Justice League

Love the looks of both diana and Aquaman, def by far my favourites. Flash is ok and looking forward to seeing him on screen aswell. But ohdear i must say i do not like the cyborg look nor do i like the new batman suit. In my opinion they nailed it in BvS. It may be 1 version of several but still not a fan of this version.
 
It's alright Dan I will be negative nelly here. I think this movie is going to suck balls. It will make a billion dollars but it will suck balls.

quit stealing my thunder man. i'm the grumpy hates everyhing guy here (apparently) ;o)


joking aside.....yeah, pretty much my thought too. DC clearly doesn't know what it's doing on the movie side..and I think the TV side is starting to show signs of wear and tear too... only one left istill enjoy is flash. and even with that i'm getting tired of the constant speed demons as villains only.
 
I think the WB's movie side is in quick sand. They made a bunch of rash desicions to try and catch up to Marvel ASAP and they didn't do any world building like Marvel did. Batman now looks like Night Owl. WW's movie is looking like a rip off of Cap TFA. Now also by bringing in Darkside as your JL opponent it looks like the Avengers. They keep sinking but nobody has the balls to say hey we need to stop and re evaluate before the super hero movies dry up.
 
It's so cool to finally see 5 grossly underdeveloped characters in the DCU finally together in one shot.......?

Cool costumes (not my favorite style, but I don't hate it). I still don't feel the awesome vibe I should be having. I'm so detached from these characters I really am indifferent to what I'm looking at right now. They went so bass ackward on this story development of characters and hope they do enough of it for me to genuinely care about this team in the DCU when it comes out.



878c7ecc33b1b3ee7a06f78773dcd273157aba5e1406d21a98f28c9c40cc590c.jpg
 
I think the WB's movie side is in quick sand. They made a bunch of rash desicions to try and catch up to Marvel ASAP and they didn't do any world building like Marvel did. Batman now looks like Night Owl. WW's movie is looking like a rip off of Cap TFA. Now also by bringing in Darkside as your JL opponent it looks like the Avengers. They keep sinking but nobody has the balls to say hey we need to stop and re evaluate before the super hero movies dry up.

yep. doesn't help either that thanos is apparently the marvel equivalent of darkseid, even if the latter has more publicity in recent years.

The problem with the WB is that they either feel the need to go all dark and gritty to seperate themselves from golly gee williker hero types...or to differentiate themselves from Marvel.

Problem is, that doesn't always work for every hero.

Also, they've rebooted these characters so many times now...they feel they have to drastically alter the look in order to make it fresh. and that's just not the case either.
That mess that calls itself the joker in SS makes me long for heath ledgers take, and I HATED his take as the joker..

- - - Updated - - -

It's so cool to finally see 5 grossly underdeveloped characters in the DCU finally together in one shot.......?

Cool costumes (not my favorite style, but I don't hate it). I still don't feel the awesome vibe I should be having. I'm so detached from these characters I really am indifferent to what I'm looking at right now. They went so bass ackward on this story development of characters and hope they do enough of it for me to genuinely care about this team in the DCU when it comes out.

Part of it is super hero fatigue....

other part of it is, well, it's WB. a company that doesn't know it's own heros..or does and ignores it.
 
I don't have superhero fatigue at all. I LOVE seeing these flicks. I thoroughly enjoy watching the Marvel team films and I'm not a strict Marvel fanboy... I just think they were much more thoughtful about how to bring all the characters into the world and not just fire it off like a shotgun all at once.

I love Batman and I love Superman.... I just don't like how they went about creating the DCU. I think The Dark Knight was one of, if not the best Superhero film made and I think they took a major step back when they started over.

I still have yet to see Suicide Squad, but plan to soon and may just go for the extended cut to get the FULL story. I hear so many mixed things about it, but will need to just see for myself. I have not at all been impressed by what i've seen in trailers, but who knows.. I LOVE being wrong when it comes to films I want to be good!
 
They keep sinking but nobody has the balls to say hey we need to stop and re evaluate before the super hero movies dry up.

I didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad... but looking at the numbers, and I don't know exactly how to read these but...
Suicide Squad - Worldwide $745,173,191 (Budget $175,000,000)
BvS - Worldwide $873,260,194 (Budget $250,000,000)

I don't think it's a question of balls... I doubt anyone in any decision making position is looking beyond the numbers. Suicide Squad made 4.25x the budget and BvS made 3.5x their budget. In terms of numbers that isn't a bomb.... both movies were extremely profitable. From a WB exec's POV, these movies are money makers. Regardless of fan reception, if fans are paying to see the movies and walk out hating them or loving them, WB has their money either way.
 
Father I can't argue with you on numbers because again I don't know how (movie budget, marketing budget etc. maybe Riceball can help with that) coincide with box office numbers. My point was (even if I made it badly) was that if they stop the train wreck ie. bad fan reception, then think what they could build long term. I am not going to swear to it but I am predicting a pretty sharp downward trend for WB/DC movies (in terms of Box office numbers). When I say that I in particular mean the stand alone films. I think you could advertise JL movie and have it turn out to be sock puppets and it would make money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Father I can't argue with you on numbers because again I don't know how (movie budget, marketing budget etc. maybe @Riceball can help with that) coincide with box office numbers. My point was (even if I made it badly) was that if they stop the train wreck ie. bad fan reception, then think what they could build long term. I am not going to swear to it but I am predicting a pretty sharp downward trend for WB/DC movies (in terms of Box office numbers). When I say that I in particular mean the stand alone films. I think you could advertise JL movie and have it turn out to be sock puppets and it would make money.

All you need to understand is that all of the major studios out there are not in the business of making movies, they're in the business of making money and movies are just how they make their money. So, at the end of the day, the studios don't care about fan reception and doing things right by them, all they care about the numbers, did the movie make money or not? I don't know what the exact formula is but I believe that for a movie to be considered profitable it needs to make 2x - 3x its budget, which may or may not include marketing costs. So if a film makes that kind of money but is hated by fans, it's still considered a success by the studios and they'll continue to make films using the same formula and will continue to do so until it no longer makes the kind of money they want.

I should also add that now a days how a movie does overseas can also determine, for the studio, whether or not a movie was a success or not. A movie could do poorly domestically but make tons of money overseas which would usually constitute a success for the studio and have them greenlight a sequel. The overseas box office is one of the reasons why some movies, Transformers comes to mind, are so bland story wise and chock full of action, action filled movies without a complex plot line makes it easier to market overseas because action is a universal language that needs no translating. Where as if you have a movie with a lot of dialogue and or a complicated plot might not do so well because there aspects to the plot/dialogue that just don't translate well because they're uniquely Western or American and foreign audiences just don't get, sort of like how not all Americans necessarily get or appreciate British humor.
 
Last edited:
I didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad... but looking at the numbers, and I don't know exactly how to read these but...
Suicide Squad - Worldwide $745,173,191 (Budget $175,000,000)
BvS - Worldwide $873,260,194 (Budget $250,000,000)

I don't think it's a question of balls... I doubt anyone in any decision making position is looking beyond the numbers. Suicide Squad made 4.25x the budget and BvS made 3.5x their budget. In terms of numbers that isn't a bomb.... both movies were extremely profitable. From a WB exec's POV, these movies are money makers. Regardless of fan reception, if fans are paying to see the movies and walk out hating them or loving them, WB has their money either way.
I read the budget of BvS was more around 415 million if you include the estimated marketing cost. You also have to consider the huge chunk of profit that the theaters take in. The one calculation I saw online was about $400 that went to the movie theaters (https://moviepilot.com/posts/3860610). By this calculation the margin of profit was less than $50 million. Even in advance of the release just about everyone was quoting figures of $800-925 million the film would need to make in order to be profitable. These numbers would be consistent with those estimates.

Suicide Squad, on the other hand was clearly very profitable. Lesser budget and definitely less marketing with nearly the same pull as BvS. Just about every online source agrees on this point.
 
Again, I don't know enough about the business. I'm quoting numbers directly from IMDb.

I'm guessing marketing isn't part of that budget but I also feel like some of what appears to be marketing would fall more under merchandise/product tie-ins and probably doesn't cost the studio as much as straight up adds. Like Coke cans with pictures of the movie characters. Does the studio pay Coke for that or does Coke actually pay the studio a % for every can sold? Gillette razors I remember being big with Man of Steel. Does the studio pay Gillette to run ads with the movie clips?

Either way... the WB/DC movies are making money. "I'm sorry fans, I can't hear your negative comments over the sound of cash registers taking your money."
 
I didn't like BvS or Suicide Squad... but looking at the numbers, and I don't know exactly how to read these but...
Suicide Squad - Worldwide $745,173,191 (Budget $175,000,000)
BvS - Worldwide $873,260,194 (Budget $250,000,000)

I don't think it's a question of balls... I doubt anyone in any decision making position is looking beyond the numbers. Suicide Squad made 4.25x the budget and BvS made 3.5x their budget. In terms of numbers that isn't a bomb.... both movies were extremely profitable. From a WB exec's POV, these movies are money makers. Regardless of fan reception, if fans are paying to see the movies and walk out hating them or loving them, WB has their money either way.

Word was in March that they had nearly 400M (or more) invested in BvS including advertising (advertising isn't every part of any cost figure they usually put out). They said the studio gets roughly 50% of ticket sales, so, to make any profit it had to bring in over 800M, so only pulling in 875M is not too good if those numbers are/were correct.
 
Again, I don't know enough about the business. I'm quoting numbers directly from IMDb.

I'm guessing marketing isn't part of that budget but I also feel like some of what appears to be marketing would fall more under merchandise/product tie-ins and probably doesn't cost the studio as much as straight up adds. Like Coke cans with pictures of the movie characters. Does the studio pay Coke for that or does Coke actually pay the studio a % for every can sold? Gillette razors I remember being big with Man of Steel. Does the studio pay Gillette to run ads with the movie clips?

Either way... the WB/DC movies are making money. "I'm sorry fans, I can't hear your negative comments over the sound of cash registers taking your money."

I think that the production budget and the marketing budget are generally two separate things but are often lumped together by 3rd parties to calculate the actual total cost of the movie, but I think for accounting purposes the studios treat them as two completely separate things.

As far as product placement goes, I think that it depends on who is doing the placement. If it's the studios idea to include, say Coke, in their movie then they have to negotiate with Coke to get their permission to use Coke in their movie and determine how much it would cost to do so. On the other hand, sometimes a company, let's again say Coke, will approach a studio and say, "We'll pay X for you to use a can of Coke in your movie".
 
Okay, first off I will admit Economics is not my subject.

I don't understand this "movie must make 3X to be profitable".

If I invest $10 in something and I make $11 back--I made profit, didn't I? Why do I have to make $30 before it is considered profit?
 
Either way... the WB/DC movies are making money. "I'm sorry fans, I can't hear your negative comments over the sound of cash registers taking your money."

Well, the thing is, it's not just the fans that are reacting negatively to the DC offerings, but the critics as well. After the critical acclaim that the Dark Knight series garnered (Rotten Tomatoes has the trilogy at 84%, 94% and 87% respectively), the absolute disdain that most critics have expressed for Man of Steel (55% on RT), BvS (27%), and Suicide Squad (26%) has to hurt on some level.
 
That article is well written indeed, but short answer : theatres get about half of the price of a ticket, which means, since BO are based on tickets sold, half of it goes to theatres.
Furthermore, studios never, at my knowledge, finance 100% of a film, they use diverse financing sources, some of which take their cut from the B.O. as well, and more that what they gave, when it comes to private money (interests, bonus,...) and not public funds and tax incentives from states/countries (over here, in Europe, most producers are weary of American investors, because they're known to be vicious sharks in business ! Heard a few horror stories from veteran producers about them...)

So all in all, a lot of players are involved in getting a movie out there, and they almost all take their cut in the B.O., so it has to be really high is the studio is to make profits. Of course, big studios have several movies per year, so can spread the risks between them and stay afloat.
 
Okay, first off I will admit Economics is not my subject.

I don't understand this "movie must make 3X to be profitable".

If I invest $10 in something and I make $11 back--I made profit, didn't I? Why do I have to make $30 before it is considered profit?

I'll explain this to you later, right now I have to yell at @Riceball.
@Riceball what do you mean American's don't get British humor. We love Benny Hill and Mr. Bean. I'm going to unfriend you if you don't stop being so racist.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top