Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SickSix wrote:
Trying to avoid the spoilers, have a simple question: Is this movie worth paying to see in theaters?

I don't know you so I could not say absolutely.........I enjoyed much of it.

In my opinon It has some great visuals and some really good scenes - the main characters are played really well................ as is Lois and Alfred

On the negative - I think the plot is poor as is the pacing and Lex is shockingly awful.

Wonder Woman is outstanding.

Is not as slick, or well written as a Marvel film but is getting there...............

Superman: Peace on Earth
(art by Alex Ross, story by Paul Dini & Alex Ross))

*THIS* is an amazing look at Superman both visually and in story form.

Even though it is short, I think it embodies so much of how he struggles to be a hero in our modern world with all that we humans bring to it.

It is a must read and I think would change your opinion of him as a character that lacks depth.

Weekend Box Office is coming in, and it's kind of an amusing "good news / bad news" situation.

Good news?
1. BvS didn't drop as much as it did last weekend.
2. BvS has $783M total revenue (US + non-US combined)

Bad news?
1. BvS got beat by Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss"
2. CA:CW is pre-screening to nice press, no embargo needed.
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
2. CA:CW is pre-screening to nice press, no embargo needed.

That only exists as bad news to people who are on the DC side of a stupid Marvel vs DC thing.

Over in the real world, Marvel's success doesn't mean a damn thing to DC's properties.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Bad news?
1. BvS got beat by Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss"

Not gonna lie, that's gotta hurt.

 Breotan wrote:
Not gonna lie, that's gotta hurt.

Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

 sebster wrote:
That only exists as bad news to people who are on the DC side of a stupid Marvel vs DC thing.

So... Warner Brothers?

 sebster wrote:
Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

I'm sure someone did.

Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record. That is far more telling that what it is losing to after almost a month in the theater; the movie just doesn't have any real staying power. However, AoU also had considerably more competition in Mad Max and Pitch Perfect 2 in its second week compared to DoJ, which really only has a Melissa McCarthy vehicle to compete with in its third week and nothing to compete with in its second week (except God's Not Dead 2, which come on... really?).

The numbers don't lie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=superman2015.htm (it's also worth noting that it had a 14% in the number of theaters it was being shown in)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=avengers2.htm

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

Then please elaborate!

 SickSix wrote:
Trying to avoid the spoilers, have a simple question: Is this movie worth paying to see in theaters?

100% yes.

It's not a particularly good film, but the spectacle of it all makes it worthwhile.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That only exists as bad news to people who are on the DC side of a stupid Marvel vs DC thing.

So... Warner Brothers?

 sebster wrote:
Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

I'm sure someone did.

Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record. That is far more telling that what it is losing to after almost a month in the theater; the movie just doesn't have any real staying power. However, AoU also had considerably more competition in Mad Max and Pitch Perfect 2 in its second week compared to DoJ, which really only has a Melissa McCarthy vehicle to compete with in its third week and nothing to compete with in its second week (except God's Not Dead 2, which come on... really?).

The numbers don't lie:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=superman2015.htm (it's also worth noting that it had a 14% in the number of theaters it was being shown in)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=avengers2.htm

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

Then please elaborate!

Finally saw Ultron for free on cable preview. Man I am glad I did not pay to see that film.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.

They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied. Disappointing, certainly, but no one should be feeling bad for WB. If anything, it's encouraging regarding how much money they'll make if they can produce one of these things that becomes a bonafide smash hit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

 sebster wrote:
Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.

But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.

And then some people and critics just didn't like the film for whatever personal reason, and the film itself gave them opportunities why they could feel that way. *shrug*

Add it all up, and it's a lot of negativity, not all of it deserved. It has to be troubling for WB that they can't seem to "win" in the press and public even before their films are even released, while Marvel just seems to get the benefit of the doubt even when it produces seriously mediocre work. I mean, I've seen articles starting to crank up negativity on the WW movie, and we're more than a year out for that one. But it's also the kind of thing that can turn quickly. Human beings are fickle. If SS and WW are reasonably well-received, we may feel very differently heading into JL.

Take an exalt, goron, that's basically the post I've tried to write several times in the last few days and haven't as it kept turning into something of a rant!

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.

They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied. Disappointing, certainly, but no one should be feeling bad for WB. If anything, it's encouraging regarding how much money they'll make if they can produce one of these things that becomes a bonafide smash hit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

 sebster wrote:
Age of Ultron's third week it came third, behind Pitch Perfect 2 and Max Max Fury Road. Don't think anyone commented on that at the time.

There's a really good question starting to develop about why that might be.

There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.

But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.

And then some people and critics just didn't like the film for whatever personal reason, and the film itself gave them opportunities why they could feel that way. *shrug*

Add it all up, and it's a lot of negativity, not all of it deserved. It has to be troubling for WB that they can't seem to "win" in the press and public even before their films are even released, while Marvel just seems to get the benefit of the doubt even when it produces seriously mediocre work. I mean, I've seen articles starting to crank up negativity on the WW movie, and we're more than a year out for that one. But it's also the kind of thing that can turn quickly. Human beings are fickle. If SS and WW are reasonably well-received, we may feel very differently heading into JL.

I agree with some of this - however I think that there has been a lot of good reaction to the new Suicide Squad movie trailer - which is a stunning piece of work - beautifully choreographed with the music love it!

On the other hand - the BvS film did seem to have major flaws that many agree with - the plot (or lack of it beyond lets get the protagonists to have a fight), the pacing and the Lex Luthor character / casting. Some people do think that all this can be swept under the rug because of some nebulous Ambition that the film is supposed to have had ....... I can't think of a Marvel film with those issues and I think the same can be said for the two recent Fox (X-men) movies.

I don't recall Marvel producing anything mediocre recently, although I avoided Deadpool like the plague but even that seems to be well received............

If they can recreate the greatness of those (criminally) few scenes with Wonder Woman in in her own movie - it should be awesome. Hopefully Lex will not appear.......

Why would you avoid Deadpool?

You so cra cra!!

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Why would you avoid Deadpool?

You so cra cra!!

I REALLY don't like the character in the comcs - and thats a understatement - I didn't like the film trailers so I thought why go to a film i dont like the central character or what I have seen of the film.......

People like different stuff - its a big world

That's cool

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
3. BvS is looking to be a breakeven proposition, finishing around $850M, maybe $900M with luck.

They're predicting $278 million profit for WB once everything's tallied.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

Let me give the full quote from that article:

“Batman v Superman,” one of the most expensive films ever made, is on pace to produce a $278 million profit for Warner Bros. once home video, TV and merchandise proceeds are tallied

Way to move the goalposts there.

This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability. BvS is setting record for biggest week-over-week drops, and that is not good for any studio.

It goes on to say:

“They were probably hoping for box-office numbers similar to ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’

AoU pulled $1.4B world-wide, on an essentially similar production & marketing budget. Marvel Studios netted a solid $300M+ profit, before toys and video and so forth get added on..

Also, that article was written before Bats & Supes got their asses handed to them by Melissa McCarthy. The Boss is a "junk movie" with worse ratings and far narrower appeal. But it was made for pennies, and so is pretty much guaranteed to turn a tidy profit for the studio from box office receipts alone. Again, the video and TV and DVD/Blu-Ray sales and it becomes even more profitable.
____

To respond to your other comments:

I fully expected BvS to be a gakshow ever since I heard who would be on creative team, and what DC was trying to do with it with the tagline "Dawn of Justice". DC fulfilled my every negative expectation and then some. Snyder can do a great Batman film, but he's a terrible match for Superman, dragging Supes down to Bats level. Which is why BvS is nominally a "Superman" film, with Batman getting top billing. And then the business of accelerating to Justice League requires a certain touch, and that just isn't Snyder's forte. OTOH, pull Superman and Wonder woman out of BvS and let Snyder direct a Arkham Asylum movie series, starting with Scarecrow, and it would be fan-fething-tastic in every possible way, because Arkham has the inherent grit and insanity that works perfectly with his visuals and storytelling style. But the definitive aspirational hero? Superman? No.

Also, Marvel has made roughly a dozen movies and they've done a consistently good job, with Avengers, TWS, and GotG being really standout films. I enjoyed them all. At some point, yeah, Marvel will produce another Hulk, but that hasn't happened yet.


Finally, I expect Suicide Squad to be a really good movie. I'm really looking forward to it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Way to move the goalposts there.

This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.

The only point -- and it remains -- is that this endeavor will still make money for WB. Why does the accounting method or box office horse race mean so much to YOU? No one else seems to be harping on it.

Thats same statement was applied against me, too.

There was a documentary about film and one thing that was talked about was how box office receipts didn't get reported until the 70s (I think mid to late) and that was when the trend of using money as a determining factor for the public started being a thing. Before then it wasn't much of an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats same statement was applied against me, too.

The only thing people ever accused you of was being old. And crochety. And cranky. And maybe constipated.

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Way to move the goalposts there.

This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.

The only point -- and it remains -- is that this endeavor will still make money for WB. Why does the accounting method or box office horse race mean so much to YOU? No one else seems to be harping on it.

If you're a fan of this movie, it should mean more to you. Box Office is almost always the determining factor of a movie's success, at least as far as the studios care. Pacific Rim made more profit in theaters and it didn't get a sequel. Another underperforming DC movie, and WB may scrap the whole Murderverse. Merchandising may be where the real money is made...but as Star Wars can attest, you don't need to make a movie every decade to sell toys. If you have to tout tchotchke sales to make your movie look like a success, then it isn't one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, if DVD sales mattered, there would be a Dredd 2.

Deadpool might give hope for Dredd 2...

Maybe...

Just a tiny bit...

Pwetty pwease?

While Dredd was OK, I couldn't enjoy it because I saw the Raid first. I kept thinking how it was wierd that they would use Dredd for what appeared to be a shot-for-shot remake.

I think it was an unfortunate coincidence.

I saw The Raid first and had no issues with Dredd 3D.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So... Warner Brothers?

A Warner Bros junior executive bursts in to the office of his senior... 'Sir! I have terrible news! The other guys movies made mroe money than ours!'
The senior exec gives a steely stare. "Did our movie make enough money that I still have a job?"
"Yeah, its okay, it'll clear $800m"
"Then everything is fine."

And then the senior exec returns to snorting cocaine off the hooker.

Seriously, Marvel vs DC is for fanboys.

Age of Ultron had a 40% drop from Friday-to-Sunday on its opening weekend while Dawn of Justice had a 58% drop over that same period, which is a record.

And this is what is so fething tedious about all of this. 58% against 40%. One of those numbers is bigger than the other! That's an important consideration for all our astute business minds. None of us work in film but we're still going to have opinions!

That kind of sideline enthusiasm leads to people doing stupid things like trying to decide on the appeal of a blockbuster by talking about its third week takes. Age of Ultron took 450m in the US. By the time its third weekend was about to begin it had made three quarters of its total gross already. And in terms of studio return it was more than 90% of their total return, because the studio takes a much bigger cut of first and second week takes.

No-one at WB is staring at third week returns just hoping if it can clear $30m instead of $25m then this thing just might turn around. The story of BvS box office is a really good first week that made it look like maybe this thing will turn out really well despite the reviews and negative press, then a big second week dip that meant an overall okay result. Everything after that is noise.

 sebster wrote:

A Warner Bros junior executive bursts in to the office of his senior... 'Sir! I have terrible news! The other guys movies made mroe money than ours!'
The senior exec gives a steely stare. "Did our movie make enough money that I still have a job?"
"Yeah, its okay, it'll clear $800m"
"Then everything is fine."

And then the senior exec returns to snorting cocaine off the hooker.

Seriously, Marvel vs DC is for fanboys.

Yeah, I'm sure Warner Brothers is totally happy about maybe breaking even on the franchise they think is going to carry them for years to come while their biggest competitor is printing money hand over fist. The studio isn't going to sink and the franchise isn't going to be canceled.

And this is what is so fething tedious about all of this. 58% against 40%. One of those numbers is bigger than the other! That's an important consideration for all our astute business minds. None of us work in film but we're still going to have opinions!

Sure, Seb.

While we don't work in film but we all understand numbers (I would assume), and the numbers for BvS aren't as good compared to AoU. That is not an opinion and it has nothing to do with fanboys or whatever dumb gak you keep going on about, it's just raw numbers, which for whatever reason you seem to think that studios care nothing about.

That kind of sideline enthusiasm leads to people doing stupid things like trying to decide on the appeal of a blockbuster by talking about its third week takes. Age of Ultron took 450m in the US. By the time its third weekend was about to begin it had made three quarters of its total gross already. And in terms of studio return it was more than 90% of their total return, because the studio takes a much bigger cut of first and second week takes.

No-one at WB is staring at third week returns just hoping if it can clear $30m instead of $25m then this thing just might turn around. The story of BvS box office is a really good first week that made it look like maybe this thing will turn out really well despite the reviews and negative press, then a big second week dip that meant an overall okay result. Everything after that is noise.

Despite the fact that you mention that none of us work in film, you seem pretty certain that WB is following how much money their franchise-starting film is or is going to clear.

Things that are true about BvS:

Biggest opening weekend drop for a superhero movie (58% over three days)

69% drop in earnings in its second week (more than anyone expected)

On its 13th day in theaters, the film took in $2.8 million. It has not matched pace with Ant-Man ($3 million), Man of Steel ($4 million), or Burton's Batman ($4.36 million) at that stage of their theater life

Again, none of that has anything to do with fanboys. The film probably won't break $1 billion worldwide and that is a bad thing for Warner Brothers because hitting $800 million and only breaking even isn't how any studio wants their big name franchise to start out.

Now, is any of this information going to grind their DC franchise building to halt? No, of course not and it damn well shouldn't.

 gorgon wrote:
There's no question that there's been a ton of negative reporting on this film for months and months, and some of it was obviously irresponsible and erroneous (those dumb and obviously unfounded rumors that WB has a "no jokes" policy is a prize example). Certain outlets -- and IGN is one of them -- have been negative cheerleading BvS for quite a while. And no one should think that Disney is above playing very, very dirty.

But I don't see a conspiracy. Now, there are some people and especially some critics who just have it in for Snyder. They were lying in wait on this one, and that's just a fact. And then there are some critics who just don't like comic books films of any variety. Others somewhat fit in the previous category, but can hold their noses so long as it's an irreverent romp, because "everyone knows" comic book films can't be serious business. Also, some Marvel fans feel that they have to be critical and troll everywhere they can out of some loyalty to team red or whatever.

Yeah, I'm definitely not saying there's a conspiracy or anything like that. It is a build up of factors.

I think with the critics it is a combination of things. First and most simply the film is far from perfect. Then on top of that you add Snyder's history, and especially the disappointment with MoS. And on top of that you add a raised bar because the Nolan movies were proper, serious movies. Perhaps the more telling contrast should be to The Dark Knight Rises, which collected 87% on Rotten Tomatoes despite being really crappy. Meanwhile the Marvel stuff gets a pass as being lighter fare, which is kind of patronising to the large and ambitious world building project that Marvel pioneered, really.

But that doesn't really bug me, because film critics have been getting comic book movies wrong since I was a kid. What's bugged me is the people who really want BvS to fail. Part of it is a very boring continuation of the Marvel vs DC thing, but the other part is just a good old fashioned dogpile. It's just kind of a weird dogpile, because they're trying to come down hard on a movie that actually did okay. But lots of people on the internet who love talking about movies as a business were sure this was going to be a disaster, and they've since been working hard to convince themselves they weren't wrong. Witness the bizarre moving goalposts - "okay so it's made $800m, but I think the studio wanted it to make $1b, so it didn't work haha!". Watch the comparisons to nothing - "another film made more money, therefore this film (and by logical extension every film that isn't Avatar) is a failure". Watch people suddenly learn about % weekly change, and start talking about that while ignoring the actual gross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This entire time I've been talking about movie Box Office, and for that, BvS will be lucky to break even when we count movie production and marketing costs -- the standard measure of movie profitability.

In 1996, maybe. You appear to have missed two decades of changes in the film industry. For a quick guide, go look at Cars, with a $400m worldwide box office, and compare to Up, with $700m worldwide. Cars has two sequels, Up does not. This is because toy sales really, really matter.

BvS is setting record for biggest week-over-week drops, and that is not good for any studio.

I'll walk you through this once, and then I ask you to please fething stop with that. If a film makes $1b on its opening week, and $100m on its second week, then it has a 90% drop in box office. That would be the worst week to week drop in film history. By your metric. It would be a disastrous failure. But step back from that figure, and you'd see the film had grossed $1.1b, putting it among the most profitable films of all time.

Starting to understand it now? Weekend drop is a measure of staying power, and that's all. It's an interesting thing to studios and cinemas who are planning theatre strategies, but as a measure of a film's performance its entirely meaningless, because we already have the number that actually matters, the box office gross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
[Yeah, I'm sure Warner Brothers is totally happy about maybe breaking even on the franchise they think is going to carry them for years to come while their biggest competitor is printing money hand over fist. The studio isn't going to sink and the franchise isn't going to be canceled.

Oh I'm sure they want to make more money. And if they were making lots of money I'm sure they'd want to be making even more than that. But the basic logic is 'more money', not 'as much as Marvel' or anything stupid like that. Marvel making more than DC is an issue for fanboys. Studios just want maximum profits.

While we don't work in film but we all understand numbers (I would assume), and the numbers for BvS aren't as good compared to AoU.

I don't think many people understand numbers at all. If they did they'd understand that weekend drops are meaningless to a film's performance. If they understood numbers they'd understand the only comparison that matters is $1.4b against $800m

And then if they understood business they'd realise that the comparison is meaningless. What matters to BvS is whether it makes money, and how much it makes. Not whether it makes as much money as the rival that its fans are invested in 'beating'.

Despite the fact that you mention that none of us work in film, you seem pretty certain that WB is following how much money their franchise-starting film is or is going to clear.

I'm not sure if you aren't following, or just messed up that sentence. Yes, very obviously WB is following their takes. Every company has people dedicated to tracking sales returns. But the story of BvS has already been told - with big budget, big hype movies the money is made in the first couple of weeks, or it isn't made.

Biggest opening weekend drop for a superhero movie (58% over three days)

69% drop in earnings in its second week (more than anyone expected)

On its 13th day in theaters, the film took in $2.8 million. It has not matched pace with Ant-Man ($3 million), Man of Steel ($4 million), or Burton's Batman ($4.36 million) at that stage of their theater life

Okay, I though this was stupid when it was weekend drops. Now you're talking about how well the film did on its second Thursday. Holy gak do you not understand at all how fething ridiculous it is to start picking out bizarro stats like this?

Again, none of that has anything to do with fanboys. The film probably won't break $1 billion worldwide and that is a bad thing for Warner Brothers because hitting $800 million and only breaking even isn't how any studio wants their big name franchise to start out.

The first Iron Man grossed $600m. So you couldn't be more wrong with that standard, really.

This isn't to say I'm confident that the DC thing will work. I'm not one to make guesses, but DC is marching in to a market that's been saturated with comic book movies for a decade. I'm also unconvinced that Marvel's success is due to their worldbuilding or serial storytelling, but is instead largely due to good old fashioned star power, which the DC franchise largely lacks.

But that question will be answered in the next few years, as the DC movies roll out. And it will be answered with basic numbers, gross against production cost. Weekend drops, comparisons to other movies, they are all pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you're a fan of this movie, it should mean more to you. Box Office is almost always the determining factor of a movie's success, at least as far as the studios care. Pacific Rim made more profit in theaters and it didn't get a sequel. Another underperforming DC movie, and WB may scrap the whole Murderverse. Merchandising may be where the real money is made...but as Star Wars can attest, you don't need to make a movie every decade to sell toys. If you have to tout tchotchke sales to make your movie look like a success, then it isn't one.

Star Wars always sells, but it's a question of how much, and the simple fact is you sell loads more when there's a movie on the screens that summer.

Later episodes of Star Trek Voyager and I think almost all of Enterprise were made at a loss. The production for each episode was more than what the networks were buying episodes for. But this was still okay, because having Star Trek on tv meant on-going merchandising sales.

This isn't to say WB would be okay with losing a third of the money they sunk in to any of their films, of course. But it should tell you how the business actually operates. And it'd likely tell you that if the current franchise doesn't work, what's most likely is that they won't abandon the project, but just start again with a more Marvel tone.

You think staying power doesn't matter? It is a direct measure of how much the audience was left wanting more.

Your 1 billion opening hypothetical is also hilarious. If a movie had that kind of drop off it would be a disaster for any long term plans the studio had based on the property for sure. A drop off that extreme basically tells you that the audience was tricked into seeing the movie by hype or false advertising. Sure, it made a billion dollars, but it also killed your studio's reputation.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
You added more later, so I'll respond.

A high drop off and poor audience reaction almost certainly affect the success of the merchandising. Disney could have made all the Lone Ranger merchandise in the world, but the audience reaction to that film pretty much sealed its doom.

I hadn't heard that Voy and Ent were kept afloat based on merchandising. That has to be some kind of miracle considering how inept the studio was at merchandising Star Trek TNG+. If ever there was a fandom begging the studio to take their money, it was Star Trek's.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You think staying power doesn't matter? It is a direct measure of how much the audience was left wanting more.

That's an interpreted, guessed at conclusion. Other obvious factors like an overlarge week one audience cannibalizing week two need to be first considered, before you start writing narrative based on one stat.

And that kind of narrative writing is a simple waste of time, because there are real and direct measures of how much people actually liked a movie. Studios have exit polls, they have google search data and all kinds of stuff like that.

Your 1 billion opening hypothetical is also hilarious. If a movie had that kind of drop off it would be a disaster for any long term plans the studio had based on the property for sure.

No, look at the numbers. The film still took $100m in week two. The only reason that $100m is bad by the drop off metric is because week one set a massive base figure.

Do you understand now? The drop between week one and week two is a junky measure of performance, because it is driven equally by strong week one sales as by weak week 2 sales. If you want to measure week 2 box office then you just fething take the week 2 sales figure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
A high drop off and poor audience reaction almost certainly affect the success of the merchandising.

The studios have actual merchandising numbers for that, though. If BvS merchandising sales are high, then second week box office drop off means nothing. Similarly, if BvS merchandising sales are crappy, then it wouldn't have mattered if BvS had an okay second week drop off.

Disney could have made all the Lone Ranger merchandise in the world, but the audience reaction to that film pretty much sealed its doom.

Disney first realised they were on to a disaster with John Carter when they took their stuff to toy merchants and none of them wanted to touch it.

I hadn't heard that Voy and Ent were kept afloat based on merchandising. That has to be some kind of miracle considering how inept the studio was at merchandising Star Trek TNG+.

Seb, what I was saying is that despite your claim that "none of us work in the film industry" so we don't really know what's going on at Warner Brothers, you seem pretty certain that you know exactly what is going on there and everything else is just "noise" or fanboy opinions.



But not yours, of course. Only you really understand numbers and are not in any way biased so we just need to all take your word for it and temper our fanboy outrage.