Gatsby77

What's your source for The Batman's larger marketing / distribution budget? Suicide Squad's reported marketing + promotion budget was $150 million. Have you seen reputable reporting on The Batman's yet (i.e., from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, etc.?) Do you seriously think it's significantly higher than $150 million?

As already noted, The Batman opened higher than Suicide Squad, held better than Suicide Squad and has already surpassed Suicide Squad's domestic total in just 3 weeks. Also - Suicide Squad cost $175 million for production - vs. The Batman's $200 million. $747 million global box office total divided by $175 million for production gives a 4.27x multiple. The Batman's at $673 million globally so far vs. a $200 million production budget - giving a 3.37x multiple. But: 1) It's not done yet; and 2) The split is different - The Batman's weighted far more heavily towards domestic dollars - which are worth more to the studio than foreign ones. So the studio profitability paths will look similar even if The Batman only hits $750 million worldwide (i.e., a lower multiple but one more heavily weighted towards domestic receipts).

Ahem! There's this Variety article, from pre-release: https://variety.com/2016/film/news/wb-batman-v-superman-faces-high-expectations-1201729887/ "One media analyst, who asked not to be named, said that given the costs and need to launch a series of future films, “anything under $1 billion in worldwide box office will be a disappointment.” Here's a post-release Yahoo Finance article noting how it's $420 million+ global debut weekend broke all kinds of records - and kids' vacation schedules, and lack of near-term competition would continue its momentum. (This was before its 69% domestic drop in the second weekend). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/batman-v-superman-rewrote-hollywood-170259778.html

Why? I think the pre-release expectations for BvS were that it would indeed hit $1 bn.+ First - the perception that Man of Steel's $667 million was an under-performance led to the re-tooling. Secondly - BvS was coming off of the two $1 bn.+ Nolan films - featured an auteur director and the first cinematic meeting of DC's biggest stars (plus Wonder Woman as a bonus). What folks didn't know is that the finished product would suck donkey toes - and fall off precipitously after the first weekend due to word-of-mouth.

Curious why you keep citing the Nolan films as the standard ("Batman movies that came out 10+ years ago") but ignore BvS - which came out far more recently. Putting aside that BvS had far more anticipation - and starred Batman AND Superman, The Batman has already surpassed BvS's domestic total - and cost 20% less to make -- so it will easily match its revenue ratio. And - I'll say it again, but Suicide Squad had not only more anticipation - but featured Batman, The Joker, Harley Quinn and Will Smith -- and The Batman's outperforming it pound-for-pound.

1) Bosco's chart - by emphasizing revenue ratio, makes inflation irrelevant. 2) You're correct - it's currently at 3.4x vs. a historical average of 3.8x. But (and hear me out)...it's still in the middle of its run. It's on-track to ultimately surpass 3.8x theatrically. Stop acting like this has already left theaters - it has significant legs left.

Again - you're arguing against a straw man premise: That The Batman's somehow a failure if somehow it doesn't pass $1 bn. worldwide. Which was *never* the bar. ~$800 million is absolutely successful for this film. And...btw...Suicide Squad is an apt comparison to this film anyway (esp. because it featured not just Batman, but Harley Quinn, The Joker & Will Smith). Like The Batman, Suicide Squad was # 1 for only three weekends before falling to # 2. But Suicide Squad made only $12.25 million in its fourth weekend -- ~40% less than The Batman's $20.5 million.

Probably? It opened higher than Suicide Squad, held better than Suicide Squad and has already surpassed that film's domestic total. Suicide Squad was considered a success, so there's no way The Batman can't be called a success.

I haven't seen Glass. But I'd argue the last time Bruce Willis had any good movies / was relevant was 10 years ago. 2012 - he had Looper, Moonrise Kingdom and Expendables 2.

? I'm not trying to spoil anything about the film. However, it was spoiled for me on Twitter this morning. Because it was one of *many* elements of the film that were being derided. And - if correct - criticism of the post-credits scene is warranted. Because it's ridiculous. Okay - fine. Spoiler, folks: There's (gasp!) a post-credit scene.

But...um...did you read the description of the end credits scene? It sounds *absurd*. Separately, I doubt there's a concerted social media effort to black-ball or denigrate this film. Because I doubt the film itself needs help in that regard...

This film is getting trashed on Twitter this morning.

Is it still Barry Keoghan? And...Happy birthday, Bosco!!

Yeah - that was a typo. Meant "Homecoming," obviously.

So...Scott Mendelson wrote ~800 words about why "The Batman Never Had to Top $1 billion." His basic points? 1) Even at a worst-case scenario, it's going to finish domestically above Spider-Man: No Way Home - without the benefit of the MCU fanboy apparatus and RDJ's Iron Man as a selling point. 2) It's going to end up close to $400M domestic (more than any DC flick but Wonder Woman) and close to $800M worldwide ("essentially tied with BvS with a pre-Covid Chinese gross). Add in...there are tons of folks still hesitant to go to theaters due to Covid and it's coming to HBO Max in just a few weeks, so there are plenty willing to wait. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/03/22/box-office-no-the-batman-never-had-to-top-1-billion/?sh=f7c416d37efc

Sure. And (for example) the only Zack Snyder superhero film I can remotely stomach is Watchmen. It was overtly made for the fans. And - largely because of that - it bombed. But I still think it's better (and more rewatchable) than any of the first few years of MCU movies. For me, I didn't complain re. the lack of Warlock or Silver Surfer pre-Infinity Gauntlet because it seemed pretty clear (at that time) that Captain Marvel would fill the Warlock role (urm...I was wrong). However, I *do* remember complaining about how stupid it was to do Civil War without Spider-Man. For me, the two most iconic parts of that series were: 1) Captain America's death; and 2) Spider-Man revealing his identity to the world at a live news conference - an event that crashed the internet. At the time folks thought Scott Lang / Ant-Man would fill the Spider-Man role. That is - until the trailer dropped, revealing we'd get Spider-Man in the film after all...

"Where the comic, at least aesthetically, had something to say about the state of American politics and its impact on the world, the show instead opts for empty sermonizing about idealistic belief in political systems, a perspective that clashes wildly with the premise at hand, in which America has, supposedly, already crumbled. It bears so little resemblance to the comic — visually, narratively, spiritually, and politically — that it’s hard not to wonder if it should have been an original show. More importantly, it fails to deliver on its own promise of a series focused on a mother’s journey to save her son (and eventually, save his soul). " https://www.ign.com/articles/dmz-full-season-review

"Though it still takes place in the fictional demilitarized zone in Manhattan that was created after a second American civil war, the war-torn imagery is gone, as is the general feeling of pandemonium, the desperate need for community in order to survive. Gone also is the comic’s protagonist, journalist Matty Roth, and his story of chronicling the early years of the DMZ and anchoring the many stories within." https://www.polygon.com/22981074/hbo-max-dmz-show-preview

Because it's not. The only appreciable difference between then and now is the rise of China as a major movie marketplace - but even then the studios reap only ~25% of ticket sales there - so the difference to the overall bottom line - even as a percentage of overall foreign gross - is negligible when discussing total worldwide theatrical AND post-theatrical revenue.

So...if film's only have to be profitable on *theatrical revenue alone,* are you seriously stating that Batman Begins (2.5x production budget theatrically) lost money overall? If it did, you'd be arguing that somehow Warner Bros. used it as a $100 million+ loss leader on the wild idea that somehow a sequel - which cost even more - would somehow be profitable. If it didn't, it must because the so-called post-theatrical "ancillaries" (which amounted to several hundred million in lifetime value) pushed it into the black. Thus warranting not just one, but two sequels. Which is it?

How so? Did you not see the deluge of articles noting that No Time to Die had well over $90 million in revenue from product placement - well before the film's first trailer dropped? To believe that The Batman didn't have at least $50 million of its costs instantly covered by product placement isn't just naive - it's intellectually dishonest. But go ahead...keep discounting all of the above as mere "ancillaries." The 2.5x - 3.0x production budget in global theatrical remains the standard precisely because all of those lifetime ancillaries cover the P&A costs -- yes, even now that P&A can be as high as 100% of the production budget itself.

Oh nice...another Jaydog special. The old "Not profitable unless it grosses 4.5x production budget in theatrical alone." AKA "only 2 of the first 7 MCU films broke even" AKA hogwash. Because it ignores that marketing and P&A costs are off-set by such things as: Product placement DVD sales Streaming licensing Toys & merchandising licensing Nope -- 2.5x theatrical is the "all-in" break-even metric (if domestic is strong); 3.0x theatrical (if domestic is weak). Here, domestic is strong - so the film is (as Bosco pointed out) solidly in the black.

Fans *hated* when Gaiman succeeded Alan Moore's run on Miracleman. But I get that - they're two fundamentally different writing styles. Gaiman is firmly entrenched in fantasy, whereas Moore excels far more at straight superhero works.

I might suggest you check out at least the first graphic novel, then. It's *really* good. Arguably better than Y: The Last Man. But it's also not "gatekeeping" to demand even basic fidelity to the source material. This isn't a "more of a fan" contest - this is simply being a fan AT ALL. I'm old enough to remember nerd rage that Spider-Man's web shooters were organic - rather than mechanical - in the first film. This isn't that - it's the equivalent of if Agents of Shield never mentioned (let alone showed) Nick Fury - as if he never existed.