Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900 
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on May 21, 2016 9:49:22 GMT -5
I know, crazy right? WB reportedly needed $800 million to break even. Hollywood math gets complicated quickly. The production budget of BvS was $250 million, and they spent at least $100 million on marketing. The numbers we see on Box Office Mojo regarding films only reflect the money made at the box office, not what WB actually receives from ticket sales. The percentage the studio gets of the ticket price varies, depending on location, time, circumstances and contracts. For example, in North America the percentage of a ticket operates on a sliding scale, starting as high as 90%, but decreasing from one week to the next depending on the popularity of the film. In China however, the percentage is locked at 25%. Any actor, writer or director whose contract calls for earning points on the gross or net also eats into the studio's profits. Once all of the various issues are factored in, a film has to make far more at the box office than most people realize. This is why so many of these mega-budget movies have so much product placement in them. The studios are trying to find as many ways to differ the costs as possible. The only reason Man of Steel cleared a profit is due to the obscene amount of product placement included. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on May 21, 2016 9:55:51 GMT -5
If I were a stockholder in Time/Warner, I'd be super-pissed. If it weren't for the fact that a lawsuit from the stockholders would only drive the value of their shares down even more, the stockholders would probably sue for failure to follow due dilligence. They definitely have a strong case. Time Warner is too large a corporation to have its stock effected by one movie or even one series... which is why Time Warner stock actually went up all through April. Their movie division is basically a side project in the grand scheme of things. |
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on May 21, 2016 11:04:25 GMT -5
Time Warner is too large a corporation to have its stock effected by one movie or even one series... which is why Time Warner stock actually went up all through April. Their movie division is basically a side project in the grand scheme of things. That's a fair point, but it still drives me nuts. WB has owned DC Comics since 1968, yet they've mostly squandered the property for the majority of the time since then. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,782
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 12:18:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on May 21, 2016 11:26:54 GMT -5
Time Warner is too large a corporation to have its stock effected by one movie or even one series... which is why Time Warner stock actually went up all through April. Their movie division is basically a side project in the grand scheme of things. That's a fair point, but it still drives me nuts. WB has owned DC Comics since 1968, yet they've mostly squandered the property for the majority of the time since then. Have they? DC Comics was practically irrelevant in the 1960's thanks to Marvel. They made a major comeback in the 70's and became THE comic book company of the 80's and continued to be a success from the 90's through today. For the last 40+ years they've been more stable than Marvel which filed for bankruptcy in the 90's and today are sabotaging characters cause of movie rights. You're right that Warner Bros. have underused DC in movies & TV, but they've kept the comic book company and the brand alive since 1968. |
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on May 21, 2016 12:26:12 GMT -5
Have they? DC Comics was practically irrelevant in the 1960's thanks to Marvel. They made a major comeback in the 70's and became THE comic book company of the 80's and continued to be a success from the 90's through today. For the last 40+ years they've been more stable than Marvel which filed for bankruptcy in the 90's and today are sabotaging characters cause of movie rights. You're right that Warner Bros. have underused DC in movies & TV, but they've kept the comic book company and the brand alive since 1968. DC was anything but "THE" comics company of the 80's, to the point that WB was so fed up with how much money DC was losing they tried to shut DC Comics down and just license the rights to Marvel. DC struggled through the X-Plosion of Marvel's popularity in the 90's via stunt events like Death of Superman, Knightfall and DC vs. Marvel/Amalgam. WB has been there to provide financial stability in the dark times at DC, but I don't know if that's such a good thing. Marvel's bankruptcy in the 90's is what paved the way for the multi-media juggernaut they are today, thanks to the vision of the new owners. All of Marvel's previous owners either weren't interested in expansion or expanded into the wrong things. Sometimes growing pains are necessary. Too much stability invites complacency. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,782
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 12:18:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on May 21, 2016 15:27:46 GMT -5
DC was anything but "THE" comics company of the 80's, to the point that WB was so fed up with how much money DC was losing they tried to shut DC Comics down Like Dracula said, we're talking about a major corporation. They make money somehow. Disney, if you wanna get technical about it, is losing money from ESPN. Should the shareholders revolt cause of that - or just be happy that AT LEAST the movie division is making money? Either way, I was referring to the actual work created by DC Comics in the 1980's. The most celebrated comics of the era - Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns - were created by DC Comics. And you can criticize Death of Superman in 90's but at least it wasn't Spider-Man's Clone Wars. In the 2000's, Marvel had the 9/11 issue, the Ultimate series and Civil War but DC was getting attention (and praise if I recall correctly) for Hush. And now, in the 2010's, they have The New 52, which from what I can tell, seemed to do fine. While Marvel is alienating fans by sabotaging the characters they don't own movie rights to. So I'd still argue that since the 70's, DC quality wise has been more consistent than Marvel. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,782
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 12:18:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jun 2, 2016 11:27:37 GMT -5
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,649
Likes: 4,066
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 21:03:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jun 2, 2016 11:38:02 GMT -5
There's nothing to suggest it'll be an improvement.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,782
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 12:18:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jun 2, 2016 11:54:27 GMT -5
There's nothing to suggest it'll be an improvement. I'll still watch it though. |
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 19:25:15 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Jun 2, 2016 18:05:44 GMT -5
Theatrical cuts are the only true versions of films.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,782
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 12:18:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jun 2, 2016 18:16:46 GMT -5
Theatrical cuts are the only true versions of films. Don't say that to SnoBorderZero . |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,649
Likes: 4,066
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 21:03:45 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jun 2, 2016 19:59:22 GMT -5
Theatrical cuts are the only true versions of films. Eh, I'd say it depends. However in this case I don't think it'll much matter one way or the other. |
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Jun 2, 2016 22:00:17 GMT -5
Theatrical cuts are the only true versions of films. This is usually true, but there are a few exceptions. The directors cut of Aliens has an extremely important scene that never should have been cut from the theatrical release. Studio suits required an obnoxious voice over for the theatrical release of Blade Runner. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 20:52:31 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jun 3, 2016 0:27:44 GMT -5
As the Kingdom of Heaven advocate of these boards I will say there are some very obvious exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedVader on Jun 3, 2016 4:28:09 GMT -5
I dont believe this movie is breaking even at 870 million no studio is gonna agree too pay over half a million dollars to make one movie. Its a failure cause it didn hit a Billion. Last I checked No Spiderman movie did either or any of The Original X-Men movies. Only Iron Man 3 made over a Billion. Then theres the Thor movies. People are waving too much lies too make one movie look good Civil War cough and This movie look like crap.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,626
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 17:07:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jun 3, 2016 11:34:47 GMT -5
Theatrical cuts are the only true versions of films. Don't say that to SnoBorderZero . Other than Ridley Scott films, I mostly agree with Ian on that actually. |
|
|
|
Post by RedVader on Jun 3, 2016 14:27:16 GMT -5
Lord Of The Rings Extendeds were good. Harry Potter 1 and 2 had some great added things and Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves Had a pretty good DVD release.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Jun 3, 2016 18:46:19 GMT -5
You're talking about good movies.
Mostly.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedVader on Jun 3, 2016 21:11:26 GMT -5
Well B V S is not horrible. Some people take that part a bit far. Its true i dont like the cradle robbing actor who plays superman. But Snyder does no how to deliver visuals and the Final 45 minutes is worth my ticket price. I mean this movie is not Ghost Rider bad.
|
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Jun 3, 2016 23:45:51 GMT -5
Well B V S is not horrible. Some people take that part a bit far. Its true i dont like the cradle robbing actor who plays superman. But Snyder does no how to deliver visuals and the Final 45 minutes is worth my ticket price. I mean this movie is not Ghost Rider bad. I agree that BvS isn't completely horrible, but it's not particularly good either. That said, sometimes the director's cut version of a film can be a marked improvement for an otherwise mediocre film. The Daredevil director's cut includes a subplot that was vital to the overall plot of the film. When this subplot was removed by the studio, it opened a huge plot hole and turned an okay movie (although nothing can save that awful playground fight) into an utter mess. Most of the time, the scenes the director wanted to include never got filmed at all, since the studio refused to pay for them. In the case of the BvS Ultimate Cut that Snyder has put together, I'll watch it, but I'm not buying it at retail. I'll wait until I find a used copy at Half Price Books, just as I did with Man of Steel. |
|
|
|
Post by RedVader on Jun 4, 2016 2:01:17 GMT -5
Id Love too see a POTC Black Pearl extended movie because the deleted scenes were awesome.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 19:25:15 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Jun 4, 2016 10:21:00 GMT -5
I have come to the decision that even LOTR theatrical editions are far better.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 20:52:31 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jun 4, 2016 10:34:18 GMT -5
I dunno about FOTR or TTT but the ROTK Extended edition is light years better than the theatrical.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,496
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 19:25:15 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Jun 4, 2016 11:18:37 GMT -5
I dunno about FOTR or TTT but the ROTK Extended edition is light years better than the theatrical. You're crazy, that's the worst one. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 20:52:31 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jun 4, 2016 12:52:27 GMT -5
The Saruman scene alone makes it a much better movie.
|
|
