Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[DMan7]

Teen Titans started off well then fell off a cliff in the latter episodes especially the last episode. The best episode for me was the Jason Todd episode. 

[Warmaster506]

Titans was good and hopefully will be even better next season. 

[LaughingEvans]

14 hours ago, Krissykins said:

so far it’s miles better than Defenders

 

That's not quite the achievement, I've written schoolplays in high school better than the Defenders

[TMP]

Titans is terrible. Middle school level acting, cringe worthy dialogue that feels like a 13 year old's definition of "mature" with an f word every third word, and incredibly cheap production values. Doesn't inspire confidence for the rest of the DCU shows.

Those Disney+ shows sound promising, but Watchmen on HBO is the only upcoming super-hero show which sounds interesting.

[Johnny Tran]

I don't pick sides on these things but I do laugh at the narratives people try to paint around here at times. 

 

Batman/Superman made $873M and it's a "failure"  

 

Meanwhile Spider-Man/Iron Man made $880M and it's "a huge success." 

 

Explain that one.  

 

 

[a2k]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

I don't pick sides on these things but I do laugh at the narratives people try to paint around here at times. 

 

Batman/Superman made $873M and it's a "failure"  

 

Meanwhile Spider-Man/Iron Man made $880M and it's "a huge success." 

 

Explain that one.  

 

 

simplistic calculation not considering participation and other nuanced costs, they had exactly the same theatrical return with different production budget.

 

BVS

330.4*0.55 + 95.8*0.25 + 447.5*0.40 = 384.7 (250 prod budget + marketing/release costs)

SMH

334.2*0.55 + 116.3*0.25 + 429.7*0.40 = 384.8 (175 prod budget + marketing release costs)

 

and BVS wasn't a flop and didn't loose money like JL did. It just underperformed a lot as it was comparable to Civil War in boxoffice potential (1.15b) and had Bat, Sup, Lex with Wondy, Doomsday all together for the 1st time ever.

[Lucasmessi12]

Titans is great, one of the best Superhero tv shows of all time, Young Justice has returned and is phenomenal, DC Universe tv shows are all great so far.

And Swamp Thing probably will be the best comic book tv show  this year, not even Watchmen will be on the same level.

[TMP]

5 minutes ago, Lucasmessi12 said:

And Swamp Thing probably will be the best comic book tv show  this year, not even Watchmen will be on the same level.

If Watchmen is even half as good as Linndelof's last show, The Leftovers, it'll be better than most of the superhero films out this year

[Johnny Tran]

41 minutes ago, a2k said:

simplistic calculation not considering participation and other nuanced costs, they had exactly the same theatrical return with different production budget.

 

BVS

330.4*0.55 + 95.8*0.25 + 447.5*0.40 = 384.7 (250 prod budget + marketing/release costs)

SMH

334.2*0.55 + 116.3*0.25 + 429.7*0.40 = 384.8 (175 prod budget + marketing release costs)

 

and BVS wasn't a flop and didn't loose money like JL did. It just underperformed a lot as it was comparable to Civil War in boxoffice potential (1.15b) and had Bat, Sup, Lex with Wondy, Doomsday all together for the 1st time ever.

 

Production budgets are fine to discuss but in reality none of us are going to know what the real budget is and what additional costs came about or how much was paid by product placements, etc.  

 

I'm just talking about how much each film grossed at the worldwide box office.  Batman/Superman introduced a new Batman and Wonder Woman.  Spider-Man Homecoming introduced Spider-Man into the MCU which everyone was asking for and they threw in Iron Man to spike revenues as well. 

 

They both made the same amount.  There were many predictions of Spider-Man Homecoming over one billion,  it did not reach that number.  There were far less people discussing how it underachieved in comparison to BvS.  

 

I don't mind pointing out hypocrisy and double standards. In my view both were successful but both underachieved.  

[a2k]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

 

Production budgets are fine to discuss but in reality none of us are going to know what the real budget is and what additional costs came about or how much was paid by product placements, etc.  

 

I'm just talking about how much each film grossed at the worldwide box office.  Batman/Superman introduced a new Batman and Wonder Woman.  Spider-Man Homecoming introduced Spider-Man into the MCU which everyone was asking for and they threw in Iron Man to spike revenues as well. 

 

They both made the same amount.  There were many predictions of Spider-Man Homecoming over one billion,  it did not reach that number.  There were far less people discussing how it underachieved in comparison to BvS.  

 

I don't mind pointing out hypocrisy and double standards. In my view both were successful but both underachieved.  

SMH was the 1st full fledged Spidey film post the franchise ending fiasco that was ASM2. It needed MCU's goodwill and IM's presence apart from reception going it's way, else was gonna be 'yet another reboot of spidey in so many years'. In that context I think it did very well globally, especially dom.

Edited January 14, 2019 by a2k

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

 

Production budgets are fine to discuss but in reality none of us are going to know what the real budget is and what additional costs came about or how much was paid by product placements, etc.  

 

I'm just talking about how much each film grossed at the worldwide box office.  Batman/Superman introduced a new Batman and Wonder Woman.  Spider-Man Homecoming introduced Spider-Man into the MCU which everyone was asking for and they threw in Iron Man to spike revenues as well. 

 

They both made the same amount.  There were many predictions of Spider-Man Homecoming over one billion,  it did not reach that number.  There were far less people discussing how it underachieved in comparison to BvS.  

 

I don't mind pointing out hypocrisy and double standards. In my view both were successful but both underachieved.  

 

I understand the point being made here but I don't think that Batman v Superman aligns precisely with Spiderman.

 

The precedent for Batman v Superman was that only recently Batman was in a trilogy of movies in which two instalments had just grossed over 1b. In addition to the character that had done this was added the most iconic superhero in the world. Both characters together, on screen, for the first time*.       (*In a mainstream blockbuster release)

 

Spiderman: Homecoming was a movie based around a character that, yes had proven himself a major box office draw in the past, but had just had an underwhelming box office with generally bad reviews and public sentiment and was fighting an inevitable public perception in places among the more casual moviegoer of "What? Another different one?".

 

In terms of world box office, Spiderman is also a lot more US/parochial centric than Batman and especially Superman - and the "local/neighbourhood" aspect of Spiderman was particularly emphasised in the marketing for Homecoming.  

 

Batman v Superman didn't 'flop' in outright terms. And Spiderman: Homecoming could perhaps be considered a mild underperformance if one leans exclusively on the first two Raimi films as precedents and ignore that it was clearly positioned as a lesser contributor to the MCU. 

 

I suppose I also note that at a time that I wasn't going to the movies as often at the time - I didn't see either of these films in the cinema. I would suggest that to some extent neither of them really appealed to people who weren't automatically inherently interested in the idea of them. Which is born out by the legs of especially BVS.

 

 

[Johnny Tran]

You are underselling Spider-Man as a character.  Spider-Man is just as globally known and profitable as Batman,  if not more.  Spider-Man appearing in the MCU was a huge talking point and marketing strategy for years.  This was his "homecoming" and for good measure they threw Iron Man in the mix.  Iron Man was coming off Avengers,  Iron Man 3 and Captain America Civil War,  all $1B+ grossing films.  

 

As for BvS,  this was an introduction of a new Batman.  I'm not sure how the Nolan trilogy fits into the discussion.  The idea that Spider-Man was a damaged brand and Batman was elevated doesn't hold water.  It was a new Batman, had nothing to do with the Nolan films and it was a movie directed by Snyder who is a guy that was already divisive in some circles. 

 

BvS was not in line for a "sequel bounce" because it wasn't a sequel.  If you want to make that argument Spider-Man Homecoming should have been in line for a sequel bounce based on the MCU already being massively popular and Iron Man being all over the marketing plan.  

 

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, Johnny Tran said:

They both made the same amount.  There were many predictions of Spider-Man Homecoming over one billion,  it did not reach that number.  There were far less people discussing how it underachieved in comparison to BvS.  

 

I don't mind pointing out hypocrisy and double standards. In my view both were successful but both underachieved.  

I think BvS and Suicide Squad simply happened in a very strange online box office moment, even Suicide Squad was called some flop and some needed 800m to break even kind of talk non-sense.

 

Wonder Woman did a little bit less than Suicide Squad in the markets both released and was correctly seen has the giant success it was.

 

One big difference is that both those movie included in their plans and success bar the setup of sequels, and BvS failed at doing that.

 

I would also point out, that I would be extremelly surprised if those 250/175m figure are +/-5% of the reality and that the production budget on big franchise made by big names producer is a small part of the cost/equation.

 

Spider Man 3 total cost for Sony went close to the billion dollars ($934M), the 300M net budget being only 32% of their cost.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Barnack

[2kt09]

The films' content themselves made BvS & Homecoming gross as similarly as they did and to that end wouldn't have significantly different outcomes if the reception were different. As momentous as these respective highly self-referential crossovers were, they simply weren't as grand and as simplistic at what cracks the billion dollar code.

[Premium George]

20 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

 

Spider Man 3 total cost for Sony went close to the billion dollars ($934M), the 300M net budget being only 32% of their cost.

Can you expand on this. How did it make profit? 

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, Premium George said:

Can you expand on this. How did it make profit? 

By making what I think was (and could still be) an all time high for Sony movie 1,122m in revenues, a bit above the 1,088m for Spider Man 2 unadjusted for inflation between the 2 release date, SM 2 being much more profitable because of a bit more reasonable total cost.

 

Principal source of revenues were

domestic theatrical rental: 196m

Intl theatrical rental: 244m

Dvds: 338m

TV: 170m

Merchandising: 157.5m

 

Biggest Expense

Net production budget: 299.76m

Marketing: 231.7m

Prints&shipping&dvd manufacturing: 165.2m

Participations bonus: 154.6m!

Residuals: 35.3m

Overhead: 42m (so that movie is paying for a lot of the studio existence cost thought)

[Premium George]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

By making what I think was (and could still be) an all time high for Sony movie 1,122m in revenues, a bit above the 1,088m for Spider Man 2 unadjusted for inflation between the 2 release date, SM 2 being much more profitable because of a bit more reasonable total cost.

 

Principal source of revenues were

domestic theatrical rental: 196m

Intl theatrical rental: 244m

Dvds: 338m

TV: 170m

Merchandising: 157.5m

 

Biggest Expense

Net production budget: 299.76m

Marketing: 231.7m

Prints&shipping&dvd manufacturing: 165.2m

Participations bonus: 154.6m!

Residuals: 35.3m

Overhead: 42m (so that movie is paying for a lot of the studio existence cost thought)

Was there anything in leaks about the reaction of Sony to that profit for such a high cost. Is it good? What's the movie with least Worldwide total which made same profit or more, if you can.

[Barnack]

15 minutes ago, Premium George said:

Was there anything in leaks about the reaction of Sony to that profit for such a high cost. Is it good? What's the movie with least Worldwide total which made same profit or more, if you can.

188m profit for the studio on Spider Man 3 was one of their biggest ever, the biggest for release between 2006 and 2014 I think.

 

Da Vinci code 178m being the second biggest of that period.

 

No small movie came that close to those, but the 170m at the box office Superbad made 88m, The Karate Kid 97m, Grown Ups made 71m.

 

Has for the reaction, I do not think e-mails go back that far from the leak, I do not remember seeing talk about SM3 performance, but they were talk to make a 4 with the same group and 1.12 billion in revenues was quite something, I imagine they were please financial performance wise.

[Macleod]

No big surprise, but...  WB's Toby Emmerich on the studio's future with DC material:

 

 

What does the success of Aquaman mean for the DC Universe?

We all feel like we've turned a corner now. We're playing by the DC playbook, which is very different than the Marvel playbook. We are far less focused on a shared universe. We take it one movie at a time. Each movie is its own equation and own creative entity. If you had to say one thing about us, it's that it always has to be about the directors.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/toby-emmerich-warners-bros-crazy-rich-year-1176027

[The Futurist]

15 minutes ago, Macleod said:

No big surprise, but...  WB's Toby Emmerich on the studio's future with DC material:

 

 

What does the success of Aquaman mean for the DC Universe?

We all feel like we've turned a corner now. We're playing by the DC playbook, which is very different than the Marvel playbook. We are far less focused on a shared universe. We take it one movie at a time. Each movie is its own equation and own creative entity. If you had to say one thing about us, it's that it always has to be about the directors.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/toby-emmerich-warners-bros-crazy-rich-year-1176027

As opposed to the corporate products of the MCU that don't care about their directors amirite ?