to Peter or Spidey due to them playing nice with Marvel in not confusing the fans, but it was always conceived as a Spider-Man related movie.
And comicbook Venom doesn't really matter when the mainstream public know Venom as a Spider-Man character, based on him appearing in I think every show iteration of the character since the 90's, appeared in the 2nd highest grossing Spider-Man movie, and appeared in atleast 3 separate and popular Spider-Man video games, to the world Venom is a Spider-Man character, that's how they know him that's why they care.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 26, 2019 1:53:08 GMT
If Joker doesn’t beat the worldwide gross of Venom (which, to be fair, had the advantage of having been released in China), I have a feeling that people are going to be making fun of this thread in the future. Joker is now the highest-grossing R-rated movie ever.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 26, 2019 9:59:29 GMT
If Joker doesn’t beat the worldwide gross of Venom (which, to be fair, had the advantage of having been released in China), I have a feeling that people are going to be making fun of this thread in the future. Joker is now the highest-grossing R-rated movie ever. Yesterday, it had already reached the 788 million dollars mark WW. It will surpass Venom by monday or so.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 15, 2019 20:02:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 17, 2019 0:47:20 GMT
Congrats on Joker being part of the 10 figure club, now I just really hope Phoenix got himself points on this films, it would be so wrong for him to "only" get $4.5m for a billion dollar performance, just based on the movies success he deserved 8 figures easy imo.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 17, 2019 0:58:14 GMT
Congrats on Joker being part of the 10 figure club, now I just really hope Phoenix got himself points on this films, it would be so wrong for him to "only" get $4.5m for a billion dollar performance, just based on the movies success he deserved 8 figures easy imo.
TRUE. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. He signed a deal... and unfortunately, I don't think the producers will have the integrity to change the cards for him.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 17, 2019 1:10:13 GMT
Congrats on Joker being part of the 10 figure club, now I just really hope Phoenix got himself points on this films, it would be so wrong for him to "only" get $4.5m for a billion dollar performance, just based on the movies success he deserved 8 figures easy imo.
TRUE. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. He signed a deal... and unfortunately, I don't think the producers will have the integrity to change the cards for him. Oh yeah if he didn't negotiate a % of the movie before hand they aren't just going to give him more out of the kindness of their hearts, I think due to SAG contract regulations he'll be entitled to some backends, but like I said in another post that if DiCaprio could get $20m or more from Wolf Of Wall Street then Phoenix should be able to have gotten $50m+ in backends for Joker if he played his cards right.
Good news is though going forward he will be able to get himself those 8 figure deals because he is the star of a billion dollar movie, though JP being how he is the projects that can offer him that much money wont be the ones he cares about, imagine if that happens though, he does Joker it grosses $1B and he then decides no more big movies and every film for the rest of his career are like these $10m passion projects where he's making at best like $1m and they only gross $25m because they are about things like an Irish farmer during the potato famine and stuff, wouldn't surprise me tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 17, 2019 1:21:00 GMT
TRUE. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. He signed a deal... and unfortunately, I don't think the producers will have the integrity to change the cards for him. Oh yeah if he didn't negotiate a % of the movie before hand they aren't just going to give him more out of the kindness of their hearts, I think due to SAG contract regulations he'll be entitled to some backends, but like I said in another post that if DiCaprio could get $20m or more from Wolf Of Wall Street then Phoenix should be able to have gotten $50m+ in backends for Joker if he played his cards right.
Good news is though going forward he will be able to get himself those 8 figure deals because he is the star of a billion dollar movie, though JP being how he is the projects that can offer him that much money wont be the ones he cares about, imagine if that happens though, he does Joker it grosses $1B and he then decides no more big movies and every film for the rest of his career are like these $10m passion projects where he's making at best like $1m and they only gross $25m because they are about things like an Irish farmer during the potato famine and stuff, wouldn't surprise me tbh.
POINT 1: No way. I think he's gonna get a maximum amount of 10 million dollars, opposite to the "original" paycheck of 4,5 million dollars that they established. Nothing more, that's my wild guess. POINT 2: LMAO, you nailed it. Joaquin is enough crazy to walk that path. I don't think he played his cards right anyway. I mean, who the hell was expecting this movie to gross more than 150 million dollars worldwide?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 17, 2019 1:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 17, 2019 1:44:47 GMT
Oh yeah if he didn't negotiate a % of the movie before hand they aren't just going to give him more out of the kindness of their hearts, I think due to SAG contract regulations he'll be entitled to some backends, but like I said in another post that if DiCaprio could get $20m or more from Wolf Of Wall Street then Phoenix should be able to have gotten $50m+ in backends for Joker if he played his cards right.
Good news is though going forward he will be able to get himself those 8 figure deals because he is the star of a billion dollar movie, though JP being how he is the projects that can offer him that much money wont be the ones he cares about, imagine if that happens though, he does Joker it grosses $1B and he then decides no more big movies and every film for the rest of his career are like these $10m passion projects where he's making at best like $1m and they only gross $25m because they are about things like an Irish farmer during the potato famine and stuff, wouldn't surprise me tbh.
POINT 1: No way. I think he's gonna get a maximum amount of 10 million dollars, opposite to the "original" paycheck of 4,5 million dollars that they established. Nothing more, that's my wild guess. POINT 2: LMAO, you nailed it. Joaquin is enough crazy to walk that path. I don't think he played his cards right anyway. I mean, who the hell was expecting this movie to gross more than 150 million dollars worldwide? True I know I wasn't expecting it to go this big, I think I was thinking $300m maybe, turns out that's not even the domestic haul of this thing, good news is for how big this thing was it should do huge money for TV and home media sales, of which JP will be entitled to, and a fair amount of it considering he's in pretty much if not every scene of the movie, so he should get a nice chunk of change on that which should put him over $10m around April or so, just in time to pay half to the tax man, what bum luck
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 17, 2019 1:51:41 GMT
POINT 1: No way. I think he's gonna get a maximum amount of 10 million dollars, opposite to the "original" paycheck of 4,5 million dollars that they established. Nothing more, that's my wild guess. POINT 2: LMAO, you nailed it. Joaquin is enough crazy to walk that path. I don't think he played his cards right anyway. I mean, who the hell was expecting this movie to gross more than 150 million dollars worldwide? True I know I wasn't expecting it to go this big, I think I was thinking $300m maybe, turns out that's not even the domestic haul of this thing, good news is for how big this thing was it should do huge money for TV and home media sales, of which JP will be entitled to, and a fair amount of it considering he's in pretty much if not every scene of the movie, so he should get a nice chunk of change on that which should put him over $10m around April or so, just in time to pay half to the tax man, what bum luck Honestly? An origin story for Joker - depicted on a realistic and gritty tone - where Batman is always Bruce Wayne (and a child)? I was expecting a worldwide gross in the 250-300 million dollars range, which would still have been pretty impressive in my book!
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 17, 2019 2:51:52 GMT
Keep in mind that doesn't say anything about where the movie would need to make the money, $600m is the bare minimum needed according to them based on a 55% domestic split which would give them about $330m, which doesn't make sense given they assume a $250m production budget, and who hears of a major blockbuster having less than $100m marketing push these days? but even if that's all it needed it didn't make all it's money in the US, using various Deadline breakdowns to gauge a typical range to judge the intakes on imo this is how much JL "made" at the box office for WB, imo atleast based on at optimal levels I have found that the movies make, though they can range by about 3-8% less depending on which region we are talking about.
Domestic - $229,024,295
229,024,295 - 48% = 119,092,633.4 International - $428,900,000 - $106,052,345*China* = 322,847,655
322,847,655 - 58% = 135,596,015.1
China - $106,052,345
106,052,345 - 66% = 35,350,782.37 Worldwide $657,924,295 = 290,039,430.8 or 54% 44% of the gross.
Vs. Production cost of $250 + $150m marketing = $400m - $290m - $110m in cost not covered. When you then actually factor in the movie actually supposedly cost $300m not the $250m that article cites, it puts the losses up to $160m, which then minus the $100m in media sales you said bring total losses down to $60m, the actual estimated losses of the movie, the break even point is widely reported to have been 750m, which would work depending on where it made what money, but not based on it's actual percentage breakdowns.
Keep in mind BVS had a "reported" break even point of $800m but made what $880m and still lost $40m based just on the box office run, it all depends on where and how fast a movie makes money here is the breakdowns for Aquaman so you can see what I mean, because it made 25% of it's money in China it took in a lot less than Black Panther because BP took over 50% of it's money in domestically.
Here are a bunch of the other breakdowns, some aren't as easily broken down as the others, but using the others as a guide you can tend to figure the percentages with about a 1% margin for error on the final tally. Infinity WarBVS Black Panther
But I said before these films one way or another always make the studios money, due sometimes to product placements covering extra cost, or just because even though due to the cost of the movies they don't succeed financially at the box office a large enough portion of people see them it's huge marketing for their merch, despite what is proven with BVS or estimated in terms of JL by me to be money losing box office bombs the fact is DC have exponentially increased in retail sales for Batman merch in the last few years, Batman merch sold over $1b worth in both 2016 and 2017, and almost $1b worth in 2015, the marketing for the films pushes overall merch, those 3 years Batman sold almost if not over double what it was selling in 2013 or 2014, so why do they care if they lose $40-100m on the movies, they made 15x that in the increased amount or Batmerch between 2015 & 2017, Wonder Woman made more in merch than it did in ticket sales even if the studio took back 100% of the profit for the sales of WW merch in 2017/18.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 17, 2019 16:25:56 GMT
Keep in mind that doesn't say anything about where the movie would need to make the money, $600m is the bare minimum needed according to them based on a 55% domestic split which would give them about $330m, which doesn't make sense given they assume a $250m production budget, and who hears of a major blockbuster having less than $100m marketing push these days? but even if that's all it needed it didn't make all it's money in the US, using various Deadline breakdowns to gauge a typical range to judge the intakes on imo this is how much JL "made" at the box office for WB, imo atleast based on at optimal levels I have found that the movies make, though they can range by about 3-8% less depending on which region we are talking about.
Domestic - $229,024,295
229,024,295 - 48% = 119,092,633.4 International - $428,900,000 - $106,052,345*China* = 322,847,655
322,847,655 - 58% = 135,596,015.1
China - $106,052,345
106,052,345 - 66% = 35,350,782.37 Worldwide $657,924,295 = 290,039,430.8 or 54% of the gross.
Vs. Production cost of $250 + $150m marketing = $400m - $290m - $110m in cost not covered. When you then actually factor in the movie actually supposedly cost $300m not the $250m that article cites, it puts the losses up to $160m, which then minus the $100m in media sales you said bring total losses down to $60m, the actual estimated losses of the movie, the break even point is widely reported to have been 750m, which would work depending on where it made what money, but not based on it's actual percentage breakdowns.
Keep in mind BVS had a "reported" break even point of $800m but made what $880m and still lost $40m based just on the box office run, it all depends on where and how fast a movie makes money here is the breakdowns for Aquaman so you can see what I mean, because it made 25% of it's money in China it took in a lot less than Black Panther because BP took over 50% of it's money in domestically.
Here are a bunch of the other breakdowns, some aren't as easily broken down as the others, but using the others as a guide you can tend to figure the percentages with about a 1% margin for error on the final tally. Infinity WarBVS Black Panther
But I said before these films one way or another always make the studios money, due sometimes to product placements covering extra cost, or just because even though due to the cost of the movies they don't succeed financially at the box office a large enough portion of people see them it's huge marketing for their merch, despite what is proven with BVS or estimated in terms of JL by me to be money losing box office bombs the fact is DC have exponentially increased in retail sales for Batman merch in the last few years, Batman merch sold over $1b worth in both 2016 and 2017, and almost $1b worth in 2015, the marketing for the films pushes overall merch, those 3 years Batman sold almost if not over double what it was selling in 2013 or 2014, so why do they care if they lose $40-100m on the movies, they made 15x that in the increased amount or Batmerch between 2015 & 2017, Wonder Woman made more in merch than it did in ticket sales even if the studio took back 100% of the profit for the sales of WW merch in 2017/18. Great analysis !!!! I didn't know about the Batman merch, God, that is truly impressive.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 18, 2019 15:22:00 GMT
Keep in mind that doesn't say anything about where the movie would need to make the money, $600m is the bare minimum needed according to them based on a 55% domestic split which would give them about $330m, which doesn't make sense given they assume a $250m production budget, and who hears of a major blockbuster having less than $100m marketing push these days? but even if that's all it needed it didn't make all it's money in the US, using various Deadline breakdowns to gauge a typical range to judge the intakes on imo this is how much JL "made" at the box office for WB, imo atleast based on at optimal levels I have found that the movies make, though they can range by about 3-8% less depending on which region we are talking about.
Domestic - $229,024,295
229,024,295 - 48% = 119,092,633.4 International - $428,900,000 - $106,052,345*China* = 322,847,655
322,847,655 - 58% = 135,596,015.1
China - $106,052,345
106,052,345 - 66% = 35,350,782.37 Worldwide $657,924,295 = 290,039,430.8 or 54% of the gross.
Vs. Production cost of $250 + $150m marketing = $400m - $290m - $110m in cost not covered. When you then actually factor in the movie actually supposedly cost $300m not the $250m that article cites, it puts the losses up to $160m, which then minus the $100m in media sales you said bring total losses down to $60m, the actual estimated losses of the movie, the break even point is widely reported to have been 750m, which would work depending on where it made what money, but not based on it's actual percentage breakdowns.
Keep in mind BVS had a "reported" break even point of $800m but made what $880m and still lost $40m based just on the box office run, it all depends on where and how fast a movie makes money here is the breakdowns for Aquaman so you can see what I mean, because it made 25% of it's money in China it took in a lot less than Black Panther because BP took over 50% of it's money in domestically.
Here are a bunch of the other breakdowns, some aren't as easily broken down as the others, but using the others as a guide you can tend to figure the percentages with about a 1% margin for error on the final tally. Infinity WarBVS Black Panther
But I said before these films one way or another always make the studios money, due sometimes to product placements covering extra cost, or just because even though due to the cost of the movies they don't succeed financially at the box office a large enough portion of people see them it's huge marketing for their merch, despite what is proven with BVS or estimated in terms of JL by me to be money losing box office bombs the fact is DC have exponentially increased in retail sales for Batman merch in the last few years, Batman merch sold over $1b worth in both 2016 and 2017, and almost $1b worth in 2015, the marketing for the films pushes overall merch, those 3 years Batman sold almost if not over double what it was selling in 2013 or 2014, so why do they care if they lose $40-100m on the movies, they made 15x that in the increased amount or Batmerch between 2015 & 2017, Wonder Woman made more in merch than it did in ticket sales even if the studio took back 100% of the profit for the sales of WW merch in 2017/18. Great analysis !!!! I didn't know about the Batman merch, God, that is truly impressive. Cheers, the merch thing is crazy with a lot of these properties, Superman is a $700-800m merch mover every year, Avengers is a $1.2b mover a year, Spidey is a $1.3-1.5b whats funny is though Winnie the Pooh has historically whipped the ever loving crap out of those number, it's insane to think how much focus we put on box office and critical success, but the real money is in the stuff no one ever thinks about.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 18, 2019 16:59:29 GMT
In addition to merch, TV and streaming rights are where the big money is.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 18, 2019 17:39:41 GMT
In addition to merch, TV and streaming rights are where the big money is. Depends, for TV absolutely if the show isn't owned by a network, but then that's less big money and more long term money, by comparison Avengers does $1.2b in merch sales a year, Infinity War's global TV/Streaming sales was only $170m, which I don't know if that is how much they get per year for X amount of years, or if that is the entire payment for say 5 years, either way that's significantly less than either it's home media sales or theatrical return.
But yeah the TV & Streaming licensing money is where the money is long term, and also where the cinematic universe helps out, though less so streaming wise now with the whole Dinsey+ thing, but TV is still viable, and with a large collection they can sell for more and with ongoing films keeping the brand relevant it keeps the prices higher, and that's free money, they don't have to pay anything to license the movies out at all, where as with merch they still need to make a bunch of it, though some is also just licensed out for a fee I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 24, 2019 13:12:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 25, 2019 21:58:33 GMT
Thanks for the link...it helps confirm you were wrong when you said Batman was more successful than SPIDER-MAN
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 25, 2019 23:48:21 GMT
Not really, it's the exact same information available anywhere else with box office numbers, and it just shows the same intel that is common knowledge, cbm's like most blockbusters make the bulk of their box office opening 2 weekends, and the worse the movie the bigger the drop off, doesn't even have adjusted for inflation numbers, whats so enlightening?
And those movies don't count...I mean jeez how many separate antonymous sources is that now that do not include Justice League, Suicide Squad or The Lego Movie? Almost as if they aren't included as they aren't Batman movies, though I argue that's true of Joker also but it's specifically sold as being a "origin" movie for Batman's arch nemesis even though it's completely unrelated except for superficial connections added to justify the IP.
Want a real enlightening bit of intel? Batman 89 sold around the same amount of tickets as BVS globally, but whooped it's ever loving arse domestically and cost adjusted for inflation less than 1/3rd as much as BVS did, Batman 89 was a beast, and inanely profitable.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 27, 2019 0:51:34 GMT
Thanks for the link...it helps confirm you were wrong when you said Batman was more successful than SPIDER-MAN No way. Just do the math, man, it's not hard.
|
|