DC and Marvel movie results: 1978 to present 5 5

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:37 AM, Amazeron said:

 

Definitely a new standard

[Bosco685]

On 12/6/2023 at 8:01 AM, Amazeron said:

 My intuition is telling me “locked discussion” ahead. 

Hope not. There is years of discussion and details in this thread.

Better to eliminate the more inflammatory comments and keep it semi-reasonable.

[jaybuck43]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:02 AM, Amazeron said:

“Popular” with majority groups. Not minorities. There was a lot of protest against these characters by black and Asian Americans at the time. 
 

Luckily, comics have gotten better with racial representation but it’s a shame we started from such a low place. 

I wouldn't even say majority groups.  Rather it was just aligned with societies popular views (just in the same way that the messages in today's movies and films align with today's popular messages.) Which is also why Disney and others hide older movies and shows because THOSE items also contained messages that were popular at the time, but are no longer the popular view.  Looking at you Song of the South (Zippity do dah), The Aristocrats (The siamese cat), Fantasia (They literally removed Sunflower because... yea). 

[EastEnd1]

If you read between the lines, all Iger is really saying is that PROFITABLE messaging is a worthwhile corporate endeavor... non-profitable messaging is to be avoided.  He's serving a reminder, not just to the constituencies at large (eg, Wall Street), but I think even more importantly to the talent that produce Disney's content, that the company exists first and foremost to grow profits and shareholder returns.  He goes on to say that this is best accomplished through focused quality storytelling (corporate speak for "spend/produce less, but make it better").  He's not saying to abandon positive messaging (as many have pointed out, a staple of Disney's content since nearly inception), but to insure that it is secondary to producing a strong story that puts fannies in theater seats.  Seems like sound CEO direction to me.

As for The Marvels, I finally saw it a few days ago, and kind of thought "ehh".  I'd enjoyed the first Captain Marvel movie but this one just didn't grab me... a bit too formulaic at this point.  But knowing very little about the film, I did notice that it was written by three women, directed by a woman, starred mostly women (in both hero and villain roles) and was clearly made with a female audience in mind (the scene with Captain Marvel singing like a costumed Disney princess pretty much nails it ).  And despite all the chatter about the film, I walked out with one thought... there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.   

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by EastEnd1

[Chip Cataldo]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:51 PM, VintageComics said:

 

Wow, dude. If I told my daughters and exes how you people are portraying women they'd want to meet you in Phil's parking lot for a smackdown.

Roy, based on Jay's post I didn't see anything there where he said that's how HE was portraying women...just how *society* was.

[VintageComics]

On 12/6/2023 at 10:17 AM, Amazeron said:

Something to note: A big talking point about these movies is that “they’re bad because they were written by women.” Not all will say that out loud but they think it .

This is utterly ridiculous, political baiting and you did it (unsuccessfully) in the Mary Shelley Frankenstein discussion as well. 

As someone with many successful daughters and female ex's and friends, you're doing yourself a disservice by baiting people this way constantly. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/6/2023 at 10:17 AM, Amazeron said:

Even in modern society, it’s near impossible for women to break into / get the same opportunities as men in the creative industry. These companies were built on male privilege, whether people like it or not. Women are paid less and given less power over film. (https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2022/10/12/uncovering-hollywoods-contribution-to-the-gender-pay-gap/#:~:text=Even at the “superstar” level,film between the two genders.)

The evidence about "privilege" is manufactured. 

Men are less agreeable psychologically. Women are MORE agreeable psychologically. 

This is why many men succeed where women don't. They push harder and sacrifice their relationships where women acquiesce more and won't sacrifice relationships to succeed as readily. 

This is ALSO why WOMEN succeed where men don't. 

This leads women to dominate in certain industries and men to dominate in other industries. 

For example, there is FEMALE PRIVILEGE in the caregiving industry, because women are more conscientious. Should we try to force men into there, or should women dominate that industry? Forcing men in would in my opinion allow less qualified people into that industry. 

This is why men succeed in industries where sacrificing their families is necessary. 

The majority of people who die young, get addicted, turn to crime, end up in jail or die from crime are all men. Wait, where's the privilege? 

Do you REALLY want EVERYTHING to be equal? 

Your logic is not sound.  

Edited December 6, 2023 by VintageComics

[Bosco685]

Going back to the real intent of this thread...

So at this point across 121 DC/Marvel movies costing a combined $16.6 Billion USD generating $61.3 Billion USD not accounting for USD inflation which would be questionable since the market matured drastically in the 90's internationally.

[VintageComics]

On 12/6/2023 at 1:10 PM, Bosco685 said:

Going back to the real intent of this thread...

So at this point across 121 DC/Marvel movies costing a combined $16.6 Billion USD generating $61.3 Billion USD not accounting for USD inflation which would be questionable since the market matured drastically in the 90's internationally.

Bosco, because there is so much talk about Disney's movie profitability, do you have any statistics that compare genre to genre?

Like, let's say in 2023, are there movies that are outperforming Disney in the comic book / action hero / superhero genre?

I'd be interested in profitability and also gross revenue.

For example, we talked about Blumhouse movies which generate less overall revenue but are highly profitable but those horror movies are an entirely different genre. 

Are ALL movies flopping this badly?

Are some movies or genres more profitable than others?

I realize this is an apples, oranges and pomegranates question but I'm trying to figure out if there are other comps to the Marvels flop that can help pinpoint whether it's comic book movie fatigue or is it an industry wide problem that people are spending less in theaters in general?

 

[jaybuck43]

On 12/6/2023 at 4:38 PM, VintageComics said:

Bosco, because there is so much talk about Disney's movie profitability, do you have any statistics that compare genre to genre?

Like, let's say in 2023, are there movies that are outperforming Disney in the comic book / action hero / superhero genre?

I'd be interested in profitability and also gross revenue.

For example, we talked about Blumhouse movies which generate less overall revenue but are highly profitable but those horror movies are an entirely different genre. 

Are ALL movies flopping this badly?

Are some movies or genres more profitable than others?

I realize this is an apples, oranges and pomegranates question but I'm trying to figure out if there are other comps to the Marvels flop that can help pinpoint whether it's comic book movie fatigue or is it an industry wide problem that people are spending less in theaters in general?

 

The vast majority of movies are flopping.  For every good play, you have 5 bad.  Barbie, Oppenheimer, five nights at Freddie's, Taylor Swift are you "Outperforms".  (I left out Sound of Freedom because that was basically a gofundme operation).  But even your established "Action Hero" films did not play well.  

MI Dead Reckoning did most of its money overseas, and didn't even do 2x its Production Budget.

Fast X (Which is ostensibly a mecha film, kinda like Gundam etc.) did roughly 2.1x its production budget, with 80% of its revenue coming from overseas. 

John Wick #4 did ok, but worse than #3.  

Most of the money was in Kids movies (TMNT, Super Mario Brothers, Spider-Man Across the Spider-verse)

Even super films weren't adverse to this.  Scorsese bombed tremendously with Killers of the flower moon  $154 million global box against a $200 million budget.  Easily one of his worst performing films, especially if it doesn't do well in the Oscars (which it is not looking likely).  

[Buzzetta]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:20 PM, jaybuck43 said:

The vast majority of movies are flopping.  For every good play, you have 5 bad.  Barbie, Oppenheimer, five nights at Freddie's, Taylor Swift are you "Outperforms".  (I left out Sound of Freedom because that was basically a gofundme operation).  But even your established "Action Hero" films did not play well.  

MI Dead Reckoning did most of its money overseas, and didn't even do 2x its Production Budget.

Fast X (Which is ostensibly a mecha film, kinda like Gundam etc.) did roughly 2.1x its production budget, with 80% of its revenue coming from overseas. 

John Wick #4 did ok, but worse than #3.  

Most of the money was in Kids movies (TMNT, Super Mario Brothers, Spider-Man Across the Spider-verse)

Even super films weren't adverse to this.  Scorsese bombed tremendously with Killers of the flower moon  $154 million global box against a $200 million budget.  Easily one of his worst performing films, especially if it doesn't do well in the Oscars (which it is not looking likely).  

Scorsese bombed with Killers of the flower moon partially because everyone knew it was going to be on Netflix plus it is a 3hr and 26 minute movie.  That has nothing to do with an attention span, that is just LONG.  I cannot think of any chair that is comfortable enough to sit in the dark and watch a movie straight for 3hrs.  At a certain point, nature calls.

In fact, Scorsese criticized theaters that he felt were in breach of contract by breaking the movie up with a five minute intermission.  His last film for Netflix was also 3.5hrs long.  Anyone remember the Irishman?  I believe that also enjoyed a limited release. 

I would like to see the numbers of Killers compared to Irishman. 

 

[Bosco685]

On 12/6/2023 at 4:38 PM, VintageComics said:

Bosco, because there is so much talk about Disney's movie profitability, do you have any statistics that compare genre to genre?

Like, let's say in 2023, are there movies that are outperforming Disney in the comic book / action hero / superhero genre?

I'd be interested in profitability and also gross revenue.

For example, we talked about Blumhouse movies which generate less overall revenue but are highly profitable but those horror movies are an entirely different genre. 

Are ALL movies flopping this badly?

Are some movies or genres more profitable than others?

I realize this is an apples, oranges and pomegranates question but I'm trying to figure out if there are other comps to the Marvels flop that can help pinpoint whether it's comic book movie fatigue or is it an industry wide problem that people are spending less in theaters in general?

I will not do the industry in general, as that contract would be in the higher range than would be afforded here.

But if we stick to the DC and Marvel movies as an analysis, you may be surprised at the results who is killing it right now. Even with only two movies released.

You would think Disney?MCU. But such is not the case, as even with some stronger delivery with 3 movies it had some lower results leading to a 2.9X revenue ratio based on the recorded production budgets. Profit is guesswork, as we have no visibility into all profit-sharing agreements with creators and crew.

WB Studios' DC Universe is no surprise how poorly it delivered. Especially that foot-in-mouth early announcement from the new co-DCU CEOs that these films had no go-forward importance, the moviegoers heard this loud and clear. Add to this changes to The Flash that would have led to a massive follow-up series of films (Crisis Of Infinite Earths) and you get 2.0X revenue ratio and massive losses.

It is little Sony's Spider-Verse that actually came out on top revenue-wise due to the massive success of Across the Spider-Verse, countering the losses of Morbius at 4.9X revenue ratio. So if it can cautiously ensure Spider-Man if sufficiently included in Kraven, Madame Web and naturally Beyond the Spider-Verse, the road ahead may look more promising than the bigger studios.

[paperheart]

Disney's disastrous 2023 (*includes some Wish-ful thinking on Wish estimates, so theatrical loss likely >$400M)

[jaybuck43]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:26 PM, Buzzetta said:

Scorsese bombed with Killers of the flower moon partially because everyone knew it was going to be on Netflix plus it is a 3hr and 26 minute movie.  That has nothing to do with an attention span, that is just LONG.  I cannot think of any chair that is comfortable enough to sit in the dark and watch a movie straight for 3hrs.  At a certain point, nature calls.

In fact, Scorsese criticized theaters that he felt were in breach of contract by breaking the movie up with a five minute intermission.  His last film for Netflix was also 3.5hrs long.  Anyone remember the Irishman?  I believe that also enjoyed a limited release. 

I would like to see the numbers of Killers compared to Irishman. 

 

 Killers is not on streaming and it was not a limited release. it just today became available for rental/purchase nearly 2 months after release.  It's also not a Netflix movie, it's Apple TV+, with a streaming date not yet released.  It's not a good movie (I saw it in theaters and was one of the few who didn't need a break).  Netflix owned the rights to the Irishman and never intended it to be a box office draw, it was only released theatrically to qualify for the Oscars.  Apple partnered with Paramount to have a strong theatrical run, which it didn't.  

[VintageComics]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:20 PM, jaybuck43 said:

The vast majority of movies are flopping.  For every good play, you have 5 bad.

And is that a new trend (of having so many flops?)

On 12/6/2023 at 6:28 PM, jaybuck43 said:

It's not a good movie (I saw it in theaters and was one of the few who didn't need a break).

I saw Irishmen and it was not great. It was long and slow and frankly, the actors didn't look great. Not sure if it was poor makeup, or what but to me it almost looked like it had the quality of sub-par a 1950's movie. Not the type of stuff Scorsese is known for. 

On 12/6/2023 at 5:36 PM, Bosco685 said:

It is little Sony's Spider-Verse that actually came out on top revenue-wise due to the massive success of Across the Spider-Verse, countering the losses of Morbius at 4.9X revenue ratio. So if it can cautiously ensure Spider-Man if sufficiently included in Kraven, Madame Web and naturally Beyond the Spider-Verse, the road ahead may look more promising than the bigger studios.

Sony seems to be onto something with Spider-Man and they could quite literally build an entire MCU type universe around this one character, if done well. 

[jaybuck43]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:54 PM, paperheart said:

Disney's disastrous 2023 (*includes some Wish-ful thinking on Wish estimates, so theatrical loss likely >$400M)

you left out a few:

All of the 2023 revenue for Avatar 2, at least $260,000,000 domestically at least for that, plus a huge chunk of that 1.6 billion international as well.  

The Creator

Everything Searchlight put out this year.

[Buzzetta]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:28 PM, jaybuck43 said:

 Killers is not on streaming and it was not a limited release. it just today became available for rental/purchase nearly 2 months after release.  It's also not a Netflix movie, it's Apple TV+, with a streaming date not yet released.  It's not a good movie (I saw it in theaters and was one of the few who didn't need a break).  Netflix owned the rights to the Irishman and never intended it to be a box office draw, it was only released theatrically to qualify for the Oscars.  Apple partnered with Paramount to have a strong theatrical run, which it didn't.  

Thanks, I was wrong.  Thought it was on Netflix. 

Side note, I have AppleTV+ for now... wasn't too happy given the price increase in relation to what it offers, but I do like the summer baseball offerings and a couple of series that I am on the fence for keeping it for now. 

[jaybuck43]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:55 PM, Buzzetta said:

Thanks, I was wrong.  Thought it was on Netflix. 

Side note, I have AppleTV+ for now... wasn't too happy given the price increase in relation to what it offers, but I do like the summer baseball offerings and a couple of series that I am on the fence for keeping it for now. 

Don't pay for it.  Best Buy gives out 3 month free trials all the time.

[paperheart]

On 12/6/2023 at 4:38 PM, jaybuck43 said:

you left out a few:

All of the 2023 revenue for Avatar 2, at least $260,000,000 domestically at least for that, plus a huge chunk of that 1.6 billion international as well.  

The Creator

Everything Searchlight put out this year.

stopped scrolling on this year releases at Haunting in Venice #47 and the Creator was #48

Edited December 7, 2023 by paperheart