Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What do you mean "sans Deadpool"? Deadpool was a laff-a-minute action romp that was bursting at the seams with levity. Just because a movie's rated R, doesn't mean it's "dark".
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,737
- 9,143
Caliane
Avatar of War Slayer
- 15,592
- 11,908
What I meant is it is not in the Disney safe zone.
Your 5 year old isn't going to Deadpool versus Antman, and GOTG.
Your 5 year old isn't going to Deadpool versus Antman, and GOTG.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
You seriously don't see the similarities? It's not about flag waving, it's about theideal.The American way=/=Murica. The fact that DC can't separate that concept, is one reason why they can't write Supermanandone reason why their movies suck. Unbridled pessimism, rather than optimistic acknowledgement of issues is one of the defining differences between grimdark 'I'm not American" superman, and Captain, wave the shield but fight in a civil war against the establishment America.
Part of the "American" way is struggling between the ideal and the reality of things, accepting that America (Substitute World or Life here for marvel vs DC) isn't always great, but the people in it can fight to make it better. Captain America represents that perfectly. Superman represents the unending cynicism of people who bitch about taco night being another example of American Imperialism. It's much more than just 'marvel has comedy', fuck, it's about havinghopeand striving to achieve it; even the Dark Knight movies had that.
- 3,808
- 4,349
late reply but
No, the Nolan trilogy isn't officially part of this universe. But they basically set it up expecting movie goers to have seen it and maintain continuity with it. So last we saw batman he said fuck it i'm out bitches, and passes the mantle down to robin. That's after 8 years of fighting criminals in the street.
Then (maybe) the killing joke happens, off screen, which fucks up batman a lot and takes out his ally Commissioner Gordon, who kept him respecting the rule of law.
Then Death in the family storyline happens, again completely offscreen, but instead of dying Jason todd (maybe) is captured and tortured by the joker to become the new Joker, hence the batman suit in BvS that's got the "haha jokes on you" painted on it, and the leto joker from suicide squad. And batman just giving no fucks and making that speech about how all heroes become villains and there's nothing good in the world anymore, fuck it lets shoot bad guys now.
So now we're at BvS, and after taking back over the mantle after his replacement went rogue, he's now been doing this shit for 20 years and just has no more fucks to give.
Um actually I disagree with this.
No, the Nolan trilogy isn't officially part of this universe. But they basically set it up expecting movie goers to have seen it and maintain continuity with it. So last we saw batman he said fuck it i'm out bitches, and passes the mantle down to robin. That's after 8 years of fighting criminals in the street.
Then (maybe) the killing joke happens, off screen, which fucks up batman a lot and takes out his ally Commissioner Gordon, who kept him respecting the rule of law.
Then Death in the family storyline happens, again completely offscreen, but instead of dying Jason todd (maybe) is captured and tortured by the joker to become the new Joker, hence the batman suit in BvS that's got the "haha jokes on you" painted on it, and the leto joker from suicide squad. And batman just giving no fucks and making that speech about how all heroes become villains and there's nothing good in the world anymore, fuck it lets shoot bad guys now.
So now we're at BvS, and after taking back over the mantle after his replacement went rogue, he's now been doing this shit for 20 years and just has no more fucks to give.
- 3,808
- 4,349
also late reply.
the general rule of thumb is the studios (plural, usually multiple agencies pool money to finance a film) bring home 75% of the domestic box office, and anywhere from 25% (china) to 40% (UK) of the international box office.
MOS released June 2013
$291m Domestic
$377m international, of $63m was china (which has the lowest return on box office receipt, but lets ignore that for now)full breakdown
Production Budget $225m
Domestic Marketing $150mone of a thousand articles estimating the marketing budget
So let's be overly generous and break it down best case scenario:
$291m x 75% for domestic returns = $218m
$377m x 35% for international returns = $132m
Revenue = $350m
Expenses = $375m
loss = $25m
Now once you factor in dvd/brhereof ~$107m, yeah it became "profitable", under absolute best case scenario assuming no other costs involved with production, marketing, distribution, etc. Which again is laughable. Yeah all those commercials for "own it today on blu-ray or DVD" were free, i guess.
To say "well it had to have been a massive success" in order to get a sequel is ignoring the reality that WB is in. Justice league was a "go" regardless of the financials for MoS, they need to get their DCEU up and running and damn the consequences. They are playing the long game, and hoping that the tie-ins and spin offs can create something even a shadow of what Disney has with the marvel CU. And worst case, the batman solo films will make money even if BvS also flops (which I don't think it will, just underperform).
You compared MOS to Cap2, Here's another comparison of which I do have the financials for, to show you how the money breaks down:
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 released May 2014
PDF of the complete financial breakdown here
Domestic Box Office: $202m
International BO: $411m
China BO: $94m
Global box office total, $709m!!!
which turns in to:
Domestic: $103m (51% of domestic BO!)
International(minus china): $160m (39% of international)
China: $23m (25% of china BO)
total $286m
Domestic Home Entertainment(DVD/BR): $81m
Foreign DVD/BR: $103m
Domestic PPV/VOD (Streaming): $24m
Domestic Pay TV (HBO, etc): $18m
Domestic Network TV (cable): $20m
Domestic syndication: $3m
Foreign TV: $78m
Merchandise: $25m
Total Revenue: $640m!
now on to how much that revenue cost:
Production budget: $255m
Domestic releasing (marketing) costs: $90m
International marketing: $85m
Domestic home entertainment costs: $24m
international: $38m
interest: $11m
Residuals and off the tops (back end deals on the production, % of sales deals, etc): $30m
participations: $10m
Overhead: $25m
Total Cost: $570m
Studio Net Profit: $70mil
So yeah, after dvd and hbo and by the time it was "edited for content and to fit your TV" for it's network TV premiere on TBS, Amazing Spiderman 2 eventually made money also. It was also part of Sony's plan for an expanded Spiderman universe featuring at least 2 more solo spider-man films, a sinister 6, a venom spin-off, etc. But Sony, merely licensing the property from Marvel, had the option to say fuck that, let's hop on the marvel train and cut a deal to share spiderman in the MCU, even though it meant rebooting spider-man for a 3rd fucking time in a decade. WB doesn't have that option to fall back on, so they have to either eat shit, or throw good money after bad in hopes of getting to that money train that marvel has going.
and not to say WB and Sony or any studios have the exact same kind of contractual deals in place with theatre chains so there's room for MoS to have brought in more of the Box Office than just 51% of the domestic like Spiderman did, but the reality is MoS prolly made WB a lot closer to what Amazing Spider-Man 2 did than the super optimistic figures shown above.
So back to my original statement. MoS's $668m global box office theatrical run probably cost the studio $100m loss. And yeah after dvd and tv and merchandising the probably broke even or eventually turned a profit. but that doesn't matter. JL was a go regardless of the outcome, WB has no other choice now.
I can't find the exact financials for MoS cus it's behind a paywall but some of you retards are talking like the studios receive 100% of the box office proceeds. Are you fucking high?
the general rule of thumb is the studios (plural, usually multiple agencies pool money to finance a film) bring home 75% of the domestic box office, and anywhere from 25% (china) to 40% (UK) of the international box office.
MOS released June 2013
$291m Domestic
$377m international, of $63m was china (which has the lowest return on box office receipt, but lets ignore that for now)full breakdown
Production Budget $225m
Domestic Marketing $150mone of a thousand articles estimating the marketing budget
So let's be overly generous and break it down best case scenario:
$291m x 75% for domestic returns = $218m
$377m x 35% for international returns = $132m
Revenue = $350m
Expenses = $375m
loss = $25m
Now once you factor in dvd/brhereof ~$107m, yeah it became "profitable", under absolute best case scenario assuming no other costs involved with production, marketing, distribution, etc. Which again is laughable. Yeah all those commercials for "own it today on blu-ray or DVD" were free, i guess.
To say "well it had to have been a massive success" in order to get a sequel is ignoring the reality that WB is in. Justice league was a "go" regardless of the financials for MoS, they need to get their DCEU up and running and damn the consequences. They are playing the long game, and hoping that the tie-ins and spin offs can create something even a shadow of what Disney has with the marvel CU. And worst case, the batman solo films will make money even if BvS also flops (which I don't think it will, just underperform).
You compared MOS to Cap2, Here's another comparison of which I do have the financials for, to show you how the money breaks down:
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 released May 2014
PDF of the complete financial breakdown here
Domestic Box Office: $202m
International BO: $411m
China BO: $94m
Global box office total, $709m!!!
which turns in to:
Domestic: $103m (51% of domestic BO!)
International(minus china): $160m (39% of international)
China: $23m (25% of china BO)
total $286m
Domestic Home Entertainment(DVD/BR): $81m
Foreign DVD/BR: $103m
Domestic PPV/VOD (Streaming): $24m
Domestic Pay TV (HBO, etc): $18m
Domestic Network TV (cable): $20m
Domestic syndication: $3m
Foreign TV: $78m
Merchandise: $25m
Total Revenue: $640m!
now on to how much that revenue cost:
Production budget: $255m
Domestic releasing (marketing) costs: $90m
International marketing: $85m
Domestic home entertainment costs: $24m
international: $38m
interest: $11m
Residuals and off the tops (back end deals on the production, % of sales deals, etc): $30m
participations: $10m
Overhead: $25m
Total Cost: $570m
Studio Net Profit: $70mil
So yeah, after dvd and hbo and by the time it was "edited for content and to fit your TV" for it's network TV premiere on TBS, Amazing Spiderman 2 eventually made money also. It was also part of Sony's plan for an expanded Spiderman universe featuring at least 2 more solo spider-man films, a sinister 6, a venom spin-off, etc. But Sony, merely licensing the property from Marvel, had the option to say fuck that, let's hop on the marvel train and cut a deal to share spiderman in the MCU, even though it meant rebooting spider-man for a 3rd fucking time in a decade. WB doesn't have that option to fall back on, so they have to either eat shit, or throw good money after bad in hopes of getting to that money train that marvel has going.
and not to say WB and Sony or any studios have the exact same kind of contractual deals in place with theatre chains so there's room for MoS to have brought in more of the Box Office than just 51% of the domestic like Spiderman did, but the reality is MoS prolly made WB a lot closer to what Amazing Spider-Man 2 did than the super optimistic figures shown above.
So back to my original statement. MoS's $668m global box office theatrical run probably cost the studio $100m loss. And yeah after dvd and tv and merchandising the probably broke even or eventually turned a profit. but that doesn't matter. JL was a go regardless of the outcome, WB has no other choice now.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
You're expecting general movie goers, many of whom aren't comic book fans themselves, to not be confused because they can connect all of those dots through stories they don't even know exist because they don't read comic books. Yeah that's way more realistic than just hitting the reset button and spending some screen time to establish "Ok folks, we're starting over here."
The Nolan movies may have ended in a manner that allowed continuity to be maintained afterwards, but they've opted to not maintain it. I'm not discussing the merits of that decision but pointing out what is necessitated by the decision having been made. I personally don't need or want another take on the beginnings of Batman. I, like most here, followed the news about the movie while it was in production so I have the understanding going in that this isn't a continuation of the Bale Batman. But I also understand that the audience extends beyond people like us and therefore the story necessitates some things we neither need or want.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
I know they don't. Studio take on box office receipts is actually negotiated on a picture by picture basis and most have a sliding scale; the longer the theater keeps the movie in their rotation, the higher their cut becomes week to week.
- 3,808
- 4,349
No, i'm saying that the massive amount of cocaine that Snyder consumes led him to think this was a good idea.
The audience thinks "ok batman retired and someone else took over" "oh look, batman's back, guess that robin didn't work out"
Of course, if they wanted to go the route that I laid out above, they would have needed to, ya know, not shortcut the fuck directly into JL and actually build the universe with several solo films for each character laying the ground work so that the batman that we see in the film makes logical sense, but fuck that they ain't got time for that. They gotta get darkseid on screen before infinity war.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
Again, I'm not debating the merits of the decision merely taking issue with the assertion that they didn't need to include some amount of Batman's origin in BvS once Snyder or the studio decided to make that break. I don't know that the decision was all Snyder's or how much say he had in making it. From WB's perspective I can see why they would want to reboot. It lets them (Snyder if they keep him on for the long haul and any other directors heading up the other movies in the DCCU) utilize any characters that were killed and rehash any elements of those story lines.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
Smallville, Kansas. Metropolis is the "big city of the midwest". Gotham is Delaware, usually. Bludhaven is usually depicted super close to Gotham City. But in this movie universe it doesnt matter about precident.did the movie say "just across the bay", or are you quoting someone posting?
Metropolis and Gotham are "usually" exactly that.
Gotham, NJ. Metropolis,DE.
(Do imagine Gotham as Atlantic City, and see how much sense it suddenly makes. Heck, Wayne is even Trump.)
The Cartographer Who Mapped Out Gotham City | Arts Culture | Smithsonian
Plus with all the CRISIS and universe changes and Superboy-prime punching source walls and all that stuff it has changed around a ton. Originally Siegel and Shuster based Metropolis around Cincinatti...and good god if they did that now.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,477
Geographically, I have no idea. But metropolis is new York city and Gotham is Chicago. wherever they decided to place these cities on a map is unrelated to what cities they represent. If you have the need to put them close together in the real world we are looking at stupid things like Gotham is Chicago and metropolis is Milwaukee.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
Digging into the whole Batmanreboot decision, that apparently was made by Warner Brothers when they couldn't convince Nolan to return to the franchise afterThe Dark Knight Rises:
That was Warner Brothers president Jeff Robinov in March of 2011.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,477
Yeah, I still don't buy it. We don't need a bond origin story every time the actor changes. If you put in an origin of any kind, there has to be resolution to that, but that means you have to tie it into the main plot. And how many times can you tie in Bruce Wayne saw his parents die into the main plot of a movie? The general audience knows who Batman is. Maybe they don't know all the details, but they know. Everyone is so quick to point out that the percentage of comic book readers makes up an insignificant amount of movie goers... Well the percentage of people who need to be told why Batman does what he does is even less.
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
The Bond franchise has never been rebooted and none of them have ever shown Bond as anything other than an expert, fully trained agent anyway. They don't employ serial storytelling either beyond a few recurring characters apart from Bond himself.
You certainly don't have to do a reboot just because of a lead actor changing. The original Batman movies went from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney without doing so. But if you do reboot an established cinematic character whose previous incarnation is still very much in the public consciousness, then clearly signaling the do-over prevents confusion for the more casual audience.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,477
I don't remember clooney, but kilmer definitely showed the origin. Also, casino royale rebooted the series, or at least showed bond earlier in his career. I'm not saying you can't differentiate between movies, I'm just saying that this would have been a PERFECT opportunity to not focus on the origin, but focus on why this Batman is different. Why is he decidedly more violent than in the past? Don't show the origin, show a montage in the opening credits of the last 20 years. Training Robin, then losing him. Show him losing that compassion for human life being taken bit by bit. It makes the lines like "we have a bad history with freaks dressed like clowns" have a lot more punch
Royal
Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
- 15,077
- 10,643
I didn't say there had to be a focus on the origin story. Like I said earlier, I haven't seen BvS so I don't have an opinion as to whether or not they spent too much time on it. There does have to be some sort of signaling though that the character has been reset within the movie itself. You can't release a movie with a homework assignment that has to be completed before being able to buy a ticket.
edit:
I'd forgotten that then. I've watched that one all of once, when it came out in the theater, and have never had any desire to revisit.
I agree with you that it was somewhat necessary to establish this wasn't Nolan's Batman, but casino royale was a reboot.