Jandrew's 2016 Winners and Losers

[chasmmi]

But BVS is a mega-movie. It's something that you would expect to cross $1B if I wrote and directed it. Even though $875M is a huge number, it is nothing compared to what it should be even if bad. (A Critically hated Transformers sequel can make a billion but Batman fighting Superman featuring Wonder Woman can't?)

 

Imagine if Avatar 2 makes $350M Dom and  $1.1B dollars Worldwide, those are huge numbers for a film to make, but surely if those numbers were combined with a Rotten Tomato score of 34% and IMDB score of 5.2. That would make the film nothing short of a loser right?

 

Ghostbusters however is a bit like Tarzan. It had an inflated budget and probably a couple of studio execs kidding themselves that this was a $750M franchise, but the audience reaction to its inception and trailers were toxic. Ghostbusters pre-release had the stink of something that would score 20% on rotten tomatoes and embarrass itself with a sub $70M Domestic take (It was coming off the most disliked trailer of all time on Youtube and an army of people ready to hate it even if it actually turned out to be funnier than the original).

 

For it to get middling - Okay reviews and a decent Domestic Box Office haul means that it turned out to not be an abject failure and thus not a total loser.

 

 

 

[Plain Old Tele]

I'm not sure in what world GB26 and BVS are considered to have had "the same expectations", but it's certainly not ours. 

[Jandrew]

5 hours ago, SteveJaros said:

 

You seem to find that 1.98 multiplier so awful that it mesmerizes you from considering that it came on top of an OW of $166m, which is really really good! So what we have here isn't something that is just plain bad (loserville!) but a mix of bad and good, which would be something else. And of the two, the multiplier is really less important, because multipliers have value only to the extent that they translate into actual box office numbers. 

 

I mean, what if Avatar 2 is released, and does $600m DOM its first week, and then "only" $400m the rest of its DOM run? That would be a multiplier of 1.66, which I guess is dreadful (I don't really follow multipliers but if you are laughing at 1.98 ...), but my response would be "So What? It still earned $1B DOM, which is awesome"! So we can't dwell too much on multipliers. In the end, no matter what other films did or didn't do, 330/800 is still a lot of money.

 

Which leads to this: If a film that did 330/800 is a "loser", what would we have called BvS if it had done Alice 2 numbers?  Surely, it would be worth noting, in a categorical way, the difference between the BvS that actually exists and a hypothetical one that put up Alice 2 numbers, but your scale can't accommodate  that.

 

Well, actually it can, if you just place BvS correctly. It should be "mixed", or at worst, "almost loser" - which basically correspond to my definition of "disappointment". With the "loser" zone reserved for films that were disappointing in all the ways you describe BvS, and also really did tank at the box office.  Otherwise, your scale just doesn't seem to work.

 

 

 

Yes, the 1.98 multiplier alone is a enough for me to call it a loser. It is a horrendous number. Horrendous. Who cares that it opened to $166? If Lebron James scores 40 points in the 1st quarter, yet totals 50 for the game and the Cavs lose, then he had a losing effort. I don't care if he had an amazing, record breaking first 1st quarter, he still couldn't finish.

 

BvS couldn't finish either. You keep trying to spin its numbers as good, but fail to understand that those "good" numbers, both domestic and worldwide, aren't good enough in the grand scheme. As I've already said too many times, this movie had potential to be a real trailblazer of the decade, but it burnt down the forest. I'm sorry to "insult" a movie that you obviously really loved, but I'm calling it how I see it.

 

I'm not going to entertain "what ifs" with other movies. My list was about 2016 movies. Avatar 2 probably won't be out until 2036 anyway. If BvS did Alice 2 numbers, it'll still be...a loser? Again go back and read my blurb about it. And read the 20 posts I've wrote in this thread about BvS. I can't make it any more clear why it's a loser in my book and we are really starting to go in circles over it.

 

2 hours ago, PPZVGOS said:

@SteveJaros  @jandrew

 

One more thing. You fail to even be accurate about what the BvS total WW gross really was. It wasn't $800M, it was in fact $873.3M, you seem to nonchalantly knocked-off around 9% of its total WW take. And the implications here are obvious, if a movie with admittedly very high expectations makes $873.3M WW and is deemed an outright loser (at the bottom of the scale) then what is to be said about something like Moana? Weren't expectations high for that one? Especially after mega-hits such as Frozen (almost $1.3B WW) Inside Out & Zootopia? For a scale of evaluation to be making any sense, its criteria must be objective and applied equally to everything it purports to measure. BvS made way more than double the money Alice ($300M) Star Trek (343M) ID4-2 (390M) Moana ($410M, may finish with around $450M) Jason Bourne ($416M) TMNT-2 ($246M) If BvS did in fact "drop its cake on the floor" then what did all these other (big-budget) movies do?

 

BvS also made more money than movies considered to have been outright winners (which they were) such as Deadpool ($783M, no China) Suicide Squad ($746M, no China) Doctor Strange ($660M, with a massive $110M coming from China) 

 

Why am I referring to China specifically? Because: a) It's far and away the biggest non-North American market out there, and 2) The Chinese theater chains only cough back to Hollywood studios 25% of the total Chinese gross. Just like with everything else, the Chinese are leveraging their immense size and future potential to their own benefit. 

 

With this in mind, the entire gap between BvS & Zootopia completely melts away if China is taken out of the equation. Even though Zootopia made $150M million more than BvS WW, $140M of that is entirely thanks to China. Out of that extra $140M, Disney will only be getting $35M from the Chinese. 

 

In any case, my point here is that any objective analysis of the facts, points towards BvS being at worst a "mixed" bag for WB, while some other movies that some are labeling as "mixed" were in fact outright losers. 

 

I was just rounding. I thought it was closer to $800m. Okay, $900M, is that better? Still doesn't change the fact that this movie is a loser. Again, I'm not comparing movies, I already said that. This is about BvS and BvS only. I don't care about Moana. And I don't care how much money BvS made over other movies. My list is a compilation, not a competition, which you're still failing to understand.

 

I've already made it clear how I feel about Trek, Bourne, and Ninja Turtles.

 

I appreciate the other viewpoints, but I'm not calling BvS mixed. It's a big failure to me, end of story and as I said above, we're going in circles at this point.

[PPZVGOS]

1 hour ago, jandrew said:

 

Yes, the 1.98 multiplier alone is a enough for me to call it a loser. It is a horrendous number. Horrendous. Who cares that it opened to $166? If Lebron James scores 40 points in the 1st quarter, yet totals 50 for the game and the Cavs lose, then he had a losing effort. I don't care if he had an amazing, record breaking first 1st quarter, he still couldn't finish.

 

BvS couldn't finish either. You keep trying to spin its numbers as good, but fail to understand that those "good" numbers, both domestic and worldwide, aren't good enough in the grand scheme. As I've already said too many times, this movie had potential to be a real trailblazer of the decade, but it burnt down the forest. I'm sorry to "insult" a movie that you obviously really loved, but I'm calling it how I see it.

 

I'm not going to entertain "what ifs" with other movies. My list was about 2016 movies. Avatar 2 probably won't be out until 2036 anyway. If BvS did Alice 2 numbers, it'll still be...a loser? Again go back and read my blurb about it. And read the 20 posts I've wrote in this thread about BvS. I can't make it any more clear why it's a loser in my book and we are really starting to go in circles over it.

 

 

I was just rounding. I thought it was closer to $800m. Okay, $900M, is that better? Still doesn't change the fact that this movie is a loser. Again, I'm not comparing movies, I already said that. This is about BvS and BvS only. I don't care about Moana. And I don't care how much money BvS made over other movies. My list is a compilation, not a competition, which you're still failing to understand.

 

I've already made it clear how I feel about Trek, Bourne, and Ninja Turtles.

 

I appreciate the other viewpoints, but I'm not calling BvS mixed. It's a big failure to me, end of story and as I said above, we're going in circles at this point.

 

Well, if you are conceding that you are merely expressing idiosyncratic opinions, then that's OK. My point is that by any objective yardstick, BVS cannot be described as a "loser". If it was such a thing, then so would be 98% of movies in general. 

[chasmmi]

9 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

Well, if you are conceding that you are merely expressing idiosyncratic opinions, then that's OK. My point is that by any objective yardstick, BVS cannot be described as a "loser". If it was such a thing, then so would be 98% of movies in general. 

 

If somebody gave me a metric ton of gold bullion to do with as I liked and I sold it for $1,000,000, well that's a lot of money. 98% of people out there would be overjoyed to have made a million dollars.

 

However, a metric tonne of gold is worth about $35,000,000 and as such the cool one million that I made is actually disastrous business on my part and even though I made a lot of money and could claim to be rich and happy, it still doesn't stop me being a financial loser at the end of the day.

 

With BVS, by any objective financial yardstick, it should have more value than a Jungle Book Remake. If Wonder Woman makes $700M, that's a success. Hell, Fucking Deadpool outgrossed it Domestic and Worldwide (minus China). That should not happen.

 

 

(And I say this as someone who likes the film). 

[PPZVGOS]

19 minutes ago, chasmmi said:

 

If somebody gave me a metric ton of gold bullion to do with as I liked and I sold it for $1,000,000, well that's a lot of money. 98% of people out there would be overjoyed to have made a million dollars.

 

However, a metric tonne of gold is worth about $35,000,000 and as such the cool one million that I made is actually disastrous business on my part and even though I made a lot of money and could claim to be rich and happy, it still doesn't stop me being a financial loser at the end of the day.

 

With BVS, by any objective financial yardstick, it should have more value than a Jungle Book Remake. If Wonder Woman makes $700M, that's a success. Hell, Fucking Deadpool outgrossed it Domestic and Worldwide (minus China). That should not happen.

 

 

(And I say this as someone who likes the film). 

 

Yes, but BvS did not make 1/35th of what was expected of it. You can argue it made 20% less than it should have done, and that would be fair. Those are two different things. 

 

The Jungle Book was a mega success, as many kid-friendly properties are these days. It was no random movie, but one of the year's uber-successes. Deadpool was also the break-out hit of the year. If we are going to deal in relative terms, then Deadpool was the year's biggest success, considering its relatively small budget (even though I am certain that its marketing budget was mega) and relatively less-known source material. 

 

I never argued that BvS was an outright success, I am only arguing that it was not an outright failure. 

 

Another thing to keep things in perspective here. BvS will probably make a bit more than Rogue One will OS. Would you consider Rogue One to be a failure? Especially since nothing in Hollywood is more high-profile than Star Wars. 

 

So, if you managed to sell that gold for $28M, it wouldn't be such a great disaster, that's what I'm saying. 

[Jandrew]

1 hour ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

Well, if you are conceding that you are merely expressing idiosyncratic opinions, then that's OK. My point is that by any objective yardstick, BVS cannot be described as a "loser". If it was such a thing, then so would be 98% of movies in general. 

 

It's a loser, I'm sorry. Feel free to make a list of your own and place it in the mixed tab. I appreciate your viewpoint, but my position is not changing on this. At all.

Edited January 8, 2017 by jandrew

[TwoMisfits]

If the cost of the films matter in their BO successes and expectations, Disney would probably have to drop off your list.  Disney and Pixar movies usually cost a LOT (Rogue One's production costs ONLY was $200M and it didn't have a single actor/actress earning more than $2M, and Moana's production only cost is rumored to be $150M), so Disney's theatrical return on costs is gonna be a lot lower than other studios (since they plan these tentpole movies to drive merchandise, merchandise, and more merchandise).  

 

I would love to see Disney's total production and advertising costs for their movies compared to JUST their theatrical revenue (which we know was $3B).  I bet the year doesn't look quite as uber-spectacular then (although it should still be really good, since they only had a few "busts")...

[Jandrew]

Disney was the first studio ever to make $3 billion, shattered the fastest to $1 billion record, owns the top 3 and 6 of the top 10, has an over 24% market share, and what, 3? movies that made over $1 billion worldwide last year.

 

I think theyre justified. It was a special year. 

[TwoMisfits]

Production Budgets for all 2016 Disney movies

Finding Dory $200M

Moana $150M

Zootopia $150M

Jungle Book $175M

Rogue One $200M

Captain America 3 $250M

Dr Strange $165M

Alice 2 $170M

The BFG $140M

Pete's Dragon $65M

Queen of Katwe $15M

The Finest Hours $80M

The Light Between Oceans $20M

 

Total Production Only Budget for Disney for 2016 $1.78B (Now, probably add in a $1B-$1.5B for advertising and you have their rough costs for the movies)...so, say $3B or so total cost for their movies...with an almost total tentpole strategy (maybe 2-3 were not intended at tentpoles)...

 

Now, they made more than $7B in revenue world-wide for 2016 (1st time for this), so they spent a lot of money, but still made a lot of money in 2016...but it's not quite as amazing when you see how much they had to spend to do it...  

 

PS - I was too curious and decided to do this myself:)...

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[Porthos]

-deleted-

Edited January 9, 2017 by Porthos
Bah Board posted prematurely for some reason.

[Porthos]

Speaking as someone who had one foot in the political world for a long time, I don't see the issue here.

 

This is largely about that dreaded word: Expectations.

 

Now the thing is, expectations are fuzzy.  They're also not quite the same for every person.  And they might not apply them to different situations in the same way. 

 

For the movie getting the most discussion here, I'll put it simply:  Did BvS come anywhere CLOSE to meeting expectations? Y/N

 

If you can look me in the virtual eye and say, "No, but not by much", then fine, call it mixed.  But if you think they horribly missed the boat, then, sure calling them a 'loser' works, because it is viewed as a massive disappointment critically and financially, fairly or not.

 

 

This is also how someone might call GB2016 "mixed" as that it did a little bit better than expected.  Didn't take off, didn't fall flat on its face, just kinda sat there.

 

So don't agree with @jandrew's critera for expectations?  Well, I wouldn't expect universal agreement on them as they're fuzzy, personal things.

 

[SteveJaros]

10 hours ago, Porthos said:

So don't agree with @jandrew's critera for expectations?  Well, I wouldn't expect universal agreement on them as they're fuzzy, personal things.

 

 

I'm not sure what your issue is here?  @jandrew posted his list of winners and losers publicly here so obviously his own wish was that others would discuss it publicly, and that implies possible disagreement as well. All that's been going on here is that a couple of us have taken issue with his definition of BvS as a loser, and we've explained why we disagree. Par for the course, eh?

 

So it comes across as churlish of him (as he did in a previous post) to respond to such disagreement with (pararphrasing) "don't like my criteria? Post a list of winners and losers yourself using yours". He invited comment and discussion, and he got it. 

 

As for your other point, I agree this is all subjective, but again, I haven't claimed  to be speaking the God's honest Objective Truth. Obviously, at the end of the day it's all just opinion. 

 

You seem to agree with the OP that BvS is best called a "loser". Fine with me, but for my part I can't agree, because then what would he call a film that had the exact same critical appraisal and pre-release expectations, but earned say $500m less? A super-duper loser? He has no category for that. 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by SteveJaros

[Jandrew]

2 hours ago, SteveJaros said:

 

I'm not sure what your issue is here?  @jandrew posted his list of winners and losers publicly here so obviously his own wish was that others would discuss it publicly, and that implies possible disagreement as well. All that's been going on here is that a couple of us have taken issue with his definition of BvS as a loser, and we've explained why we disagree. Par for the course, eh?

 

So it comes across as churlish of him (as he did in a previous post) to respond to such disagreement with (pararphrasing) "don't like my criteria? Post a list of winners and losers yourself using yours". He invited comment and discussion, and he got it. 

 

As for your other point, I agree this is all subjective, but again, I haven't claimed  to be speaking the God's honest Objective Truth. Obviously, at the end of the day it's all just opinion. 

 

You seem to agree with the OP that BvS is best called a "loser". Fine with me, but for my part I can't agree, because then what would he call a film that had the exact same critical appraisal and pre-release expectations, but earned say $500m less? A super-duper loser? He has no category for that. 

 

 

 

 

You're right, I spent hours typing that post and posted here because I was wanting to engage discussion and some friendly debate, but this non-stop BvS nonstop has gotten irritating. As I said, I welcome your viewpoints, but instead of telling me how you feel, you're complaining about how I feel. I'm tired of going in circles over this one movie.

 

This thread hasn't gone the way I wanted it to at all. PLEASE talk about something OTHER than BvS now. It's seriously tired at this point. I know people are passionate about it, but I've already heard your points on why it shouldn't be a loser, and I've explained numerous times why I'm keeping it a loser, and I'm ready to move on please.

[SteveJaros]

39 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

You're right, I spent hours typing that post and posted here because I was wanting to engage discussion and some friendly debate, but this non-stop BvS nonstop has gotten irritating. As I said, I welcome your viewpoints, but instead of telling me how you feel, you're complaining about how I feel. I'm tired of going in circles over this one movie.

 

This thread hasn't gone the way I wanted it to at all. PLEASE talk about something OTHER than BvS now. It's seriously tired at this point. I know people are passionate about it, but I've already heard your points on why it shouldn't be a loser, and I've explained numerous times why I'm keeping it a loser, and I'm ready to move on please.

 

Actually, I've explained how I feel. I've been very clear about why I think BvS shouldn't be regarded as a "loser". Of course, doing so necessarily entails discussing why I think your POV is mistaken, but there was no way to avoid that. You seem to get irritated quickly. I  mean, you say there's been a "non-stop BvS nonstop" but how many posts have addressed BvS? None of these posts has resorted to namecalling, etc. Very mild really. You're a big boy, you should be able to hand that.

And I also have trouble with your amazement that BvS has been discussed to the extent that it has. Reflects IMO a certain level of naivety, particularly from someone with your experience around here. BvS was one of the most prominent and controversial films of the year, and generated all kinds of back and forth, criticisms and defenses. You can't seriously have thought you could label it a "loser" and then expect just a mild comment or two in reply? That would be like me going to a political website and calling Trump a loser or Obamacare a failed program and then expecting nothing but a couple friendly responses- not very realistic.

As to your last point: When you make a post, you can't expect to control "how it goes", other than that the replies are reasonably on-topic, which to my reading they have been. And it's not like this thread has a size limit. A couple of us focusing on BvS in no way prevents you and others from discussing other films and aspects of your list, so by all means do so, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else has to "move on" from talking about BvS.

 

I appreciate your original post - that's why I'm one of two people who have 'liked' it. It sparked some good debate/discussion. I don't see why you're not as happy with that discussion as I am, LOL. 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by SteveJaros

[Jandrew]

Yes I'm aware it was going to cause discussion, naïve is the last thing I am thanks, but dude seriously, the last 4 pages have been all BvS. You've literally been complaining about the same thing for 4 pages now. And I've been giving you the same response for 4 pages now. How many more pages before we can agree to disagree and move on?

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by jandrew

[Plain Old Tele]

17 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

Now, they made more than $7B in revenue world-wide for 2016 (1st time for this), so they spent a lot of money, but still made a lot of money in 2016...but it's not quite as amazing when you see how much they had to spend to do it...  

 

PS - I was too curious and decided to do this myself:)...

 

Remember all told only a little more than half of that gross comes back to them (approx 53% domestic and 41% was the general average for blockbusters, according to this reasonably detailed article). Though of course they still make a good chunk of money (especially off secondary revenue streams).

[Jonwo]

The BFG wasn't a full Disney film, they only distributed in a handful of territories and i think put up 1/3 of the budget. 

[baumer]

To simplify things, didnt WB spend about 400 mill on BvS? So technically....they just barely broke even... but if you look at it from another point of you then Batman vs Superman was definitely a launch to the next phase of their comic book hero films. So I guess you can look at it both ways. But to me based on expectations and the entire budget i don't think the gross of 800 million and change would really make it a winner.

[Wrath]

On 1/6/2017 at 10:16 PM, jandrew said:

2016 was an alright year at the box office. I decided to highlight what I feel were the winners and losers of the year. This list isn't just about gross, but rather gross, reception, and expectations.

 

This isn't a list about my favorite and least favorite movies of the year, although this does involve some of my personal opinion.

 

Here is my blog post: http://actthreemovies.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-winners-and-losers.html

 

Give it a read as I give my reasoning on each choice, see what you think, and come back and debate on what I got wrong and right. Just know I'm always right and you're always wrong.

 

In no order:

 

Winners:

 

- Walt Disney Pictures, A Madea Halloween, Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Trolls, Bad Moms, Purge Election Year, Sausage Party, Don't Breath, Hell or Highwater, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Lights Out

 

Losers:
 

- Batman vs Superman, Allegiant, sequels trying to recapture magic, Ninja Turtles 2, Huntsman Winters War, 13 Hours, Zach Galifiankis and Zac Efron, Gods of Egypt, Alice 2, Billy Lynn, Birth of A Nation, wide release flops, Inferno

 

Mixed:

 

- Ghostbusters, Passengers, and faith based adaptions

 

Not full winners:

 

- Legend of Tarzan, Sully, Angry Birds, Shallows

 

Not full losers:

 

- Girl on the Train, Ass Creed, Warcraft, Ben Hur, Storks

 

Too many damn ads:

 

- Office Christmas Party

 

 

So what do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

 

Storks' performance makes me sad in that it was roughly my 3rd favorite animated movie of the year (after Kubo and Zootopia, Sausage Party isn't included because I'm *still* not entirely sure how I feel about it), but bad trailers completely failed to communicate its many strong points. I think its neck and neck with Ghostbusters for most poorly marketed movie of the year (which isn't to say I thought Ghostbusters was good, just that it isn't every day a movie's marketing campaign actually detracts value from the movie).