Jaydogrules

Nope. The very definition of "ancillary" tells you that those potential alternate income streams beyond the box office are the icing on the cake and not "the cake". Hollywood doesn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars releasing a movie worldwide theatrically on the hope that it might some day turn a profit on home video. To suggest something otherwise is so profoundly laughably absurd it boggles the mind. Again, studios *only keep about 25-50%* of what a movie earns theatrically, depending on its country of release. Quit using MCU movies from ten years ago as a comparison. That's just plain dishonest and weak (CA:FA didn't even have a Chinese release). Use a movie from last year, like Venom. Once again, Deadline did a breakdown on how this movie that made *$500MM more* than Shazam and Spider-verse's dreadful box office number, on a comparable production and P&A budgets, with comparable worldwide releases, and had a profit of "only" about $250MM *after ancillaries*. But, but, but... how can that be ?? How can a movie that made $750MM *more* than its production budget, only have a profit of $250MM, including ancillaries? The industry has changed, as recently as within the last five years. No one who knows what they are talking about or are being honest and actually *looking* at how a tentpole is being distributed and where it is making the bulk of its money is using that "2.5" multiplier to assess a film's profitability. When you actually look at an individual movie, just on box office mojo, it doesn't take rocket science to come up with a rough breakdown on how much a studio puts in its pockets and a 4-4x multiplier on a big budget tentpole is about where it's at. So again, please explain how movies that bombed at the box office with pathetic $375MM takes on ~$200MM all in budgets were "profitable", theatrically or otherwise. -J.

It's typically a *minimum* of $100MM on P&A for any wide release tentpole. -J.

"Nobody cares if a movie is profitable theatrically"? Lol Okay. Sure. And your 2.5× multiplier doesn't apply to at least large "tentpole" movies. In reality (and as you have mentioned yourself in the past), P&A usually at least doubles a film's production budget. And with China accounting for greater and greater percentages of a movie's revenue, a film usually needs to do 4x-4.5× to break even theatrically (it "might" be as low as 3.5× if the film has a larger than average percentage of domestic business). As to your contention that Shazam and Spider-verse "will" make money on the ancillary market after flaming out theatrically? Maybe, but probably not. For as we saw on Deadline's last batch of top money maker reports, even with a "modest" all in of about $230MM, Venom "only" profited about $250MM, and that was *with* ancilliaries and an $855MM box office. Similar to Aquaman, with its $350MM all in, "only" profited $265MM *with* ancilliaries and a $1.1B box office. So maybe, oh box office guru, you can walk us through how two movies (Shazam and Spider-verse) neither of which made even $380MM worldwide (such a pathetic result) both with $200MM all in budgets, are anything other than financial failures, even with a best case scenario for "ancilliaries". -J.

No it wasn't. Not even close. It lost *at least* $50MM theatrically. And with P&A, Dark Phoenix has an all in of probably about $350MM. This will be a financial bloodbath. -J.

Maybe, just maybe, with Shazam, *ahem*, "underperforming", and Hellboy and Dark Phoenix outright flopping, we are at last witnessing the dreaded "superhero fatigue" wall. Sure, some will say, "but Endgame". "But Captain Marvel". Yes those did beyond great. But those were the last must see chapters in an 11 year story arc. Let's see what the next solo MCU movie does. How about that totally irrelevant and unnecessary Black Widow movie Feige is insisting on making as a parting gift/severance package to the overpaid and miscast ScarJo? How's that going to do? There's a solo Spidey flick on deck next. Guess that will be the one that gives us a further preview of mainstream superhero box office life- post Endgame (though we are basically 0 for 3 so far). -J.

I think this is just happy talk for fans and to stoke some interest in it on the ancillary market. I don't think anything will come of it. But I hope for the two or three fans out there of the movie that it will. -J.

*yawn*. Propaganda for the film's upcoming video release. Wake me when these fantasy projects actually leave development hell. -J.

This was long before Shazam, Sha-flopped. -J.

Sure. We'll just keep posting fanboy tweets and hope one day some of it will actually turn true. -J.

I'm Ready. -J.

What an awesome addition to the collection. Big time congrats ! -J.

There was also a raw copy that sold a couple days ago for $520. https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-SPIDERMAN-688-VERY-RARE-J-S-CAMPBELL-LIZARD-VARIANT-NM-CONDITION/264339509367?hash=item3d8bdcd077:g:5BcAAOSwkR5c7Czz Definitely one my personal favourite covers by him and one of his best. -J.

Keep the Tos39 and save for the FF 1. -J.

The "logic" is that it is just another one of strong sales for the book this year so far. -J.

That will likely be entombed with me. -J.

Wow that really is a superior looking copy. Big time congrats! -J.

Boy, a couple of you guys really are broken records lol. Yes that is one of the books that sold on there for a new GPA high (irrespective of the meaningless and random "PQ" on the label). -J.

Guess you missed those GPA high sales for TOS 39 on comiclink just the other day... -J.

-J.

Well now he's a bona fide martyr to the gazillions of fans of the MCU, and his memory/legacy will be carried forward at least through Far From Home, and likely well beyond. Further, the "Stark Snap" will likely be what brings Mutants into the MCU along with an FF big bad or two (if not the FF themselves). And of course it's also probably only a matter of time before someone picks up the Iron Man mantle (or they just bring Stark hinself back one way or another). -J.

So based on results from the first half of the year or so, Tos39 is definitely still my pick for SA mega key to "explode" with the biggest gains this year. However... Definite honorable mentions to X men 1 and FF 5 so far this year as well. You guys have your copies already, right ? -J.

Probably because as recently as mid-February, the "experts" at the oft-cited-as-a-legitimate-news-source Forbes, estimated its final box office would be in the "$600MM-$700MM" range. Final total- ~$362MM. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/02/13/why-the-future-of-dceu-movies-looks-brighter-than-ever/amp/ And even after reality began to set in and later repeatedly posting misinformation about what the consensus production budget for this movie actually is (it is $100MM not $80MM and not $90MM), and completely ignoring the P&A expenses of the movie, which more than doubled its production budget (adding another $100MM+) and (also repeatedly) moving the goalposts as a measure of this film's "big triumph" and how it "saved" DC Films ... https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/04/17/shazam-dc-films-aquaman-wonder-woman-joker-batman-j-k-rowling-warner-bros-pikachu-godzilla/#29bb72c52e5e and... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/04/05/shazam-wonder-woman-aquaman-zachary-levi-gal-gadot-jason-momoa-dc-films-box-office/amp/ ...all the way down to Rampage levels ($428MM), the film still fell way short of even that. And despite having one of the widest releases EVER for a hero flick, including ADDING theaters in its second week, it is still the lowest performing DCEU movie BY HALF. I would also gather it's also because the movie LOST about $50MM-$60MM theatrically when all is said and done. It would take some mighty strong ancillary afterlife for it to even break even at this point. Indeed, despite the repeated and near desperate posting of one thinly disguised puff-propaganda piece after another on this movie by Forbes (just Google "Shazam Forbes" if you don't believe it), Shazam IS a flop by basically every financial measure. I know you are a big, big, big fan of this movie, and I don't mean to pizzzz in your cornflakes, but the numbers are the numbers. The chart you posted means nothing, first, the year is still very young as far as big releases are concerned, and second, fully HALF of the current top 10 on that list, including Shazam, are all either box office disappointments and/or flops themselves. Let's face it- this movie was the big money loser the same hacks on Forbes (and other sites) were weirdly hoping and praying Venom would be. Let's not forget how those same Forbes guys proclaimed, in a now embarrassing article, Venom, with its identical budget to Shazam, needed to "play closer to $400MM" to "make the endeavour worthwhile" (even going so far as to call Venom the "bane" of Sony's own sequel/spin-off plans)... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/ Okay Forbes experts, so what should we now call Shazam, now that it made $38MM LESS than even your clownishly lowball early Venom estimates, and what should we realistically expect to come of those far-too-premature sequel/spin-off talks, besides them now languishing forever in the proverbial "development hell"? -J.

One went for $59k on comiclink I believe. More realistically $35k-$40k now. -J.

New GPA high for a blue 9.6 -$14,995. https://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-CGC-9-6-NM-OW-W-1st-App-Wolverine-1557015001/202684879241?hash=item2f30f5d189:g:xAMAAOSwWlVcOZO- Book still seems to be going strong. -J.

Good thing that doesn't matter. -J.