-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Jaydogrules
-
Posts
11,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jaydogrules
-
-
On 12/11/2022 at 6:09 AM, Laugh at Life said:
Yes
Interesting.
We'll see how this one stacks up in a few hours.
Thank you !
-J.
-
On 12/10/2022 at 9:51 PM, Laugh at Life said:
Same seller, different copy.
Is GPA still showing the 17k sale ?
-J.
-
-
On 12/9/2022 at 10:40 AM, ExNihilo said:
Just because someone plays a famous comic book character doesn't mean the person who plays them is popular. Would you say Ezra Miller is popular? It's all in the portrayal. And unfortunately, a character like Wonder Woman is hard to cast because the person needs to look a certain way. Did Brandon Routh become popular? I certainly enjoyed his portrayal as Clark Kent, but he didn't exactly become a house hold name.
Gal's not the best dramatic actress, but she does carry a certain charm to her. She played the part of Wonder Woman well enough in the first movie. If the writing had been better, I don't think we'd be having this conversation, which just illustrates how important a good story is.
Bit of a straw man.
Ezra hasn't appeared in a solo movie (yet) and has had a multitude of personal problems and bad press.
As for Brandon, actually yes he is quite popular as Superman, but he didn't have the benefit of a "good" movie or being ret-conned into a cinematic universe. He also only had one shot at the role (not counting legends of tomorrow).
-J.
-
On 12/9/2022 at 7:53 AM, Gatsby77 said:
Her qualifications were fine when she was cast.
And your personal criticisms of her acting and look don't detract from the fact that:
1) She's incredibly popular as Wonder Woman
2) Is a legitimate rising star in roles outside of Wonder Woman (which, for instance, Chris Hemsworth has proven he is not).
People give waaaay too much deference to these paid actors playing make believe roles. It's this kind of thinking that gave us a pointless "Black Panther" movie without the Black Panther.
Literally anyone they cast would have been "popular" as wonder woman. Wonder Woman is a famous comic book character. And the next person they eventually cast will also be popular. Almost all of the goodwill earned by the first movie (some of it deserved, some of it not) was squandered by the horrific second one. The new WB brass would have to be lunatic to green light a third one with the same people involved, at those stepped up pay days with an actress who can't act and a writer who can't write.
As for Red Notice‐ yeah I don't put much stock in that. Let's see how Gal does carrying a traditional theatrical non-DCEU release. I suspect she will fare about as well as Margot has. But at least Margot can act.
-J.
-
On 12/8/2022 at 7:50 AM, Gatsby77 said:
?
I think Gal Gadot's as synonymous with Wonder Woman now as Chris Evans is with Captain America.
Also - $20 million isn't out-of-line for her for Wonder Woman 3, considering I like pie was paid for both Wonder Woman 1984 and Red Notice.
(Yes - I know the other two aren't direct comps because they don't have residuals) But the point remains the same.
She was not only paid $20 mill. for her last outing as Wonder Woman, but for her last major non-Wonder Woman role as well.
She's too scrawny and she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. Other than being a tall brunette she was (mis)cast in the role with absolutely no qualifications.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 8:49 PM, drotto said:
Seeing rumors that it's all gone. Gadot was guaranteed 20 million for the next film and Jenkins was at 12 million. Gunn is moving aggressively away from everything that has gone before in the DCU. He wants to save money, and likely wants to start 100% fresh. There is a further rumor that Afflex's Batman has again been removed from cameos, and Cavill cameos are likewise being cut.
Looks like a full recast and hard rest is coming. The characters will be used, just not the actors.
Gal gadot was always a terrible, miscast actress, and on no planet is she worth 20 million dollars. If these are the kinds of ludicrous contracts WB was handing out to no-name "talent", it's no wonder they bled red ink all over the place.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 8:59 PM, drotto said:
I am seeing the same thing from multiple sources. Looks like a hard reset is coming to the DCU under Gunn. Looks like a full slate recasting is also likely. The remaining films being released look to be the vestiges of a dead cinematic universe. Will be interesting to see how that affects the box office for Flash and Aquaman.
I read something that Dwayne rubbed the new brass the wrong way and he's out. And that momoa may be retained but not as "aquaman"‐ but as Lobo or some other character, if he's interested.
I actually like this news. Absolutely nothing they were doing was working. This needs to happen.
-J.
- MAR1979 and theCapraAegagrus
-
1
-
1
-
On 12/7/2022 at 4:11 PM, Gatsby77 said:
All of which misses the point.
Such a detailed defense of "but it will make a profit eventually through lifetime streaming rentals and domestic & international licensing" wouldn't be necessary if the film had simply...performed in the theater.
The very crux of "Methinks ye doth protest too much."
It's also an admission that WB will lose money on the film *this year* as it depends on future licensing fees to eventually break even & turn this projected profit.
Bingo.
Hyper exaggerated speculative nonsense that has absolutely no realistic chance of ever actually happening based particularly on the "home video" revenues for prior recent DC films as reported by the Numbers, et al. This is the same "creative accounting" the same author used to also spin the under performing Shazam into a massive blockbuster.
That was also , notably , the last year that deadline published their "derby".
Or, in other words, nothing but wishful thinking today so that Dwayne doesn't look like the one man DC flop machine that he is.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 3:35 PM, Gatsby77 said:
?
Lifetime domestic Home Entertainment & Streaming is listed as $86 million, not $200 million.
I'm talking about domestic and international.
Meaningless garbage numbers that they completely made up trying to make this turkey fly.
They are getting absolutely torched on Twitter for it.
Rightly so.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 3:21 PM, Gatsby77 said:
I believe this analysis, but @paperheart's not wrong.
The chart clearly shows $390 million total worldwide box office gross vs. $318 million total costs. (Note: the stated total costs - circled by @Bosco685 - are wrong, as two sources - Variety and Deadline here, have stated P& A expenses of only $80 million, not $100 million). So here, total costs are: $195 mill. + $80 mill. + $43 mill. = $318 mill.
The issue is the studio only recoups ~55% of the $390 in worldwide box office, which is $213.5 million.
Let's be generous and say they actually recoup 65% of the global box office. That's still only $253.5 million in revenue vs. a $318 million cost.
Plus, no one's disputing it might not *eventually* eke out a profit - but no way is it breaking even *theatrically," despite the anonymous studio exec quoted in yesterday's Variety piece claiming that $400 million theatrical was break-even because PVOD revenue would make up for it.
So... you're buying the completely made up "home video rental" number of 200MM and another 100MM in "streaming"? Because this won't make anything near that, even in 50 years. Lol
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 3:15 PM, Bosco685 said:
Like I noted earlier, this is when certain fans break with Anthony D'Alessandro (Deadline editor, Deadline annual box office editor).
So you are saying the Deadline editor that always is pro-Marvel and pro-Star Wars but beefs up other studios's production costs is now pro-Dwayne Johnson and pro-DC?
I haven't used deadline as a legitimate source for this kind of info for awhile as I have seen their numbers discredited more than once. I don't think they are partisan toward a particular studio or franchise, just particular movies.
Unfortunately that article just looks like deadline spouting back WB talking points (ie, propaganda) to save face om a film everyone knows failed. But When even forbes and variety aren't buying the BS, you know you're in trouble.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 3:06 PM, Bosco685 said:
Not if you want to pitch as "Only I know the truth!"
-B.
Deadline loves running cover for movies they like. They are clearly pulling numbers out of thin air. Nearly 200 million dollars "profit" from rentals ? Sure okay. Pass me the crack pipe.
This movie is doing so great they fired the people who green lit and produced it.
There's a reason deadline stopped producing those "box office derby" articles.
-J.
-
On 12/7/2022 at 12:46 PM, Bosco685 said:
This is the Deadline industry expert that conducts the annual box office contest for which films were the most profitable that then a few on here swear by. But most probably due to this article now they won't.
Absolutely no one believes this.
-J.
-
On 12/5/2022 at 4:13 AM, Bosco685 said:
I get where you are trying to go in a quest to once again use box office results as a gotcha moment. But it's not that complicated.
Where the WB Studios executive team screwed up early on is that once it received excessive negative feedback with the second film, it over-course corrected and then kept doing this repeatedly. It had no faith in itself, yet realized if it could do things right there was success to be had at the box office. And if they had established DC Studios early on like Marvel Entertainment (and later Disney) had with Marvel Studios, it could have pushed forward like the Marvel side had.
Even with its later massive successes, Marvel Studios bounced around with its results until it landed at Marvel's The Avengers. That's where the go-forward secret sauce came together wonderfully.
Yet if DC Studios had established a clear and self-driven P&L owner(s) versus WB Studios tampering, that leader or team would have seen the slow buildup to a bigger film was actually much stronger than assumed.
With the later constant changes in direction with no clear Marketing message to moviegoers what the Worlds of DC plan was about, it's not surprising it didn't have similar financial successes like the MCU. Marvel Studios had now conditioned audiences with the earlier franchise buildup there was ONE way to do this - unless someone could convey how this all plays out purposefully to have varying directions with films, TV shows and streaming content. And yet despite its own tampering, the DC properties had many TV show, streaming show and animated show successes along with a few live movie successes. Whether connected to the 'DCEU' or not.
As horribly marketed and packaged as Birds of Prey was (and it certainly was), the timing disrupted this film making more money to hit that magic 2.5X-2.6X revenue rate number to clearly show it had at least broken even.
- Domestic Release Date: 2/7/2020
- COVID Pandemic WHO Announcement (official recognition): 3/11/2020
What worked wonderfully for the MCU is the leadership driving Marvel Studios took stock of early on though it had a box office failure (The Incredible Hulk) and a break-even movie (Captain America: The First Avenger), it stayed the course and corrected where needed while driving forward with a story that had been smartly marketed to moviegoers they were on an ever-expanding adventure. And over time, that resulted in multiple box office successes.
And for those that may assume "But the MCU did it early on and had that bump in the road to overcome" where comic book movies were not the norm, that's actually not accurate. Just looking at DC and Marvel movies alone (ignoring Dark Horse and other entity films), there were 41 movies based on these two companies since 1978. There had been much groundwork established before the 2008 debut of Iron Man. Especially 9 key Marvel movies that laid the groundwork for Marvel Studios.
Birds of Prey, the suicide squad, wonder woman 1984, super pets, black adam. Dwayne and Margot were the "stars" of two of those each.
The DCEU is on a flop streak to end all flop streaks. When your "BEST" performer is yet another Batman movie, it's time to pause and reflect. It may even be time to blow the whole thing up and start over again in a decade or so.
-J.
-
On 12/5/2022 at 4:59 AM, drotto said:
There is a fraction of the money in streaming on your own service then the older model of selling post theatrical rights. That is why WB is going back to the old model. So once the theatrical run is over, the film has made the bulk it will. Also, it is hinted the merchandise sales are way down across the MCU.
This movie needs to make North of $700 million to be profitable. Yes, it will make money, but it is way down, and budgets and marketing are way up. They spent $250 to make this, and at leat $150 in marketing. Domestically, Disney keeps about 55% of the Box Office. International they keep about 45%. So st $394 domestic that is $217, and at $340 international that is $151. So right now Disney has made about $368. This is where the current about 2.8 multiple comes from, and one of the current MCU issues. That multiple is a little more forgiving, but still puts the break even at $700. These movies have big budgets with lower returns.
Forbes just did an autopsy on the failure of Black Adam and basically put the "break even" multiple at 3x production, at least.
I imagine for Disney and their huge marketing machine, it's closer to 3.5x.
A completely unsustainable business model, and I suspect why the stock is in the toilet and the CEO was fired.
-J.
-
On 12/4/2022 at 8:20 AM, paperheart said:
slightly less terrible than initial projections, one more weekend at #1 to go
Good chance at (slightly) beating Batman now.
Probably worse than even odds it hits 800M at this point.
Although I wouldn't put it past Disney to insist it stays in (discount) theaters for however long it takes to get it to just barely crawl past that 800m for an "only" 550M face plant with ZERO competition.
-J.
-
On 12/3/2022 at 9:47 AM, drotto said:
$16 mil based on a $4.4 Friday is iffy. Even if it does, does the domestic get adjusted down? Looking more like $425 to $435 as opposed to $455 domestic. Is $800 mil total box office looking more likely?
Dude I'm starting to wonder if this will fall-ow in love and thunder's footsteps and not even beat The Batman.
We should know once the international markets are released tomorrow. If it's at 725+ it should beat the Batman. But 800 million isn't certain at this point. If this movie ends with a "7" in front of it , that's a failure.
-J.
-
On 12/2/2022 at 7:37 AM, Gatsby77 said:
Nah - context. Mid-week drop percentage is irrelevant because last week was Thanksgiving.
Example: Sure - Wakanda Forever dropped 71.6% from last Tuesday, but it also made $9.5 million in its 2nd Tuesday -- and $10 million+ in its 2nd Wednesday -- due to the Thanksgiving break.
vs. say Civil War -- $5.9 million 2nd Tuesday and $3.9 million 2nd Wednesday.
When the Thanksgiving week boost gives mid-week numbers 40-80% higher than normal, of course the % drop looks bad.
Today's % drop numbers are going to look especially horrific, but only because last Friday was a virtual Saturday, and thus posted numbers higher than the Friday before it.
Understood , except the mid week drops for this , EXCLUDING THANKSGIVING "week" have been bad from the beginning.
In fact, the only thing keeping this from being worse than Love and Thunder's numbers at this point are its opening weekend figures.
And that's with essentially no competition for its entire run.
Is this even going to make it to 800M?
-J.
-
Other comiclink result -
#3 book On the list-
Wolverine 1 Campbell- $11k
-J.
-
Final results from comiclink auction:
ASM 667 Dell'otto - $42k
UF 4- $33k
The gap widens significantly.
-J.
- I like pie and justafan
-
1
-
1
-
On 11/30/2022 at 3:11 PM, Bosco685 said:
The mid week drops are horrific and telling me this movie is nearing the end of its run, avatar or no avatar.
-J.
-
On 11/30/2022 at 2:47 PM, maloney414 said:
None of those books are as rare to get in 9.8 as the UF#4 variant.
I wouldn’t compare any of those 1st appearances to UF#4 Variant 9.8…
Oh but wait I thought that rarity didn't matter ?
Because I can get a first appearance of morales for $1500.
-J.
-
On 11/30/2022 at 5:38 AM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:
Yes, they don't sell for that… because they're not the real deal. Thank you for playing.
Really? Deadpool , harley Quinn, spider -gwen , X -23, kamala , carnage, etc, are all going nowhere also-rans?
Got it.
Or.... big red flag.
-J.
That was also , notably , the last year that deadline published their "derby".
BLACK PANTHER 2 directed by Ryan Coogler (TBD)
in The Movie Forum
Posted
You have a link/source to that by any chance?
-J.