Gatsby77

http://whatculture.com/film/with-almost-875m-banked-was-batman-v-superman-a-failure

Hey! We made an epic blockbuster that was both critically reviled and ignored by audiences after folks actually saw it and word-of-mouth got around. It's already made the Global Top 10 superhero films & isn't done yet!! Only, it couldn't even make as much as Spider-Man 3 did _9 years_ ago. Or either of the last two Batman films. Champagne for everybody!

Not arguing that he's made some sexist movies but (bringing it back to the thread) it's a _really_ hard sell that BvS is one of them.

1) I would have posted the international comps (i.e., by viewership / tickets sold / inflation-adjusted) but BoxOfficeMojo doesn't list them. 2) Because $1 made domestically is worth _at least_ 1/3 more than a dollar made internationally due to to the revenue splits. Most egregious example, of course, is China, where studios only bank 25% of the gross vs. 55-60% of the gross for an equivalent ticket sold in the U.S. So that $95 million dollars BvS "made" in China? Warners will see less than $24 million of it. Not a small sum, until you realize that had that extra $95 million been made here it would have netted the studio more like $60 million.

Nice spin. But it's still sitting at # 19 domestically after inflation. It won't touch Deadpool, let alone Batman Forever. As I posted a week ago, it *might* match Guardians of the Galaxy, but that's a stretch. I'd hate to be a Warner Bros. executive who'd have to explain that: "Uhh, yeah. We spent close to half a billion dollars, put the two most iconic superheroes of all time together, added in Wonder Woman and a heavy slate of Oscar-worthy talent... And fewer folks went to see it than did to see a bunch of goofy no-names in space, including a talking raccoon and giant tree."

Now I'm even more confused. Or you're engaging in some Jedi-level trolling. When has Lois Lane _ever_ been portrayed in a movie as a stronger female protagonist than she was in Man of Steel (I'm thinking of two scenes -- the investigative reporting montage & the interview with him, specifically)? I'll give you Lois & Clark back in the '90s -- that Lois was far more than a damsel in distress archetype. But if anything the writing of Margot Kidder's role in the first run of Superman movies was _far_ less progressive and feminist than that of Lois in Snyder's two movies. Also, keep in mind the _vast_ majority of Lois Lane portrayals in the comics have been far more misogynist than your (misguided) assertions via Snyder's movie. Example: Read nearly _any_ Silver Age issue of Lois Lane's solo run. Holy mess. And that's in her own book.

I didn't see any misogyny in either Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. In fact, I'd argue that both films featured more than one strong female protagonist. I'm also tired of Mr. Merryweather's schtick -- While I agree with him that the movie was inexplicably poorly done, I've at least seen it before making that judgement. That said, I will continue to point out (and take glee in) its weak box office showing because that's the only leverage we the public have to try to convince Warner Bros. to go in a different (i.e. better) direction in the future. This weekend's factoid: Batman v. Superman's getting trounced by the (much cheaper) Jungle Book. Not only did The Jungle Book manage to be # 1 for three whole weekends (as opposed to getting beaten by a Melissa McCarthy movie), its week # 3 take is 75% higher than that of Batman v. Superman's. The Jungle Book, 3rd weekend: $42 million Batman v. Superman, 3rd weekend: $24 million.

Eh...Clooney was (inexplicably) the worst. Kilmer was actually decent in a bad movie. Whereas yes -- Batman & Robin _wretched_ but Clooney himself never looked comfortable in the suit, separate & apart from the movie around him

If George Miller directs, I'd give more credence to Common as Jon Stewart over Tyrese, given that Common was already cast as Stewart in Miller's cancelled Justice League film years ago.

Well, the article did note they liked his -script but likely wanted a more experienced director: "Warner Bros. isn’t eager to take a big risk in the wake of fan backlash to Zack Snyder‘s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

At least we can go back and watch the Shadowman movie while we wait. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166110/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_58

I've been focusing on domestic numbers for two reasons. 1) As noted pages back, it's hard to compare international numbers due to the staggered international release dates and the relative explosion in the international market over the last five years. 2) The Motley Fool article notes (correctly) that studios get a much larger percentage of the gross from domestic receipts than international ones. And the "umm..." was an honest expression of confusion to your last response, since I clearly noted the numbers posted were domestic only (so...Apples to Apples). For a movie and storyline as epic as Batman v. Superman to do worse domestically than even Batman Forever did ($363 million after inflation) is unconscionable. And it's because Snyder delivered us a mediocre, needlessly confusing, & boring film.

You sure about that? Inflation-adjusted it won't even come close. It's currently sitting at # 19 on the chart. It'll be lucky to unseat Guardians of the Galaxy, which is currently sitting at # 15 ($353 million domestic in 2016 dollars). To break the top 10 in terms of numbers of tickets sold it would have to do well over $400 million domestic (Iron Man # 3 is the current # 10 at $419 million). Source: http://bit.ly/23aIo2e

I went to college with a kid with some diverse interests. Our senior year he randomly decided to set the world record for Arkanoid. He bought an arcade version, set it up in his dorm room & did it. It was mostly notable because this was 1999 so at that time the world record had stood for more than a decade. Learned all about the process, too. The Guinness World Records Gamers Edition has a certain number of judges per state who have to come out & inspect your machine for tampering & then watch you play to certify that you actually could reach the scores claimed. My buddy noted that the high score was largely determined by bonuses that dropped down randomly, so regardless of your ability record scores were only even possible about 30% of the time. The best part was he then started getting hate email from the prior record holder, who vowed to start training on Arkanoid again in a bid to reclaim his spot. Not sure what came of it, but a quick Google search shows at least one of my friend's records still stands: https://recordsetter.com/arkanoid-world-records

You may be comparing things that cannot be compared. Batman Begins: - Release Date: 15 June 2005 (USA) By Day 33 (July 17th), a few countries had recently had their first release of Batman Begins. And though they are little countries, they contributed to $4.24 MM to the worldwide total. Czech Republic: 14 July 2005 ($221,135) Hungary: 14 July 2005 ($266,303) Lebanon: 14 July 2005 ($98,849) Slovakia: 14 July 2005 ($53,004) Finland: 15 July 2005 ($1,276,287) Norway: 15 July 2005 ($2,272,108) TOTAL BOX OFFICE CONTRIBUTION: $4.24 MM Remember, Batman v Superman frontloaded its release schedule. And that is just Batman Begins I quickly checked and determined you cannot compare the two. Umm...the totals I posted above are tracking _domestic_ totals only; international is irrelevant to all of the numbers I posted above. You're right, they can't be directly compared because we haven't adjusted everything for inflation to 2016 dollars, which would make BvS's numbers look even worse. On the 5th Tuesday of release, it was also outperformed by Spider-Man (2002), to say nothing of Deadpool's outdoing it by 100%. Even worse? The 2005 Fantastic Four movie almost did as well as BvS pre-inflation ($572,194 domestic daily take), and that was 11 years ago, at 20% fewer theaters.

He's right about staying power, in that after a while word-of-mouth didn't overcome the critics completely. But you forgot the beginning of his article. And since this was published days ago, the overall take is now $854.5 MM worldwide as opposed to the $833.9 MM he references. And $320.5 MM domestic as opposed to the $312.8 MM he references. The passage of time has only made his negative point (re. lack of staying power) stronger. Example: This Tuesday's numbers mark day 33 of its release: Batman v. Superman, day 33 (Tuesday): $188 per theater, at 3,066 theaters: $577,298 domestic take for the day. vs. Age of Ultron, day 33 (Tuesday): $391 per theater, at 3,228 theaters: $1,261,068 domestic take for the day. vs. Man of Steel, day 33 (Tuesday): $331 per theater, at 2,150 theaters: $712,448 domestic take for the day. vs. Dark Knight Rises, day 33 (Tuesday): $476 per theater, at 3,157 theaters: $1,503,295 domestic take for the day. vs. Dark Knight, day 33 (Tuesday): $598 per theater, at 3,590 theaters: $2,148,332 domestic take for the day. vs. Batman Begins, Day 35 (Tuesday): $298 per theater, at 2,810 theaters: $836,358 domestic take for the day. Even the first X-Men movie outdid it 16 years ago, and that's at 800 fewer theaters and _before_ adjusting for ticket price inflation: X-Men, Day 33 (Tuesday): $270 per theater, at 2,145 theaters: $578,821 domestic take for the day.

From Motley Fool: "The 1 Number That Explains How Batman v. Superman is Failing Time Warner" http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/24/1-number-that-explains-batman-v-superman-failure.aspx Lack of momentum / staying power: "According to data compiled by Box Office Mojo, BvS was screening in 3,505 theaters earning $228 per theater after day 26 in cinemas. Avengers: Age of Ultron -- a similarly big-budget superhero film from Marvel Studios -- was yielding $523 per theater at 3,727 locations during the same point in its run last year. To put a fine point on it: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not only playing in fewer theaters today, but it's also earning 56% less per theater than its closest peer did."

Point of Order: How the hell is the climax of Macbeth not similarly grown-inducing? Y'all remember that, right? The big twist? Prophecy three is "No man of woman-born can harm Macbeth" So then when Macduff, having stormed the castle & defeated him in combat, runs him through, and Macbeth is lying there bleeding out, confused 'cuz he thought he was invulnerable Macduff reveals: He's "not of woman born" 'cuz his mom had a c-section. Seriously -- the big 11th-hour twist in Macbeth is "C-section, son!" *Groan*

Where's the 'well duhhhh' emoticon when you need it? Of course before now DC didn't have a plan. Neither did Marvel before Feige came along to deliver something that neither company was hitting on. The guy changed the game for the better. It's a shame DC/Warner didn't pick up on it sooner. Then maybe we would have been spared Catwoman and Steel. But behind all this feels to be folks just bashing on the movie again, like it was a flop. Like has been stated a few times, this is Man of Steel revisited. But again, the dude's not wrong in how Marvel started small and experimental (with an R-rated Blade movie) and went from there. And how DC could follow the same template by distributing a few minor characters among different studios and directors before bringing them organically into a whole. And (as he notes) to take Batman entirely off the schedule until at least 2022 or so. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, part of the reason Marvel's universe-building works is because they had to work around the lack of rights to Spider-Man and X-Men, giving them room to elevate Iron Man & Captain America to A-List status. Thus, DC should take from this and ignore both Superman and Batman for awhile, holding them in reserve as they build fan support around supporting characters. Instead, the lesson they take from BvS's disappointing reception? a) Fast-track Batman # 10; and b) Re-shoot swaths of Suicide Squad to make it more like Deadpool Thank goodness they at least announced the Green Lantern Corps movie will feature Hal, John and Kyle. That's a start...

OMG, that author is spot on, esp. re. the need for a dark horror version of Swamp Thing & a light-hearted Aquaman. And he does not mince words. Witness the 2nd & third sentence: "They pulled (the Nolan) trilogy out of their and then had the unmitigated gall to release Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice afterward. That would be like Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel one week and then painting a giant on the side of a bus the next week. Sure, you think the is amusing, but it's not of the same caliber."

But there should still be some attrition this weekend, as three new releases will open this week on more screens than BvS will have (i.e., 2,600 plus), although none of them targets the same audience: Mother's Day (Jennifer Aniston/Julia Roberts adult comedy) Ratchet & Clank (Animated kids film) Keanu (Key & Peele comedy) Not blockbusters, but should hurt its holding power nonetheless.

Ouch. http://www.inquisitr.com/3028234/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-will-not-beat-zootopia-at-box-office/

It looks to be safe next week. I mean, I want to see Keanu & all, but I can't see that being a Kevin Hart-style blockbuster. But then look for a massive drop-off the following week when Civil War arrives.

Huh...I had no problem with Interstellar's length, & I loved that flick. An intermission would have just felt weird and probably led to a lot of audience attrition just before it got *really good / 2001 head-trippy*

The only U.S. movie I've seen with an intermission was a re-release of Lawrence of Arabia. It was long but worthy.