Jandrew's 2016 Winners and Losers

[SteveJaros]

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

1.) Suicide Squad is not a sequel to Batman V Superman. It's like calling Winter Soldier a sequel to Thor the Dark World.

 

Course doing 750 in it's opening week is very impressive, but multipliers aren't done of opening week. (I'm being pedantic.)

 

Also, nice job not including all the Superman films in your chart, just to boost your point. Superman and Superman II made more than BvS adjusted. BVS sits at 8 out of 14 adjusted. But behold, it beat Quest for Peace and Superman III, that's something.

 

End of the day, it's how the OP wishes to declare it a loser, and you can argue that he's wrong all you want, but his definition is BVS didn't make as much as it should have based on clear interest in the film, which is shown by buzz and opening weekend, and how interest clearly dropped off after release by the one of the worst multipliers ever seen by a big budget movie. And comparing it to Twilight is pretty bad, when movies that only appeal to teen girls and Baumer has more GA interest after it's OW than BvS...well...

 

You can call it a Winner, but then again, that's your opinion. Mine is that it BvS did poorly relative to what it's potential was, and left a lot of sour tastes in a lot of people's mouths. It hurt the franchise more than it helped, and that's more a loser than it is a winner.

 

1) Obviously, Suicide Squad isn't a sequel to BvS in the same way that Jaws 2 was to Jaws. But, we now live in an age where studios are trying to establish "extended universes", not just direct-line franchises, and WB made it pretty clear that one of the goals for BvS was to help launch or establish their "DCU" for their comic book movies. In that regard, SS was the first DC extended universe movie to come out after BvS, so there is a quasi-sequel connection there, and if BvS's poor multiplier really meant that it left a bad taste in the public's mouth, we should expect that to be reflected in Suicide Squad's performance. But SS did pretty good, so there's not much evidence of that. So IMO your point here mostly misses the mark. 

 

2) Nice job trying to cast aspersions on my motives, but FWIW, I only included Man of Steel and SM Returns because IMO, the other Superman films from 1978-1987 are just too distant in the past to really merit comparison. But even if they do, why would i leave them out for the reason you say I did, to make BvS look better, when BvS actually did better (adjusted), then two out of the four? Makes no sense, as that would actually push BvS slightly closer to the modal value among all of them (8th out of 14 instead of 6th out of 10) than does just including MoS and SR. Sheesh! 

 

3) End of the day, yes the OP can declare anything he wants. He can declare TFA and Jurassic World losers if he wants, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Gee, that's saying something useful, right? This is a forum, and the OP posted his definition of winners and losers, and invited debate and discussion. He got it.

 

4) If you'd read even a tad more carefully, you'd see that I've never called BvS a "winner". I specifically say that IMO it was a commercial and critical disappointment. But for the reasons I've given, not a "loser".

 

Have a nice day. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by SteveJaros

[baumer]

Too many essays in this thread.

 

Just to play devils advocate....because i see what Steve Jaros is saying....

 

Harry Potter and Twilight mostly had horrible multipliers. Those two series of films was the ultimate definition of a fanbase rushing out to see it in the opening weekend and then the Casual fan not really doing too many repeat viewings.

 

Because their fan bases were so huge the small multipliers of those films really didn't hurt the future earnings of the sequels. So I see both sides of the story and in this case the Batman versus Superman multiplier was horrible and that wasn't just because it had a massive fan base. But at the same time there are other examples of other films with massive opening weekends and crappy multipliers that do not negatively affect the sequels.