Jaydogrules

On 5/22/2022 at 9:59 AM, Bosco685 said:

It actually isn't. But you are entitled to your opinions. Though 'Nobody went to those three dumpster fires' sure seems to ignore millions of dollars.

At least with Shang-Chi that was a clear moneymaker as it exceeded 2.5X-2.8X. Not a massive hit. But still clearly profitable.

You have the budget wrong on shang-chi , it was actually 175MM, not 150MM, and once you factor in global P&A you're close to 300MM all in.  Not on any planet is 432MM "clearly profitable" with those numbers. 

All three of those movies were bombs just like the movies DC released last year were bombs, just bigger ones.  

-J.

On 5/22/2022 at 8:10 AM, Bosco685 said:

No matter the quality or logic, moviegoers are there for the MCU. They are sold on this model. There is no debating it.

 

A completely fallacious hot take.  

Nobody went to see those three dumpster fires they released last year.  

People go to see the movies they think are worth seeing, and they don't go to the ones they don't care about.  

It ain't rocket science. 

-J.

On 5/18/2022 at 5:27 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

It's marketing power but it's also the highly successful strategy of creating an interwoven universe spanning both movies and TV that makes fans believe every movie is must-see or the next movie won't make sense.

I'm a huge Marvel guy, and in general I love the MCU, but there are definitely some movies (including this one) that I thought were weak.  And yet, there I was opening weekend watching every single one.

Over at DC/Warner, literally every movie feels like a reboot.  Nothing ties to anything else.  Hell, they have had something like four different Jokers in the last however many years.  Since I'm not a DC fan and I always felt that DC's "universe" was a steaming hot mess anyway, I personally don't care.  Every one of these stories can stand on their own.  But there's no question that DC/Warner have utterly failed to make their movies must-see, appointment viewing because there is no larger story arc and therefore no lasting "stakes" for anything that happens in the movie.

(And yes, I realize that Marvel's "multiverse" concept completely drains the stakes of everything they do from here on out ... it will be interesting to see if it backfires on them as fans realize the studio can just do whatever the hell they want and they don't have to try to make it make sense any more.)

I agree with everything you just said.  

-J.

On 5/18/2022 at 4:25 PM, Larryw7 said:

So what? Dr. Strange is frontloaded, but in the end the results are very similar. And after his own feature film, two Avengers movies, and a big part in the last Spidey movie, you can't call Strange a "C" lister anymore. Plus all the cameos and tie ins to other movies and TV shows. The fan base rushed to Dr. Strange but its legs fell on the second weekend. Batman had steady business for a month. It doesn't matter what film makes money the fastest. The end results are what matters.

In the end this movie will make in 3 weekends what Batman made in over 2 months , without the benefit of 2 major markets that batman had.  And then it will continue to make money several weeks after that.  This will make 100-200MM more than batman did.  Nobody cares if the money was made on the front , the middle or the back, because that's irrelevant.  The fact that Marvel, by your own words, has elevated Strange to a higher profile than Batman, is just as much a testament to the marketing power of Disney, as it is an indictment of whatever it is Warner has been trying to do.

-J.

On 5/17/2022 at 11:04 AM, Larryw7 said:

So after all of the crying, this movie will make nearly the same amount as The Batman.

This movie (featuring nothing but C and D list characters) will make more in 3 weekends than what Batman (featuring DC's #1 A lister) made in over two months.  

And it will do it without China and Russia.

#Bat-meh

-J.

On 5/14/2022 at 3:55 PM, Otter1775 said:

Currently listed on the bay:

 

....for barely a day and then *poof*!

-J.

On 5/16/2022 at 9:20 AM, Not A Clone said:

That book sells so rarely aren't they all outliers  Models had that 9.4 from 14-17k based on the 8.0 and the 9.8. Was considering selling my 9.4 to buy a collection I found. Makes my brain hurt lol.

It's hard to model books like that, there's usually some price compression in every grade below 9.8 and then a huge premium on the 9.8.

-J.

On 5/16/2022 at 3:28 AM, Not A Clone said:

Must have been taken down. Isn't up now and isn't showing as sold The 9.4 on Comic Link didn't fare well like pretty much everything else. $10,420. Down $3k from the last 9.4 sold 2-3 years ago. Almost everything went  down 25-35%.

The 9.4 selling for 13k, 3 years ago was a high outlier sale at the time, higher than even what a 9.6 sold for, and as such, is not a reasonable barometer.  

-J.

On 5/15/2022 at 8:00 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

To reiterate- This C list character in a decidedly "whatever" movie has nearly made in two weekends, what the unequivocal #1 DC character made in the "Best Batman Eva"  in two months.  

If Marvel has "lost its way" with this bona-fide Batman crushing blockbuster, what does that say about the state of DC, and comic book movies in general?

-J.

So just to make sure I have this right now .. "corona" and made-for-cable-TV "wars" only affect DC movies and Marvel movies nobody wants to see(?).   

-J.

On 5/8/2022 at 6:08 PM, paperheart said:

'across the board' When are you going to learn English? Apparently never #mathandenglishishard

Try reading more and posting less, bud.

You can start with what I actually posted and then graduate to the articles I linked.  

Enjoy.  

-J.

On 5/8/2022 at 5:53 PM, paperheart said:

'Streaming subs are actually down pretty much across the board now'- someone hacked into HBO Max subscriber data

 

HBO and its HBO Max streaming service ended March with 76.8 million global subscribers, an increase of 3 million after hitting 73.8 million subscribers as of the end of 2021. Apr 21, 2022

When are you going to realize you're not very good at this ?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/streaming-services-churn-2022-deloitte-1235055461/amp/

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/uk-households-cancel-streaming-subscriptions-record-numbers

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/netflix-monkeyhammered-20-lower-catastrophic-earnings-sees-loss-2-million-subs-q2

Never, I suppose.  

-J.

On 5/8/2022 at 4:48 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Except you don't.

QED - your statement about a month ago, "I don't comment on the quality of movies" - followed the next week by "Suicide Squad, a truly horrible movie" and (as Bosco pointed out) your anti-Spider-verse comments that started *months* before the film was even released - that have continued years later despite its objective - and overwhelming - success ("nobody cares about Academy Awards" or "cartoons"), to stating how "boring" you thought The Batman's first hour was when you (apparently finally) deigned to check it out on HBO Max (like...apparently *many* posters here - including Sharon & myself).

And...even if we go with just financials - which should be far more "objective" or "consistent" you twisted yourself into hilarious knots trying to argue how Aquaman was an abject financial failure theatrically - despite grossing $335 million domestically and $1.15 million worldwide.

But go on...keep doing you - someone's gotta' keep the Silvermane flame alive.

And Jay? I, at least, am here to listen to your grievances.

I promise I won't put you on ignore, although I can't promise I won't laugh...

 

You're gaslighting again.  I NEVER said aquaman was an "abject failure".  I did say it was an over bloated monstrosity, which it is.  But here's a crew challenge for you- link to where I called aquaman an "abject failure" financially.  Of course you won't because I never did.  I only commented on it's outlandish budget and that itwould probably need to make about a billion dollars to turn a profit.  

And I wasn't too far off from the analysis.  Good for it that it did.  But yeah , it sucked creatively.  

Oops.  Guess I commented on the "quality" of a movie again. Guess you got me there.  As for spider-verse.  Yeah , a 350MM on a `190MM all in ain't close to being an "overwhelming success".  Come on.   In reality , it didn't break even until it hit home video and caught a following there.  For me , all that says is it only should have been a DTV release in the first place.   (For context , and direct comparisons, venom, which came out the same year as spider-verse, and had a comparable budget, along with a china release as well, both movies did, was, in fact, an "overwhelming success")

I at least know how to be consistent with my financial analytics.  

@Buzzetta Streaming is ancillary revenue and I highly doubt batman helped its cause much with those numbers on HBO.  Streaming subs are actually down pretty much across the board now.  

-J.

On 5/8/2022 at 2:57 PM, Gatsby77 said:

So...from before day 1, you've been arguing against a straw man that you invented - some ethereal belief that this film *should* have made $1 billion...and therefore failed when it didn't.

Even Don Quixote's windmills were more grounded in reality.

Dude what are you talking about?  Quit trying  to gaslight my posts like that joker with the "dot" for a username always does. 

What I said, when Batman under performed when it first came out, was that its financials were barely "meh", given that he is DC's biggest character by far.  I continued to say the same week after week as it continued to be nothing better than a distinctly mediocre performer.  

Only now that it is officially done have I said that it, in fact , UNDER performed , to what it should have done, as the "best batman eva" that caught every break from a wiide open  schedule for a month, to a China release, to the breathless critical raves that I linked early.  It had EVERY possible benefit to actually be a big hit, but alas, it failed.  

And now we see the full picture of its failure on that front as a marvel C lister in a "whatever" filler movie just dwarfed its opening numbers BY A LOT, which I actually said would happen even before DS2's first tracking numbers were released.  

Unlike some people around here, I actually keep my statements and analytics consistent.  

-J.

On 5/8/2022 at 6:11 AM, D84 said:

Fair point but maybe if we stop engaging, this person will get bored and leave.

OMG someone didn't like what you liked and pointed out its massive short comings ?  

Perish the thought! 

(Has anyone ever told you that the internet might not be for you? Lol)

-J.

On 5/7/2022 at 4:49 PM, Larryw7 said:

Who cares, The Batman is a much better movie than Dr. Strange. Cameos and storytelling that assumes you've watched fifty TV shows before seeing the movie isn't actually a film, it's a glorified commercial. [B】

Yes I agree with you on this.  And it sounds like you agree with me as well that Dr. Strange should not make more than Batman.

-J.

On 5/7/2022 at 10:57 AM, ▫️ said:

Nice. The equivalent of “No I’m not, you are!” 

And you really had to go outside the boards to find links? We’re talking about right here. Maybe you should go to those websites and whine in the comments section about the movies financials.

How about because I neither feel like nor have the time to scour this thread to bash some irrelevant shlub's misguided opinion from these boards? The fact is, there are PLENTY of starry eyed fanboys who have posted glowing opinions about the alleged superior quality of this movie, some to the point of hyperbole that is akin to the "professional reviewers" I linked to,  and have passionately repeatedly defended its subpar financials  Either that, or, like you, they have engaged in pathetic ad hominem attacks when confronted with anything that remotely contradicts their precious opinions.  Those people know who they are, I don't need to "call them out" here directly, linking to MULTIPLE "professional reviewers" who have said the same is more than sufficient to make my point, it in fact , makes my point even BETTER (like this little nugget from forbes' mark hughes "a glorious, jaw-dropping love letter to everything everybody loves most about Batman"   https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2022/02/28/review-the-batman-is-the-batman-movie-weve-been-waiting-for/?sh=eca89b143422  )

Fact remains, this movie underperformed well below what it should have, the book-ended performances of no way home and Dr. Strange now prove that once and for all, and all the excuse making, spinning, and equivocating in the world ain't gonna change that fact.   

Sorry sport.  Good talk. 

-J.

On 5/7/2022 at 1:30 AM, ▫️ said:

Don’t know, since no one is calling it the best batman eva. Your post tells us more about you being triggered over this. But your childish ramblings are welcome. Some people enjoyed it and some didn’t. Who cares? 

You're the one who always seems "triggered"

By facts, that is:

"Best Batman Eva!"...

https://www.blackwelljournaltribune.net/articles/12321/view

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-batman-review/%3famp

https://www.thecosmiccircus.com/best-batman-movie-to-date/

https://www.slashfilm.com/783792/wait-is-the-batman-the-best-batman-movie/

...immediately outdone by a polished, though relatively pedestrian Dr. Strange movie.   

-J.

A bona-fide C-list marvel character in a decidedly "whatever" movie is about to blow the doors off this supposedly "best batman eva!" film.   

What does that tell us about the state of DC films and the obvious curve that some like to grade their "success" on at this point ?

-J.

On 5/2/2022 at 4:30 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Am I seeing this correctly?

That at 3.8x revenue...The Batman did better than every live-action Batman film but:

• Batman (1989)
• The Dark Knight
• The Dark Knight Rises

?

It's almost like...it was a raging success.

All this constant spinning must leave you exhausted.  

-FYi the first hour of this movie was virtually unwatchable. 

-J.

On 5/2/2022 at 4:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

 Now at 2.2 x.

Another "raging success" for Sony.  

-J.

On 5/1/2022 at 3:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

It's not a matter of "doubling" the $25-$30 million The Batman will ultimately gross in China - despite widespread lockdowns.

• Fast 9 did $217 million in China
• Captain Marvel did $167 million in China
• Far From Home did $199 million in China

The *average* Hollywood blockbuster, absent Covid lockdowns, does $160-$200 million there.

Dude even forbes has acknowledged that the days of Hollywood making a killing in China are basically over , covid or no covid.  

Look , I appreciate you like, really , really liked this very average movie.  I get it.  But at this point your , "hey but what if this , what If that" is nothing but rank speculation, and there ain't no asterisks on movies' box office performance.  The die is cast on this mediocre movie.  Over and out.  

-J.

On 5/1/2022 at 10:04 AM, Gatsby77 said:

The Chinese box office was DOA for The Batman before the film arrived - because of Covid lockdowns in that country.

Lockdowns that were not in place in China when Spider-Man: No Way Home opened there.

Those are facts.

And the delta is ~$120 million in worldwide box office.

No way home did not open in China.  

And even if you DOUBLED the piddlijg box office this movie made in China and rounded up to $50MM, that still would only add a rather sad $27MM to this movie's total.  Why you continue trying to hang your hat on China, is baffling, especially considering the fact that more American movies have bombed there over the past few years than succeeded, "covid" or no "covid". 

-J.

On 5/1/2022 at 9:51 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Re. China - No.

China was intermittently open last year - and it's not now. Because Covid goes in waves.

And - fun fact, was *far* more open when Spider-Man: No Way Home hit than it was when Batman hit.

Again - 40% of Chinese theaters were shuttered due to Covid the day The Batman opened there; and far more are shuttered now, with China's two largest cities (Shanghai and Beijing) having gone into strict lockdown over the past four weeks.

*yawn*

I've already addressed your tone deaf, repetitious statements numerous times and will not be doing so again.  And as always, your ridiculous statements about "covid" are lame and beyond played out.  Move on. 

Cherry picking data, "facts", and analytics neither helps nor saves this movie from being the middling, under-performer that it was.  

-J.

On 5/1/2022 at 3:24 AM, Bosco685 said:

Spider-Man: Homecoming fell short of a billion. Failure.

And let's get ahead of this: pre-pandemic times China was a massive contributor.

Yup.  And a decidedly C-list character is about to make a boat load more money in its first weekend than Batman did.  

And nobody called Batman a "failure".  It is not a failure.  Unless you consider under-performing by about 200MM dollars to be a "failure".

I didn't and I don't call it that.  Gaslight all you want about china, while ignoring what F&F and Bond and Kong made there, and yeah , as I predicted, it didn't even come within 100MM of homecoming, which was released 5+ years ago , and had the same China release this thing did.  

I just called it what it is - a middling under-performer, especially considering this is DC's single biggest hero , by far. 

-J.