Welcome to Thunderdome

Passes Suicide Squad.

This is welcome news because WW is so much better than SS. Hopefully this will help reinforce to DC that nobody wants dark, moody, bad movies.

"We aren't in the business of emulating Marvel strategies."

GORDON wrote: "We aren't in the business of emulating Marvel strategies."

Right? Until our method proves to be a money loser, then we're totes copying Marvel!

Leisher wrote: Passes Suicide Squad.

This is welcome news because WW is so much better than SS. Hopefully this will help reinforce to DC that nobody wants dark, moody, bad movies.

Let's not pretend that SS didn't make a shit ton of money. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of many of the DC films, but "they aren't making money" isn't one of them.

Vince wrote: Let's not pretend that SS didn't make a shit ton of money. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of many of the DC films, but "they aren't making money" isn't one of them.

Actually, it is a legit criticism. Are they making a profit? Of course. However, it's not the profit they expected or want.

It's the same reason you don't see Andrew Garfield as Spiderman anymore. His two movies were profitable, but not at the level expected. That's why Sony made a change.

Suicide Squad was expected to make more, and BvS was expected to easily get past $1 billion, which it didn't.

These movies are making a profit because they feature characters we all know. More importantly, in the case of DC movies more than Marvel movies, actors we all know. Marvel deserves credit too because they started this trend and set the bar.

Marvel profits (and critical/fan reception) are why Fox won't give up on Fantastic Four and won't give back the rights to the X-Men. It's why Sony signed off to work with Marvel and are already going to fuck it all up with a terrible Spider-Man universe. It's why WB rushed into things and the DCMU had been declared a disaster until WW. (Executive ego and ignorance played a big part of how badly the DCMU started.)

Anyway, don't confuse making a profit with making money...as dumb as that sounds.

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote: Let's not pretend that SS didn't make a shit ton of money. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of many of the DC films, but "they aren't making money" isn't one of them.

Actually, it is a legit criticism. Are they making a profit? Of course. However, it's not the profit they expected or want.

It's the same reason you don't see Andrew Garfield as Spiderman anymore. His two movies were profitable, but not at the level expected. That's why Sony made a change.

Suicide Squad was expected to make more, and BvS was expected to easily get past $1 billion, which it didn't.

These movies are making a profit because they feature characters we all know. More importantly, in the case of DC movies more than Marvel movies, actors we all know. Marvel deserves credit too because they started this trend and set the bar.

Marvel profits (and critical/fan reception) are why Fox won't give up on Fantastic Four and won't give back the rights to the X-Men. It's why Sony signed off to work with Marvel and are already going to fuck it all up with a terrible Spider-Man universe. It's why WB rushed into things and the DCMU had been declared a disaster until WW. (Executive ego and ignorance played a big part of how badly the DCMU started.)

Anyway, don't confuse making a profit with making money...as dumb as that sounds.

Sony was going through a nasty email scandal at the time that they signed over the Spiderman rights which I think had a lot to do with the issues they were having at the time. The first Amazing Spiderman did better than both of the first two Captain America movies. Same for BvS, Man of Steel, and SS.

Vince wrote: Sony was going through a nasty email scandal at the time that they signed over the Spiderman rights which I think had a lot to do with the issues they were having at the time.

No sir. Sony didn't sign over any Spiderman rights. They were unhappy with the performance of the Amazing movies with Garfield and finally asked Marvel for help. In return Marvel got to use Spiderman in their films. It had nothing to do with the leaked emails. Sony simply got smart and asked the creators for help. They knew their movies were on the wrong path and weren't making the money they should have been making.

Vince wrote: The first Amazing Spiderman did better than both of the first two Captain America movies. Same for BvS, Man of Steel, and SS.

First, it sounds like you're suggesting that's true with those Captain America movies combined, and that's not true. Individually, yes, but it's not as big a difference as you're implying.

Anyway, your point is pretty misleading and makes me think you work for the MSM.

Captain America was never a big seller as a comic, and he certainly isn't a worldwide movie draw. Hell, look at his damn name! You think that's going to be well receive in a lot of countries? Do you think his comics are big sellers around the world? So why would anyone outside this country be excited to see it? Yet it still did well internationally.

However, Spiderman, Batman, and Superman are worldwide brands. Despite that, Captain America easily holds his own.

For the record, here are the Worldwide numbers:
Spiderman - $821M
Spiderman 2 - $783M
Spiderman 3 - $890M (There's no accounting for taste...)
Amazing 1 - $757
Amazing 2 - $708
Captain America - $370M
CA:WS - $714M
CA:CW - $1.15B
MoS - $667M
BvS - $868M
SS - $746M
WW - $745M (Number is slightly outdated as I don't think it had this week's numbers added in yet.)

So a worldwide brand in Spiderman beat a regional brand in Captain America by a few hundred million and then by 40 million. Color me unimpressed. Also notice the huge box office drop office from Amazing 1 to Amazing 2. Movies that had much better actors and were produced far better than the original trilogy, yet made less money at every turn.

Oddly, SM2 is widely regarded as the best SM film (until Homecoming), and yet it was the worst money maker. Meanwhile SM3, which is an actual punchline made the most...

Back to your point: CA was the fifth Marvel film and was released in 2011. Meanwhile, MoS was the first DCMU film and promoted as such. MoS also had a budget $100M higher than CA and was released in 2013 AFTER a film called The Avengers changed everything. So MoS beating CA by $300M isn't as impressive as it seems. And once you take out production budgets, it actually lost to CS:WS by $200M

SS featured Will fucking Smith, Batman, the Joker, and Harley Quinn (a very popular character from DC's TV and animated films), not to mention a bunch of other big name stars, something CA didn't have. Yet, barely beats CA:WS by $30M? Only $25M when you add in production budgets. Not good.

BvS is a whole other level of embarrassment. Oh yeah, that worldwide box office total looks good, but it's not, and I'm not certain why you're arguing it is since all film people say it's dogshit. $868M worldwide with three of the biggest superhero brands in existence? Yeesh... Don't worry though, the budget was only $250M...

Hey for funsies, let's take a look at the Christopher Nolan Batman films.
Begins - $359M (and the budget was bigger than CA's by $10M...)
Dark Knight - $1B
Rises - $1.08B

And yet somehow adding Superman and WW to that mix they could get over $1B?

What'd the Avengers do? $1.5B!!!!

You know what the best part of that number is? Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Captain America weren't the big names in the Marvel Universe. Why do you think Marvel wasn't able to sell their rights with all the rest when they faced bankruptcy? Marvel made people care about them.

Who are the two biggest properties for Marvel? I'm glad you asked. That would be Spiderman and Wolverine. They're the only two Marvel characters that can hold a candle to the popularity of DC's "trinity" (that's what they call them) worldwide. It's also why Marvel is soooooooo fucking bitter about not having the movie rights to Wolvie, and why they killed him years ago in the books and still haven't brought him back.

Alright, I could talk this shit all day, but I've got some work to do.

So to sum up: Marvel knows what its doing, WB/DC hasn't, but might finally be correcting their course.

I was talking national numbers. Not World Wide. The Great Wall made a ton of money world wide.

And not sure what you're talking about on Amazing Spider man vs Captain America. The first Amazing Spiderman movie did better nationally than either of the first 2 Capt. America movies.

Vince wrote: I was talking national numbers. Not World Wide. The Great Wall made a ton of money world wide.

You need to specify, although the story won't really change.

And why are you not counting international numbers? They matter more than ever. You point out Great Wall, and the reason we're getting a Warcraft sequel is because of China's box office for the original.

Vince wrote: And not sure what you're talking about on Amazing Spider man vs Captain America.

You brought it up.

Vince wrote: The first Amazing Spiderman movie did better nationally than either of the first 2 Capt. America movies.

No sir, you're wrong.

Look at the numbers:
ASM -
Budget - $220M
Domestic Box Office - $262M
Worldwide Box Office - $757M
Estimated Profit Total - $537M

CA:WS -
Budget - $170M
Domestic Box Office - $259M
Worldwide Box Office - $714M
Estimated Profit Total - $544M

Here's the other stickler that neither of us can look up because studios don't really reveal this, but budget numbers don't include marketing. It can, but not usually.

Thus, I do want to point out Amazing Spider-Man 2, which made $708M worldwide, had a budget of $250M and marketing of $100M. Ouch. So it was destroyed by CA:WS.

Okay. I was lookinjg at mojo's gross numbers. I will just shut up now and let the fanboydom continue without interruption until completion. There's a box of tissue in the corner.

Don't confuse "fanboydom" with giving credit where credit is due.

Not sure why it'd be ok to be wrong, but whatever. That's how you kids want the world to work these days.

Leisher wrote: And why are you not counting international numbers? They matter more than ever. You point out Great Wall, and the reason we're getting a Warcraft sequel is because of China's box office for the original.

Mostly because they don't really reflect the western culture and specifically the American culture on entertainment. This is just a personal preference. Looking at some of the movies as we were debating, I noticed that Transformers: The Last Knight (or whatever it's called) is already in the top 10 or 15 for all time sales. Though I find the Transformer movies entertaining, I suspect this has a lot to do with the Asian cultural influences of giant monster and giant robot movies. Likewise, I don't think movies such as an American western would resonate with anyone not American the way it would with an American audience. So they matter as far as what movies Hollywood is making, but they don't matter as far as what I'm willing to spend my money to go see. Also, movies that open overseas before they open here almost always enter the "might pick it up as a rental" queue.

Over time I am developing an irrational annoyance with the transformers movies.

I think it's because the transformation from robot to vehicle doesn't make any physical sense, it's just a cgi-bowl of spaghetti.

GORDON wrote:Over time I am developing an irrational annoyance with the transformers movies.

I think it's because the transformation from robot to vehicle doesn't make any physical sense, it's just a cgi-bowl of spaghetti.

That's a really good point. Let's say Optimus gets his arm cut off during battle. When he transforms back to a truck, shit should be missing.

I've always felt that it's impossible to tell what the hell is going on in the action scenes of those movies.

GORDON wrote: Over time I am developing an irrational annoyance with the transformers movies.

I think it's because the transformation from robot to vehicle doesn't make any physical sense, it's just a cgi-bowl of spaghetti.

The only sense it makes is hiding from people.

But annoyance with those movies seems completely rational to me.

I meant the actual physical transformation... Doesn't make sense. I heard it was never supposed to. As Leisher said, shit that gets shot off should be missing after a transformation, but it's just a cgi... Boiling... Metal stew. You couldn't reproduce it with your expensive transformer toys and a stop motion camera.

GORDON wrote: I meant the actual physical transformation... Doesn't make sense. I heard it was never supposed to. As Leisher said, shit that gets shot off should be missing after a transformation, but it's just a cgi... Boiling... Metal stew. You couldn't reproduce it with your expensive transformer toys and a stop motion camera.

You're implying they're made of stuff that should be reproducible with toys.

No, I'm implying that their bodies in the movies shouldn't basically be made of liquid.

GORDON wrote: No, I'm implying that their bodies in the movies shouldn't basically be made of liquid.

Nanomachines

GORDON wrote: Over time I am developing an irrational annoyance with the transformers movies.

I think it's because the transformation from robot to vehicle doesn't make any physical sense, it's just a cgi-bowl of spaghetti.

I remember seeing the first one. The only two robots I could make out during any given scene were Bumblebee and Optimus. Every other bot may as well have been one of the random bald, British prisoners from Alien 3: the Worst One Until that Whedon Loser Makes Another.