Gatsby77

I’m intrigued by Shang-Chi precisely because it’s a major film adaptation of a D-list character - even less well-known / collected by comic nerds than Guardians of the Galaxy. I’ve collected comics for 30 years and have never read a Master of Kung Fu appearance, despite *loving* Mike Zeck. Plus, the trailer makes it look eerily similar in theme & content to Snake Eyes, which doesn’t bode well for mass appeal. With Snake Eyes bombing worse than Space Jamz, I’d be mad nervous about Shang-Chi’s prospects.

Says the dude who gave the first Suicide Squad film a 7.0/10.0. Did you even, like, read the '80s run?

Boo F--n' Hoo. It's not a "bandwagon" or "lazy narrative" to call Ayer out for making a poor Suicide film. 1) It was a bad film. 2) It was a particularly bad Suicide Squad film. 3) The comparative high quality of James Gunn's film - as both an enjoyable popcorn flick and solid example of what a Suicide Squad can and should be, only underscores this. Sometimes it takes a successful example (like Nolan's Batman Begins) to underscore, say...just how garbage Schumacher's Batman and Robin was. and 4) It's a perfectly valid criticism that - despite the money the first Suicide Squad film made, its being pure garbage turned audiences off from wanting to watch further adventures featuring the team. Once burned, twice shy and all that. So now we're in a situation where Gunn's Suicide Squad is a critical and audience success (per Rotten Tomatoes) and yet it's bombing - largely because Ayer's version was garbage and turned audiences off. Net/Net: Because of Ayer, we're less likely to see a sequel to Gunn's (far superior) film.

Uhhmmmmmmmmm… That’s a lot of words and fancy charts to try to explain Birds of Prey’s sub-par performance. When the reality’s far simpler: That film sucked donkey balls.

This. Among more recent films, It, Joker, Deadpool and Deadpool 2 all made well over $300+ million each domestically. And Beverly Hills Cop is still a Top 5 grossing R film (inflation-adjusted). Inflation-adjusted, it made >$640M domestically, more than the inflation-adjusted totals of Star Wars: The Last Jedi and or Batman '89 .

Similar story but a few years later, with Interview with a Vampire at my local (2-screen) theater. I was 17 but my high school girlfriend was 16 - we got rejected at the door because I clearly wasn’t her “parent or guardian.”

1) No. We've been through this before. Studio take is roughly 50% *overall* - but that's because it's a rough average of 60% domestic, 40% international (non-China) and 25% (China). Because...the bulk of a film's theatrical take is in the first 10 days (first two weekends) and domestic contracts are structured so studios get the bulk (60-70%) of the first 14 days take, then it reverses, with studios getting just 30-40% of days 15-on. Even if studios only got 50% of the the first 2 weeks, it'd account for 60%+ of the total domestic revenue for most films. 2) Why? Disney literally netted more money from Disney+ purchases during Black Widow's opening weekend than it did from the entire domestic North American box office take. Here's the math: 85% of $60 million (Disney+ Premiere) is more than 60% of $84.4 million (domestic box office). Even if Bosco's theory is true - that for Black Widow Disney somehow demanded 70% of the first 14 days' theatrical revenue for Black Widow, then streaming still booked 86% of the Disney's first weekend domestic theatrical take. That's hardly *ancillary* - particularly because Box Office Mojo is now tracking Disney+ Premiere revenue alongside domestic and international box office for the film. And the film *still* set a pandemic era theatrical record. 3) Citation for this? With the multiple delays you could be right, but I'd like to see a legitimate source for this. Deadline, for example, this week cited P+A for The Suicide Squad at $100M (on top of its stated $185M budget).

? So...you're calling the highest grossing theatrical release in 1.5 years a "bomb?" I think our definition's of that word differ. And did I state 3.0x? Doubtful, although I may have done so in one of JayDog's rants that a film had to do 4.5x theatrical in order to recoup stated budgets plus all marketing expenses. Which was hogwash, of course, because it failed to account for all post-theatrical revenue. 10 years ago, the standard for profitability was just 2.0x. And the shorthand was - if it made its budget back in domestic theatrical alone, it was profitable - as foreign sales and post-theatrical would make up the difference. Now it's definitely more like 2.5x or better - but that shift is due both to China's increased prominence (and only 25% theatrical take) and increased marketing spend. But - and you know this better than anyone - the true answer is "it depends." So - as @paperheartdid in the other thread, let's break this down for Black Widow, shall we? Domestic so far: $174.4 million (x 60%) = $104.4 million to the studio Foreign so far: $185.4 million (x 40%) = $74.1 million to the studio China so far: $0 (x 25%) = $0 to the studio Streaming (known): $60 million (x 85%) = $51 million to the studio Total: $229.5 million directly to Disney vs. a stated $200 million production budget. Conclusion: It's easily going to break even and/or turn a slight profit for the studio. Compare it to some recent *actual* bombs: Snake Eyes (will lose Paramount $60-$80M) Jungle Cruise (will lose Disney $50-$75M) The Suicide Squad (will lose Warner Bros. $90-$110M) Space Jam 2 (will lose Warner Bros. $100M+) Normally I'm not one to engage in "whataboutism" but in a summer where we've seen many high-profile films *actually* bomb, using that term to describe Black Widow's mere underperformance when it's on track to make a profit, is just...odd.

This. I argued in the Black Widow thread weeks ago that: 1) it was far from a box office bomb; and 2) its under-performance was systemic rather than a reflection of the film itself. I stand by both of those points. And I don’t think the traditional theatrical box office will bounce back anytime soon. The landscape’s changed. Hell - A Quiet Place 2 is already available for rent via Red Box - for $2, or streaming - for $4. And Fast 9 will likely be available in both venues in a month. Still - I worry that Warner Bros. will look at Suicide Squad’s take this weekend and quietly scuttle any sequel plans. Because it’s on track to lose the studio >$100M. Deadpool worked because it was insanely cheap to make. Not so here.

? There's no conflict between your two statements...because both are true. The studio (and Ayer) wanted and expected Smith to return, and he expressed interest...until the Suicide Squad sequel schedule became apparent - and was locked and couldn't be delayed further due to Gunn having Guardians 3 set up afterwards. Separately, there was an (unfounded) rumor that Elba was recast as Deadshot. Which makes no sense, because it would have foreclosed the possibility of Smith's Deadshot returning in future films. But you stated above that Gunn specifically didn't want Smith or someone of his star power attached to "ensure all roles received equal attention versus one superstar." That's patently false.

Except that's BS. It's well-known that Will Smith was attached to reprise his role as Deadshot in this film before having to drop out due to schedule conflicts (ultimately revealed to be with King Richard).

? I didn’t need to quote him to make that point. Anyone can look at Will Smith’s box office track record vs. Elba’s and see that one can consistently open a film and the other can’t. Elba’s more of a secondary lead / value add than a leading man A-lister. Any honest financial analysis of Suicide Squad 2 vs. 1 can’t overlook that Will Smith’s absence from the latter is a nontrivial factor.

Doesn't matter. This was a good film, but it's already bombed. <$26M opening against a $185M budget? Ouch. This performed worse than Space Jamz. Will make far less than the $33M domestic opening weekend of Birds of Prey - which was a turd sandwich - and >$100M less than the first Suicide Squad did in its first three days. And that's a shame. I think audiences felt burned by the wretchedness of the first Suicide Squad film, and - as Forbes' Scott Mendelson notes, box office-wise, it's a (sad) reality that Idris Elba isn't in the same league as Will Smith. R-rating doesn't change the calculus much, as Deadpool managed $133M+ as an R-rated cartoon 5 years ago, and much of this film clearly emulated that one. Further, I haven't heard anyone whose seen this claim it was worse than Black Widow, yet that film is still on track to be the domestic box office winner of the year (at least through September), despite similar simultaneous streaming. I thought this was a far better film - and (as I've noted) top 3 for the DCEU so far. It deserved better.

I really liked it. And it starts with a very simple reason - it's a legitimate Suicide Squad movie, obviously made by folks who read - and understood - the Ostrander run in the '80s. David Ayer has a lifetime pass from me for writing Training Day, but my god was his Suicide Squad film absolute garbage. It had exactly four good scenes that collectively accounted for less than 20 minutes of screen time, and the rest of it was offensively bad, an affront both to cinema and to the comics themselves. This one, however, got it. I don't even mind if it doesn't have broad appeal because, let's face it, neither does the comics title itself. But here you got a true feel for many of the characters - beyond just Harley and Deadshot. And while Bloodsport's role could have been filled by Will Smith reprising his Deadshot one, I actually think Idris Elba's acting and character fit better here. Specific highlights? The opening sequence, esp. Pete Davidson's Blackguard King Shark - my expectations were low here, but the film made him one of my favorites Polka Dot Man Waller's team - both an homage to the "CIA support staff" scenes we've seen ad nauseum in the Bourne Identity films and a send-up/satire of them. While John Cena's Peacemaker wasn't my favorite (due to the character himself), I thought his acting was surprisingly good. He can act (and has comedic chops - he was one of the best parts about Amy Schumer's Trainwreck) but this was the best I've seen him do yet. I'm looking forward to The Peacemaker show. Maybe it went off the rails in the third act because of how ridiculous Starro was, but as @Zonkernotes, " once you have a movie featuring King Shark, the Weasel, Polka Dot Man, and TDK, it is kind of hard to find a "top" to go over! " To me, this was well worth the time - far better than Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and as a DCEU film, ranks third (behind only Wonder Woman and Man of Steel). I'd also rank it among the mid-point of the Marvel films, easily better than the Ant-Man films, Thor 2, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Guardians 2 - even Doctor Strange. Finally, it was so much better than Harley Quinn/Birds of Prey that it felt like it was from a different universe. And a large reason was the decreased focus on Harley Quinn vs. other members of the team - this film was far better for that.

I'm 15 minutes in. The pre-credits sequence alone is better than the entire first Suicide Squad film.

I've shared this before. Magnus # 0 is my favorite "modern" book. I think I've got ~30 copies raw & 15 slabbed (9.2-9.8).

What's awesome about that is I remember going from store to store to stockpile the Cable card, especially with the "negative" Captain America. Nobody cared about the Deadpool card then - although (of course) we had to get all 5.

+ 2. That Ostrander run was phenomenal - and had - what, 3 glow-in-the-dark covers in the first 15 issues? I sold off 90% of my childhood collection in 2014. I kept my near-complete Valiant collection, that Spectre run (1-20 or so), most of Sandman and 3 long boxes of Batman.

While I prefer his later work, his Punisher run was worthy. Here's my favorite - Punisher # 10, which I think has *almost* reached Copper Age "classic cover" status. And, if you weren't around at the time or didn't read it, Punisher # 10 features the same story as Daredevil # 257 - but each is told differently, from the perspective of their respective title characters.

This looks Ghost Rider bad.

I loved his work on X-Factor - I still remember reading # 63 with awe - and it was no mean feat given that I believe he followed Jim Lee's covers in 60-62. Eventually went back and collected his early work (incl. Star Wars # 107 and Strikeforce Morituri # 1, 10). But the delays on Wetworks killed it for me.

This isn't actually true. Disney+, at least, has to share a portion of their premium revenue with the platform providers, like Roku & Apple TV. Deadline cited 15%. Still, an 85% cut of streaming beats 60% of domestic theatrical.

I think this will change - and eventually all the streaming services will have to release their numbers for transparency's sake. We're at the same inflection point we were several years ago when Nielsen became (temporarily) obsolete with the advent of streaming services. And, as others have noted - going forward all major actor/director/producer contracts will have streaming revenue accounted for in their compensation deals. Mark Wahlberg has also threatened legal action over Infinite going directly to Paramount+ rather than a theatrical release. That said, I don't understand the accounting - what's the projected ROI for Netflix of spending $100+ million or $150+ million on a movie like Bright or 6 Underground? What's the ROI on Amazon supposedly spending $1 billion+ on 5 seasons of Lord of the Rings? That's a *lot* of additional Prime memberships...

Says the man who continues to mis-report the production cost of Guardians of the Galaxy 2, not just because you based it on one questionable article, but *also* because you intentionally mis-read the tax credits granted according to that very article. TL:DR - production costs are net of tax credits and incentives. Then again, maybe I misread those theater contracts - including the actual one I signed with Disney. After all, I only got a B+ in Contracts in law school. How'd you do?

No. You're wrong.