The Batman | March 4, 2022 | Warner Bros. | Certified Fresh on RT | 7th Most Profitable Movie of 2023

[lorddemaxus]

57 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

My guess is they're only releasing this scene now (and for the DVD/Blu Ray, obviously) because they know they are not intending to use Joker in the immediate sequel... or Barry Keoghan himself in the role.

 

If they aren't going forward with him, it does no harm to go ahead and show it.

 

If they were moving forward with Barry, why give away his big reveal for free when the sequel won't be out for another 2-3 years? Takes away from any anticipation of seeing how he would do in the role.

What the fuck kind of logic is this? They showed him because they don't want to use him?

[Dragoncaine]

58 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

My guess is they're only releasing this scene now (and for the DVD/Blu Ray, obviously) because they know they are not intending to use Joker in the immediate sequel... or Barry Keoghan himself in the role.

 

If they aren't going forward with him, it does no harm to go ahead and show it.

 

If they were moving forward with Barry, why give away his big reveal for free when the sequel won't be out for another 2-3 years? Takes away from any anticipation of seeing how he would do in the role.

 

There's a lot of smoke indicating Barry might be in the Arkham show.

[filmnerdjamie]

1 hour ago, Dragoncaine said:

There's a lot of smoke indicating Barry might be in the Arkham show.

Perhaps. At a Wait and See stage with that after the Gotham PD show with Jeffrey Wright was a go... until it wasn't.

 

 

[cax16]

5 hours ago, Tarintino said:

 

Endgame apparently made 890m profit with a budget of 356m and advertising budget of 200m. Going by the 2x rules of production plus P&A, it would have needed about 1.1b to break even, leaving 1.7b extra in revenue. If they take 50% of that, it gives 850m so the math works out.

 

Going by your rule of thumb, it's profit would have been higher than 1b, which sources say it wasn't. Even with Avatar, the budget + advertising was about 400m leaving it with a profit of around 1b give or take. According to your rule though its profit would have been around 1.15b which was too high. 

2.5x production budget is just the rule of thumb to say a movie has done fine and will be profitable, none of us know the exact amount any movie makes.

 

If you wanna believe grace be my guest. There’s a reason she’s a joke in the industry though.
 

I’m not gonna continue going back and forth with you so this will be my last post about this. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by cax16

[BruiseCruise]

Pretty sure the production budget does NOT include the bonuses paid out to directors/actors afterwards since they can't know that beforehand so thats why those profits for EG and Avatar come down a bit

[Barnack]

10 hours ago, Tarintino said:

Everything Ive ever read states a movie needs to make around 2x its production and advertising budget to break even, not budget alone. Considering theatre chains take around 40-50% of the gross whilst internationally is much higher, its seems on average a movie gets around 50% of its total gross, so making just 2-2.5 its production budget alone and ignoring the advertising budget seems incorrect 

It depend when and movie by movie, but often less than half of a movie revenues come from theater, it is why it tended to balance out.

 

Say a movie cost 150m to do and had a 110m theatrical releasing cost, 50m of other cost (interest, home ent release, some back end deals), total 310m.

Made 300m in theatrical, with an average 42% return (got a 53% domestic deal, less internationally) for a 126m rental.

40% of the movie revenues was theatrical, total revenue were: 126/.4 = 315m

 

10 hours ago, Tarintino said:

Do you have a link for this? As i can't find anything online and its hard to believe that less money was spent on marketing The Batman than it was on marketing the Joker which apparently cost 120m by the same studio

Historically tie in (even on the most tie in franchise with the best deals a la Bond) does not cover the international marketing budget, what they do is give way more exposure to a movie, the tie in often come with the understanding that the studio will spend on movie ads featuring their product while they will spend on their product ads featuring the movie in exchange, there is often very little to no actual money being exchanged, but giant value would they have bought that exposure (and they can put giant numbers in that category).

[WittyUsername]

The fact that the long runtime doesn’t seem to be hurting this movie’s legs makes me wonder if WB would’ve been better off letting BvS be three hours long. 

[Barnack]

13 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

The fact that the long runtime doesn’t seem to be hurting this movie’s legs makes me wonder if WB would’ve been better off letting BvS be three hours long. 

Runtime can be more opening weekend thing (how many show you can fit) than leg one ? BvS needed to milk that opened weekend.

[WittyUsername]

39 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Runtime can be more opening weekend thing (how many show you can fit) than leg one ? BvS needed to milk that opened weekend.

Maybe word of mouth would have been slightly better? At the very least, there are a few scenes in the Ultimate Edition that they could’ve included in the theatrical, which would’ve only added a few extra minutes to the runtime.

[excel1]

Run time is absolutely affecting legs. This is a movie that both people love and have a hard time rewatching in full. 

[Barnack]

14 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Run time is absolutely affecting legs. This is a movie that both people love and have a hard time rewatching in full. 

 

Titanic, Avatar, Gone With The Wind, Lords of the Rings 1-2, Green Miles, Godfather, Braveheart, Jackson King Kong, Private Ryan, Inception, the long Tarantinos many of the best legs in history have very long run time and if we talk multiplier, run time will have affected opening for giant one.

 

A movie that is hard to rewatch, that for sure would hurt legs.

[grim22]

1 hour ago, excel1 said:

Run time is absolutely affecting legs. This is a movie that both people love and have a hard time rewatching in full. 

It will get to almost a 3x, I'm not sure how much bigger you thought the legs would be. It's pretty much top tier legs for CBMs outside the holiday season.

[SliverS]

On 3/26/2022 at 5:00 AM, WittyUsername said:

The fact that the long runtime doesn’t seem to be hurting this movie’s legs makes me wonder if WB would’ve been better off letting BvS be three hours long. 

Nope.The Batman is a masterpiece .BVS isn't.The awful work of month isn't just because of running time.BVS is unwatchable for General audience.Most people jokes about DC after BVS.The Marsha joke is too famous.

Edited March 27, 2022 by SliverS

[Fielding]

On 3/25/2022 at 4:57 AM, Grebacio said:

Not a bad scene on it's own, but I think it was a smart decision (narrative wise, not box office wise) to cut it. It's too derrivate in my opinion.

The whole movie's derivative!

[VENOM]

On 3/24/2022 at 5:20 PM, AnDr3s said:

 

It’s already giving me a headache just trying to understand what he’s mumbling to Batman. And this scene is supposed to be better than what replaced it in the movie? No way I could sit through 3 hours of this. Definitely kept thinking he’s overacting through the whole thing.

[Tarintino]

I cant believe this is coming to HBO in just a few weeks. I hope this isn't going to be the norm for Warner as it cant be good for legs. People will be more inclined to go to the theatre if they know it's a long wait before they can watch it at home, 6 weeks is nothing

[Brainbug]

2 hours ago, Tarintino said:

I cant believe this is coming to HBO in just a few weeks. I hope this isn't going to be the norm for Warner as it cant be good for legs. People will be more inclined to go to the theatre if they know it's a long wait before they can watch it at home, 6 weeks is nothing

 

We can (only) hope that Warner Bros and the other studios pay attentention to box office runs like The Batman and the slow (but steady) recovery of theatralic moviegoing and will drop this dumb strategy going forward.

[AnDr3s]

is 800 dead?

[excel1]

Legs the last 10 days have been less than amazing, with the last 5 days partially not great. I am firmly in the mind that the film is being both well received and rejected for full 2nd viewings by many due to length and pace. Mind won't change here, either. 

 

The Batman 2 needs to be a tighter, faster film with a bit more action. Tone and everything can remain, but those 2 changes are definitely needed.

Edited March 26, 2022 by excel1

[Brainbug]

2 hours ago, excel1 said:

Legs the last 10 days have been less than amazing, with the last 5 days partially not great. I am firmly in the mind that the film is being both well received and rejected for full 2nd viewings by many due to length and pace. Mind won't change here, either. 

 

The Batman 2 needs to be a tighter, faster film with a bit more action. Tone and everything can remain, but those 2 changes are definitely needed.

 

If the Mr Freeze speculation has merit than Reeves will practically have no choice but plan for several good action setpieces. The Riddler works perfectly for a crime film like this one but i agree that the sequel needs to "up the ante" a bit i believe goes the saying in english.