SUICIDE SQUAD WEEKEND THREAD | New REVISED SUNDAY NUMBER 134m FROM GURU ON PG 212 | 267.1M WW OW | Nine Lives 6.5 OW |No Spoilers Allowed!!! | ACCOUNT SALES THIS WEEKEND - see first post for details !!

[Jack Nevada]

 

[Fancyarcher]

13 minutes ago, TMP said:

 

 

I understand what you guys mean, but wouldn't Wonder Woman being good-great only seem like an anomalous result for the general public? Or is the DC brand big enough that the first universally loved film of theirs in years be enough to win people over who decided to skip on Suicide Squad and BvS - two films which featured most of DC's heavy hitters.

With Marvel, it took several years of goodwill to build such a strong brand image; but DC already started on a sour foot, so I'm wondering how much it would take to recover from their last three misfires.

 

I don't think the public really cares about the DC brand, as much as they care Batman and associated characters and what-not. If Marvel made a movie that got poor reviews, then I'm sure it would underperform at the box office as well.

[kowhite]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

The problem with the DCEU is that there really isn't one person overseeing everything so the studio just throwing everything in to see what sticks at the cost of coherency (that would certainly explain why BvS felt like half-a-dozen movies clumsily crammed into one 2.5 hour film). And the closest person they have to that is Snyder, whose views on these characters are...questionable...at best.

 

The problem with the DCEU is that they're not making movies everyone likes.

 

We all like to hem and haw about how that happens...should've made solos, should've had an overseas corporate guy running it...should've blah blah blah...

 

You know what?  It's all bullshit.  This plan?  It could've worked great.  And I liked SS.  A lot.

 

But ultimately, this is just down to one thing.  Sloppy filmmaking.  There's lots of good ways to get to good.  The Marvel way?  Worked.  The DC way?  Let's be real, it could've worked (yes, it could've).  

 

In DCs favor, it's quite clear...bad movies or not...they're delivering content that people WANT to see.  And at the very least looks the part.  What's my point?  Ok, I forget.  

[filmlover]

Aren't there rumors that this will be banned in China as well due to the "no ghosts" rule (since the Cara character is possessed by a witch)?

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, Jack Nevada said:

 

 

He's not realizing that number refers to all revenue streams.

[superweirdo87]

5 minutes ago, Jack Nevada said:

 

@nilephelan @Rth You have been super generous towards this forum by sharing numbers, but either of you might have insight on this? Does SS really have to make 750M or 800M to make a profit? The budget is 175 in reports. Marketing is at least 150M and maybe 165M, and additional photography might have raised the production budget. Then, Smith and gross points. But, like Guardians made 773M WW on a 195M budget, and it was seen as a big hit.

 

With 300 domestic, that could work out to 450M in revenues for WB. (WSJ reported that a studio eventually makes 1.53 dollars for every dollar at the box office). Foreign might be 160M to 200M and like at least 150M in foreign markets' ancillary revenues (home entertainment and TV licensing). That's 760M million. Assuming even 225 production, 165 marketing, pricey participations, home entertainment costs, misc costs like interest, overhead, and off-the-tops, it seems that the breakeven might be lower than 750-800M.

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by superweirdo87

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, superweirdo87 said:

@nilephelan @Rth You have been super generous towards this forum by sharing numbers, but either of you might have insight on this. Does SS really have to make 750M or 800M to make a profit? The budget is 175 in reports. Marketing is at least 150M and maybe 165M, and additional photography might have raised the production budget. Then, Smith and gross points. But, like Guardians made 773M WW on a 195M budget, and it was seen as a big hit.

 

@kowhite's your huckleberry.

 

Here's MOS's vague breakdown of costs/grosses from Deadline, to give a general idea:

 

MAN OF STEEL PROFITABILITY
	Dollars (in mill.)
Domestic box-office	291.045
Int'l box-office	313.560
China box-office	63.440
Global box-office	668.045
Domestic theatrical rental	148.410
Int'l theatrical rental	123.600
China theatrical rental	15.570
Domestic home ent.	119.790
Int'l home ent.	93.240
Domestic TV	66.565
Int'l TV	69.630
Other	25.000
Total return	661.985
Net production cost	258.000
Domestic P&A cost	80.000
Int'l P&A cost	69.300
Domestic home ent. cost	31.930
Int'l home ent. cost	34.500
Interest	11.610
Residuals	27.253
Participations	57.950
Overhead	38.700
Distribution fee
Total costs	609.243
Profit	52.742

[superweirdo87]

Where is merchandising/product placement/tie-ins? Others have estimated Man of Steel profits upward of 200M, but they included merchandise.

[boomboom234]

5 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

@kowhite's your huckleberry.

 

Here's MOS's vague breakdown of costs/grosses from Deadline, to give a general idea:

 

MAN OF STEEL PROFITABILITY
	Dollars (in mill.)
Domestic box-office	291.045
Int'l box-office	313.560
China box-office	63.440
Global box-office	668.045
Domestic theatrical rental	148.410
Int'l theatrical rental	123.600
China theatrical rental	15.570
Domestic home ent.	119.790
Int'l home ent.	93.240
Domestic TV	66.565
Int'l TV	69.630
Other	25.000
Total return	661.985
Net production cost	258.000
Domestic P&A cost	80.000
Int'l P&A cost	69.300
Domestic home ent. cost	31.930
Int'l home ent. cost	34.500
Interest	11.610
Residuals	27.253
Participations	57.950
Overhead	38.700
Distribution fee
Total costs	609.243
Profit	52.742

even that doesn't mention commerical tie ins and product placement 

[GiantCALBears]

1 hour ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

France: MAGINOT LINE!!!

 

Britain: LOL Hitler would never actually do that

 

USA: we'll decline to participate (wink wink FDR).

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said:

 

USA: we'll decline to participate...

 

Thank you, Charles Lindbergh and the original America First.

[EmpireCity]

4 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

@nilephelan @Rth You have been super generous towards this forum by sharing numbers, but either of you might have insight on this. Does SS really have to make 750M or 800M to make a profit? The budget is 175 in reports. Marketing is at least 150M and maybe 165M, and additional photography might have raised the production budget. Then, Smith and gross points. But, like Guardians made 773M WW on a 195M budget, and it was seen as a big hit.

 

It all depends what their actual costs were.  Some rumblings out there it was closer to $250m plus marketing, points and all that other stuff.  If that is the case, they would want to see it make somewhere around $800m in theaters to feel great about it.  

 

They have gotten silly with the budgets lately.  It shouldn't cost $175m-$250m in production costs to make Suicide Squad.  

[VinceMichaudC]

3 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

Where is merchandising/product placement/tie-ins? Others have estimated Man of Steel profits upward of 200M, but they included merchandise.

 

That would be a WB & Legendary Production. Revenues derived from the film go to them. 

 

Licensing & merchandising go to DC Entertainment.

[superweirdo87]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

[TheMovieman]

22 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

The problem with the DCEU is that they're not making movies everyone likes.

 

We all like to hem and haw about how that happens...should've made solos, should've had an overseas corporate guy running it...should've blah blah blah...

 

You know what?  It's all bullshit.  This plan?  It could've worked great.  And I liked SS.  A lot.

 

But ultimately, this is just down to one thing.  Sloppy filmmaking.  There's lots of good ways to get to good.  The Marvel way?  Worked.  The DC way?  Let's be real, it could've worked (yes, it could've).  

 

In DCs favor, it's quite clear...bad movies or not...they're delivering content that people WANT to see.  And at the very least looks the part.  What's my point?  Ok, I forget.  

 

We'll have to see what, if anything, changes now with Geoff Johns at the helm which begins with WW since he's credited as a co-writer.

[POTUS 2020]

4 hours ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

I think the first girl I kissed ended up being a lesbian. No joke. 

 

 

I went 50 years w/o a gay moment then unknowingly kissed a ladyboy in Thailand a few months ago. 

If I was a little drunker, I would have to change my name Stu. 

 

[Chewy]

I know I'm late on the derailment talk but the best one ever was in the BOM days. We talked about COW SHIT for around 50 pages in the Green Lantern thread

[EmpireCity]

The whole problem is movies need to get into production to make release dates that studios are planning years in advance.  As has been reported with Suicide Squad, they spent hardly any time on the script and it shows.  What happens WAY too often anymore is the studio will come up with 3-4 set piece concepts and then the actual dialogue and characters are secondary to filling in the time and how they get to each set piece throughout the movie.

 

I really like The Force Awakens, but it is no secret that they supposedly came up with set pieces and effects that they simply kept even after they scrapped Ardnt's script and then JJ and Kasdan had to write to fill in around some of those.  It leads to some awkwardness and choppy editing that doesn't make the story flow.  

 

Screenwriting goes like that in Hollywood all the time, but it is starting to burn them more and more.  If you want to watch how messy it can get and what a clusterfuck fly by the seat of your pants and make a lot up as you go to fill in around set pieces can be, watch the making of feature for Edge Of Tomorrow.  They started filming that movie and didn't even have a 3rd act or much of the dialogue.  

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, nilephelan said:

The whole problem is movies need to get into production to make release dates that studios are planning years in advance.  As has been reported with Suicide Squad, they spent hardly any time on the script and it shows.  What happens WAY too often anymore is the studio will come up with 3-4 set piece concepts and then the actual dialogue and characters are secondary to filling in the time and how they get to each set piece throughout the movie.

 

I really like The Force Awakens, but it is no secret that they supposedly came up with set pieces and effects that they simply kept even after they scrapped Ardnt's script and then JJ and Kasdan had to write to fill in around some of those.  It leads to some awkwardness and choppy editing that doesn't make the story flow.  

 

Screenwriting goes like that in Hollywood all the time, but it is starting to burn them more and more.  If you want to watch how messy it can get and what a clusterfuck fly by the seat of your pants and make a lot up as you go to fill in around set pieces can be, watch the making of feature for Edge Of Tomorrow.  They started filming that movie and didn't even have a 3rd act or much of the dialogue.  

Fortunately, it's impossible to have those problems for an animated feature. Maybe it's why they're so successful lately.

[Johnny Tran]

I could see Wonder Woman suffering from poor editing/pacing because why not?  but just from seeing the trailer and knowing that Johns co-wrote the script I'm confident that it will definitely be an accurate portrayal of Wonder Woman as a character.  I'm also confident in the action sequences. Less confident in the dialogue.  The tone will be pretty light and I'm  fine with that, it's Wonder Woman.

 

I would think at worst Wonder Woman is a strong (both in fighting skill/abilities and internally) and powerful badass female in a generic but fun action romp.   Will that be enough for critics? I say yes. Will it be enough for GA?  I say yes.