Jaydogrules

Yeah I've seen it, and no kidding. As a barely interested, jaded fat old guy in the stereotypical, secondary "mentor" role of the supposedly "younger, trendier" version of the hero that I guess people still widely prefer the original and real version of leading their Spider-Man movies after all. -J.

Actually there is. Watchchount.com And gpanalysis.com The final sales price is the $2325 that I said it was in my post above. -J.

Your opinion has been noted (repeatedly). Again, Venom RT audience is significantly better than Aquaman. "Name one thing good about the movie that doesn't involve Tom Hardy"... the star and title character? Tom Hardy is precisely what made the movie good. You answer your own question. Sony knew exactly what they were getting when they cast Tom Hardy to star and Ruben Fleischer to direct. And it paid off in spades. -J.

With all the foaming at the mouth rave reviews I sure thought this movie would make a helluva lot more money than this. Guess Peter Parker still rules after all. -J.

Obviously a matter of opinion. And while a lot more can be done when you're willing to blow an extra $200MM on making and releasing your movie, I notice that Venom is still sporting a better audience score on RT than Aquaman. As to the critics scores- well let's just say that after Venom (and then Bohemian Rhapsody) ended up blowing the doors off the box office, many of those same critics ended up mitigating if not outright walking back their earlier negative reviews, to the obvious benefit of Aquaman, which is a loud, miscast, chaotic mess of a movie, that critics clearly opted to hedge their bets on when reviewing this time, by calling it "fun" and "so bad it's kind of good", which is basically what they said about Venom earlier, but clearly didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of a fan favourite box office hit three times in the same season lol. -J.

Point taken. To which my response is: All of the purported subsidies/grants in the world don't change its big dumb all in budget of $350MM. Warner managed to dodge a bullet (again). This will take some of the sting out of the Justice League debacle, and its even bigger, dumber budget. Good for WB. Here's to hoping they make smarter, better movies going forward, which will allow them to reap better rewards and hopefully lead to even more, better movies. -J.

Yeah $856MM on a ~$150MM all in is considered a runaway hit to most rational industry observers. And as to your other inane comment... Yes google is your friend. Maybe *you* should use it. ....But here's a little help for you anyway (big dumb $350MM all in budget)- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/arts/aquaman-box-office-china.html -J.

Well that's actually pretty darn cool. Don't think I have ever seen one of these with that. -J.

Thanks GetM&I! And thanks for taking and posting that screenshot of my member profile at that post count. (Why didn't *I think of that?? Well I screenshot your post anyway for my own personal posterity Lol). As to the GPA decision, now we will finally get to see if, how regularly, and/or by how much of a "premium" they sell for (particularly on the bigger keys, and based on that NM 98 sale there does seem to be a sizable emerging premium, at least for now). More info is always better than less in my book. -J.

Probably (and hey, thanks for the segue! ) But It's been a couple of weeks now, let's check back in to see if this big dumb movie with its big dumb $350MM budget is even as profitable as the other surprise runaway hit of the year Venom was (is): (According to boxofficemojo): China- $295MM @ 25% = $74MM North America- $316MM @ 50%= $158MM Other Foreign Territories- $481MM @ 40%= $192MM Total Profits to WB so far- $425MM - big dumb $350MM budget= $74MM net. So....about half of Venom profits on more than double the cost. Better keep swimming Aquabro. Better keep swimming. -J.

Hmm well the ASM 667 Dell'otto "crybaby cabal" that consisted of all of maybe four or five determined naysayers gave up and disbanded at least a couple of years ago. So just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. -J.

Hmm yeah and I noticed you also conveniently ignored the sale of the direct copy that actually sold on the same day for nearly $100 more) (Jan 19, two and a half hours before, for $2325) as the not-remotely-"rare" barcode copy: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Spiderman-194-cgc-9-8-1st-appearance-of-Black-Cat-Marvel-1979-MINT-WHITE/352572478761?hash=item5216f51529:g:gxMAAOSwDmxcQmXX ....but I will assume that was mere oversight on your part, rather than a continuation of an apparent attempt to advance a completely fictional narrative. -J.

And now for my 10,000th post (not that anyone but me cares ), GPA has now officially started to separate out books with insets in its reporting, beginning with this sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Mutants-98-CGC-9-6-1st-appearance-of-Deadpool-Rare-Mark-Jewelers-Insert/123438716672?hash=item1cbd855700:g:gwwAAOSwDDRbyn86 (Yeah, yeah I know it's a copper book but the vast majority of these are in Bronze so I am putting the thread here.) Kudos to @gpanalysis for keeping up with all the more niche sales trends like this as well as to @awe4one for being the original person to bring these cool and on interesting books to the attention of the masses. Great work guys! -J.

Glad to be of service. Oh, and welcome to the extraordinarily exclusive ASM 667 Dell'otto club. -J.

Aquaman over achieved even the most rosy industry expectations. Venom did even more so. If you want to see a true clinic in bad amateur box office predicting try reading the earlier comments in the Venom thread lol. As for what aquaman does for DCEU who knows, all of their movies were profitable (execept JL) Venom has a better audience score on rotten tomatoes than this movie (not that I put any stock in that), but it won't hurt! But Venom certainly helped Sony and has officially launched their Spider-man-less movie-verse. -J.

Can't wait. -J.

My calculations remain perfectly fine and reasonable. As I said before, nobody has done a deep forensics dive into this movie's actual books. If someone did the production budget alone would probably be closer to $250MM than the $200MM everyone and their mother is estimating, and lets not even start to get into the kinds of dollar one profit participation deals that my friend Bosco only likes to bring up on Marvel movies (when he's not low balling DC movie budgets to make their gross multipliers look far better than they actually are ;)), but my goodness if we applied to the exact same unknown formula to Venom that movie likely profited in excess of $200MM theatrically . But congratulations to Aquaman for doing the unthinkable and breaking the billion dollar mark. Let's see how much if that is actually profit the studio so far on big its big, dumb all in budget of (at least) $350MM- (According to box office mojo) China- $285MM @ 25%= $71MM North America- $288MM @ 50%= $144M Other Countries- $447MM @ 40%= $179MM Total to theatrical profit to WB- $44MM Starting to look decent now Aquaman but better keep swimming a little while longer to make sure. -J.

Good catch. And a solid $29.2K a point. -J.

IM 55 does not have "Mark Jewelers" inserts, it only has a National Diamond Insert. I would like to see a photo of the underside of that slab to see if the tell tale blue and white edges of the Diamond Insert are visible to make sure it is really there. -J.

I agree with you that WB took a loser of a character and turned it into box office gold. As DC's only movie release this year most believed the film would do well (I didn't, I still feel this movie is just another over bloated, un-focused DC CGI cartoon mess, it is not better than JL and is in fact worse than JL IMO) but I don't expect even the rosiest forecasts had it doing "this" well. But yes, like most comic book movies it is essentially a commercial for future product. But I still think Aquaman could have been a real home run financially theatrically had they shown even a modicum of restraint on the budget. (Interesting counterpoint to Venom which is almost the exact inverse of this movie with its much smaller budget, likely less than half all-in, no Spider-Man, and people not only didn't expect it to do as well as it did, they were in fact rooting against it, and it went on to generate a very healthy $150MM profit to the studio during its theatrical pass). Shazam, thankfully, looks to have gone more that route. -J.

Let's have a look! $855MM total theatrical haul. $150MM-$175MM estimated all in. Let's go with the high number for $175MM. (According to Box Office Mojo) China- $272MM @ 25%= $68MM North America- $213MM @ 50%= $106MM Other Foreign Territories- $370MM @ 40%= $148MM Total to Sony= $322MM ...for a $147MM profit theatrically. #sensiblebudgetsequalbetterprofits -J.

Unreal. Sony has managed to make over 1.1BB on Spider-Man related properties in three months, basically without Spider-Man. -J.

$940MM worldwide after this weekend. Unbelievable. Now let's see if it has made it into the black yet/how much with its big, dumb budget of $350MM- (According to Box Office Mojo) China- $261MM @ 25% = $65MM North America- $260MM @ 50%= $130MM Other Foreign Territories- $419MM @ 40%= $168MM Total to WB so far= $363MM Congratulations WB you're now officially in the black and have made about $13MM on your $350MM investment after a month of worldwide release. -J.

Outstanding. -J.

These things almost always trade privately so I'm glad to see a public sale that will be picked up by the likes of GPA and gocollect for posterity. Congrats again on the epic sale. -J.