JM2

Also, correct me if I'm wrong...but Aquaman has significantly better name-recognition than Captain America among kids/people watching TV in the late 60's til mid-80's.  Although yes, Cap was superior in the comics in the Golden Age.  The point of this thread is to analyze everything.

Interesting and reasonable comments.  My response/thoughts:

1)  AA-16 has been way too downplayed lately.  Verbally, in many threads.  Although the price (rightfully IMO) still holds.  An 8.0 sold for $300K a while back.

2)  No one has mentioned rarity.  Well in the 'Cap 1 vs Bats 1' thread, there is a comment that rarity DECREASES the price...which is actually seems to be true.  The comic hobby is the only hobby like this.  But will this continue??  Cap 1 is Gerber 5 and MF 73 is Gerber 7.

3) Issue #1 with cover appearance and instant promotion...is this really better than finding a hidden gem (or 2; Green Arrow) in the back pages?

4) Patriotic...In Aquaman's 1st appearance, he was battling Nazis too.

The 'Cap 1 vs Bats 1' thread was a match-up of different types of comics; thread was opinionated but not heated.  This one, on the other hand...I can see the potential for fireworks.

Bad idea for a thread?

6 hours ago, kimik said:

I wonder if it can hit $810M internationally ($800M seems a given)? That would be a huge accomplishment for a C tier DC character. 

Clearly, Aquaman is in Tier-B with Flash, GL, & WW.  Unless you make your tiers very small and say he's in Tier-C with Shazam (who's a wildcard due to his history) & maybe Green Arrow.

On 2/3/2019 at 3:39 PM, Mmehdy said:

It's just a matter of time....Cap 1 will top Bat 1 in terms of value and go into #5...20 years from now I would put the book at #3

Why?  Is Captain America inherently better than Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, & Aquaman/Green-Arrow?  Is it because 'Avengers' movies get the most box-office?  Does rarity factor in?  AA16 & MF73 are Gerber 7, and the rest are 6 I think.  The census reflects this...with Cap1 & AS8 having the most copies.

Anyone else can chime-in too on what they think will drive the prices 10-20 years from now.

Edit:  Cap1 & AS8 are Gerber 5.

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

So, anyone have a logical answer to this? Other than because it opened up in China first, or some other assumption.

Nobody knows.  These deals are private.  But we know that studios are now very conscious about increasing the Chinese %.  And some ways to do it are: Chinese/Asian actors & directors, Chinese investment, filming some scenes in China...and you can guess others; China likes to deal.  I'm sure that releasing there first helps.

8 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

You guys still describing Aquaman in here? 

Headlined by the the illustrious Jason Momoa and Amber Heard? 

#bigdumbbudgetandstillnettedlessthanVenom

-J.

LOL nets less than Venom?  Aquaman will finish over $300M ahead of Venom.

3 hours ago, kimik said:

You forgot the most important part of this - was there Chinese money backing the production? From what little I know of the film industry and financing of projects (and losing $$$ as an investor in a couple of small ones  ), the worldwide release in China + Wan likely means Chinese/other Asian investment backed a large portion of production costs, if not all of it ,seeing as the film was released there. If that is the case, then there may have been a higher % for the studios from China for the simple fact that the Chinese investors needed to be paid back. Just like any other industry, follow the money........

This is why simple models assessing the cost to the studios, return to from box office, and overall profitability are inaccurate. Studios put money in for marketing and a portion of production, but not the whole amount. Even then, some of the marketing costs will be covered for big movies by product placement deals and government grants reduce production costs (10-20% of production costs in exchange for filming/producing in that state/country). They sell a portion/all of the remaining production costs to investors to decrease their risk, just like banks package and dump mortgages/insurance policies onto institutional investors and pension funds as an example. This is how studios can afford to release so many films in a given year - they do not pay for everything.

Correct.  You're adding to my points.  And like I said...for big blockbusters approaching a billion dollars, the best estimate of profitability is simply the worldwide gross.

19 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I think I'll stick to the industry-wide accepted formulae that is widely used for every movie to assess profitability. 

But thanks, and welcome to the boards.  

-J.

But when analyzing Aquaman...I challenge you to look a little deeper.  Time and tide wait for no man; your formula is out-of-date.

But thanks for welcoming me.

30 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Uh no.

A quick perusal of any of Deadline's film profitability charts immediately demonstrates otherwise.  

But yeah sure, every country in the world decided to give WB a sweetheart deal on Aquaman upfront because everyone was so sure it was going to flop its way to a billion ahead of time (despite all pre-release tracking).  And frankly your assumptions about China simply sound patently absurd on their face.

-J.

PS: And none of this would change the fact that this big, dumb movie had a big, dumb budget.

Deadline probably uses your standard formula...because it's the only standard formula available.  But it's not reality.  The China deals are private...and yes, they DO like to give better rates to get things they want.  Studios plan specifically for China now; you're crazy if you think Aquaman only got 25%. This is standard info; I'm surprised you don't know this.  Not as talked-about is that the studios' money from domestic theaters is front-loaded...with the effect usually being that the theaters make a higher % on blockbusters.

Deadline is not going to analyze all this for each-and-every movie.  They simply list a few expenses and a few revenues.

In summary:  for billion-dollar blockbusters, the foreign/domestic evens-out...and the best way to estimate profit is simply the worldwide gross.

Hello.  You might have missed my comment, because I'm new and it took a day to post (1st comment needs approval).  So I'll re-post it here:

The whole thing about .25 for China, .4 for foreign, and .5 for domestic box-office....you can throw all that out-the-window for billion dollar blockbusters.  The worldwide-gross is the best way to estimate profitability.  Simple.

The studios (especially for blockbusters) negotiate private deals with China.  Releasing first there, plus Wan as director, probably got the % up to 40.  And...studios get front-loaded $ from domestic theaters, meaning that the % for the studio usually comes down on billion-dollar blockbusters.  So foreign/domestic evens-out.

The whole thing about .25 for China, .4 for foreign, and .5 for domestic box-office....you can throw all that out-the-window for billion dollar blockbusters.  The worldwide-gross is the best way to estimate profitability.  Simple.

The studios (especially for blockbusters) negotiate private deals with China.  Releasing first there, plus Wan as director, probably got the % up to 40.  And...studios get front-loaded $ from domestic theaters, meaning that the % for the studio usually comes down on billion-dollar blockbusters.  So foreign/domestic evens-out.