DC and Marvel movie results: 1978 to present 5 5

[Bosco685]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:48 PM, Buzzetta said:

I absolutely agree.  I was rereading some of the older posts from 2014-2015 on the topic at home. 

Was that the Rodney Dangerfield fart jokes posts or the Gene Wilder 'Stir Crazy' scene reviews?

[Buzzetta]

On 12/12/2023 at 5:06 PM, Bosco685 said:

Was that the Rodney Dangerfield fart jokes posts or the Gene Wilder 'Stir Crazy' scene reviews?

It is interesting seeing the talk of the profitability ratio of some of those movies from almost ten years ago. 

I didn't see any of the Stir Crazy posts from back then but I see enough of the crazy now.  

[Bosco685]

On 12/12/2023 at 6:05 PM, Buzzetta said:

It is interesting seeing the talk of the profitability ratio of some of those movies from almost ten years ago. 

I didn't see any of the Stir Crazy posts from back then but I see enough of the crazy now.  

When a few folks on here would use select numbers to tell their box office 'truth' that's what made me dig into the statistics and realize how much fiction was being blended in with some fact.

Hence, the revenue ratio without worrying about how to determine profitability, excessively adjusting for inflation (the box office wasn't even that developed prior to the 1990's) or throwing around inflated Marketing Budget totals to over-state how much a film flopped. I save all that for the professionals on here.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:00 AM, VintageComics said:

Other movie houses are doing it successfully. I've already mentioned Blumhouse more than once. 

 

Columbia Pictures: Napoleon - $200 Million Budget -  ($20 Million Opening) - $53 Million Domestic - in 22 days LOSER

Lions Gate: Expendables - $100 Million Budget -  ($8 Million Opening) - $16 Million Domestic - in 10 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Mission Impossible - $290 Million Budget -  ($54 Million Opening) - $172 Million Domestic - in 20 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Transformers - $200 Million Budget -  ($61 Million Opening) - $157 Million Domestic - in 25 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Dungeons & Dragons - $150 Million Budget -  ($37 Million Opening) - $93 Million Domestic - in 35 weeks LOSER

Universal Pictures: Fast X - $340 Million Budget -  ($67 Million Opening) - $145 Million Domestic - in  28 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: The Flash - $300 Million Budget -  ($55 Million Opening) - $108 Million Domestic - in 24 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Shazam - $125 Million Budget -  ($30 Million Opening) - $57 Million Domestic - in 37 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Meg 2 - $129 Million Budget -  ($30 Million Opening) - $82 Million Domestic - in 17 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Blue Beetle - $120 Million Budget -  ($25 Million Opening) - $72 Million Domestic - in 15 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Killers of the Flower Moon - $200 Million Budget -  ($23 Million Opening) - $66 Million Domestic - in 60 days LOSER

 

Hmmm... maybe not... guess Disney isn't the only one losing money...

[Bosco685]

Universal is definitely leading the pack. The TheNumbers' studio tracking is slightly behind.

It has one of the two billion dollar worldwide films Mario Bros.), Oppenheimer, M3GAN, Five Nights At Freddy's, Cocaine Bear and the new Trolls movie.

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

Fox Studios X-Men and Fantastic Four run:

 

[Axelrod]

If you take out the Deadpool numbers, which are only kind of tangentially X-Men, the R.Ratio drops to something like 2.9.  Which is...the same as Phase 5 Marvel?

[Axelrod]

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

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.

I was looking at this, but I guess this isn't strictly Phase 5?  That started with Ant Man?

[ThothAmon]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:56 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

So that was the Joker from the comics?

The writer’s version apparently but yes, incoherently, the Joker. 

[EastEnd1]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:47 AM, ThothAmon said:

The writer’s version apparently but yes, incoherently, the Joker. 

It was definitely the Joker to me... a very real Joker which was frightening.  Might be the closest a "comic book movie" has come to a protagonist and events that could really happen.  Reminded me a lot of Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver" which the film took quite a bit from.  (And "Taxi Driver" did inspire real world events... the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan).  Going back to Frank Miller's more reality based "re-darkening" of the Batman ethos in the 1980s, comic book writers have been mining the ever-disturbing nature of the Joker.  To me, this movie NAILED that... in a more shocking way than any comic book could ever produce.  A very difficult watch.  

Edited December 16, 2023 by EastEnd1

[VintageComics]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:28 PM, EastEnd1 said:

It was definitely the Joker to me... a very real Joker which was frightening.  Might be the closest a "comic book movie" has come to a protagonist and events that could really happen.  Reminded me a lot of Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver" which the film took quite a bit from.  (And "Taxi Driver" did inspire real world events... the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan).  Going back to Frank Miller's more reality based "re-darkening" of the Batman ethos in the 1980s, comic book writers have been mining the ever-disturbing nature of the Joker.  To me, this movie NAILED that... in a more shocking way than any comic book could ever produce.  A very difficult watch.  

I was bullied pretty badly as a kid and I also grew up with a history of mental illness in my immediate family so it was absolutely disturbing to watch because it was so terrifyingly real (and the Taxi Driver movie is a great reference).

This wasn't the Joker of any specific comic book, but it was absolutely THE JOKER, with a far more believable origin story for today's age than the schlock we were used to.

It was about as dark as you could get without going into slasher film territory. 

 

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:28 PM, EastEnd1 said:

It was definitely the Joker to me... a very real Joker which was frightening.  Might be the closest a "comic book movie" has come to a protagonist and events that could really happen.  Reminded me a lot of Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver" which the film took quite a bit from.  (And "Taxi Driver" did inspire real world events... the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan).  Going back to Frank Miller's more reality based "re-darkening" of the Batman ethos in the 1980s, comic book writers have been mining the ever-disturbing nature of the Joker.  To me, this movie NAILED that... in a more shocking way than any comic book could ever produce.  A very difficult watch.  

 

On 12/18/2023 at 6:54 PM, VintageComics said:

I was bullied pretty badly as a kid and I also grew up with a history of mental illness in my immediate family so it was absolutely disturbing to watch because it was so terrifyingly real (and the Taxi Driver movie is a great reference).

This wasn't the Joker of any specific comic book, but it was absolutely THE JOKER, with a far more believable origin story for today's age than the schlock we were used to.

It was about as dark as you could get without going into slasher film territory. 

 

Josh Brolin even came out defending the Joker performance.

THANOS SNAPS BACK: JOSH BROLIN DEFENDS JOKER MOVIE IN FIERY POST

Quote

The film, which opened this weekend, has its supporters and can now count Thanos himself among them. Josh Brolin's fiery response to critics of the film was posted a day after its theatrical release.

 

The post reads in part: "To appreciate 'Joker' I believe you have to have either gone through something traumatic in your lifetime (and I believe most of us have) or understand somewhere in your psyche what true compassion is (which usually comes from having gone through something traumatic, unfortunately)."

And although Capra disagreed with this because he had a family member that is in the medical profession that thought otherwise, a famous biocriminologist came out supporting the film for its realistic portrayal of a developing murderer. Which I was even able to get editors on Wiki to include in the Joker film's Themes & Analysis section of the page. Man - those people love to debate opposing views. 

Leading Neurocriminologist Considers Joker “a Great Educational Tool”

Quote

Adrian Raine did not go into his screening of Joker last Friday with lofty expectations. The neurocriminologist is a pioneer in researching the minds of violent criminals, having been the first person to use brain imaging to study murderers. Truthfully, the revered British researcher—who devoted decades of his life to understanding what makes criminals tick—just wasn’t that much of a Batman fan. So when he stepped into a Darlington, England, screening of the controversial Todd Phillips film, it was mostly to spend quality time with his nephews while on break from his professorial duties at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

But what Raine saw onscreen stunned him. According to the neurocriminologist, the script—from Phillips and Scott Silver—authentically traces the way a man could be driven to deeply troubling acts of violence by a combination of genetics, childhood trauma, untreated mental illness, and societal provocation. And though Raine was not sure how to pronounce Joaquin Phoenix’s name, the neurocriminologist was staggered by the nuance and grim grace the Oscar-nominated actor brought to the role—summoning the odd behavior, appearance, and social tics exhibited by those who suffer from certain personality disorders. Predicted the neurocriminologist, “He’s sure to be in the Oscar race.”

 

“[The film] was a surprisingly accurate prediction of the kind of background and circumstances which, when combined together, make a murderer,” said Raine, who was already considering integrating Joker into a forthcoming course at the University of Pennsylvania. “For 42 years, I’ve studied the cause of crime and violence. And while watching this film, I thought, Wow, what a revelation this was. I need to buy this movie down the road, make excerpt clips of it to illustrate […] It is a great educational tool about the making of the murderer. That threw me,” confessed Raine, still surprised by how much he appreciated the film. “I talk about all of these factors in the class, and honestly, it’s really hard to get a true-life story that fits all of these pieces together, let alone a very dramatic and stylized movie that illustrates these factors quite strongly. That was really a revelation.”

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/18/2023 at 7:15 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

Quote

The post reads in part: "To appreciate 'Joker' I believe you have to have either gone through something traumatic in your lifetime (and I believe most of us have) or understand somewhere in your psyche what true compassion is (which usually comes from having gone through something traumatic, unfortunately)."

 

"You can't be the best person you can be until you understand how bad of a person you can be."

That's one of my favorite sayings by Jordan Peterson and I truly and fully believe this.

Everyone has the capacity to do harm, and putting aside genetic predisposition, it's often just a series of events that can set 'good' people on a dark path that they sometimes never return from, whether it's addiction, or retribution and revenge, or crimes of passion, which is why I always consider all decisions so important, no matter how small. 

I believe that was the point, or one of the points of the movie, frankly. To touch that darkness in everyone to show us that it's in there. 

[Bosco685]

Quote

After making a partial post-pandemic recovery, global cinema box office is expected to retreat again in 2024, as the twin writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023 are forecast to have a negative impact on theatrical revenues.

 

Box office research firm Gower Street Analytics, in a preliminary draft of its annual forecast, says that worldwide cinema box office should weigh in at $33.4 billion for 2023. But next year could be 5% lower, at $31.5 billion.

 

The 2024 global projection would put the year’s total 20% below the average of the last three pre-pandemic years, 2017-2019.

 

The forecasts are derived from a combination of Gower Street’s Forecast Database, currently-known release calendars and additional analyst assessments.

 

[drotto]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

But they need to stop with blaming the pandemic and actually look at themselves and make good movies.

[Bosco685]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:29 AM, drotto said:

But they need to stop with blaming the pandemic and actually look at themselves and make good movies.

Agreed! Barbie and Oppenheimer demonstrated even in most recent times make something different and interesting and audiences come.

[Microchip]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:29 AM, drotto said:

But they need to stop with blaming the pandemic and actually look at themselves and make good movies.

Hollywood has gone from Armani to Armani Exchange.    

Chasing the quick easy dollar of streaming content filler's, knowing they'll still clear $500m on a film thats a 4 out of 10 compared to what was offered for the previous 9 decades of movie making.

Old films... 90's and earlier are trending.   Simply because re-watching an old good film preferable over watching a disappointing new film.

 

 

[drotto]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:39 PM, Microchip said:

Hollywood has gone from Armani to Armani Exchange.    

Chasing the quick easy dollar of streaming content filler's, knowing they'll still clear $500m on a film thats a 4 out of 10 compared to what was offered for the previous 9 decades of movie making.

Old films... 90's and earlier are trending.   Simply because re-watching an old good film preferable over watching a disappointing new film.

 

 

Does not matter if they make $500M on it if they are spending $200M to $250M to make it, then another $100M to market it.  Still losing money. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:39 PM, Microchip said:

Hollywood has gone from Armani to Armani Exchange.    

Chasing the quick easy dollar of streaming content filler's, knowing they'll still clear $500m on a film thats a 4 out of 10 compared to what was offered for the previous 9 decades of movie making.

Old films... 90's and earlier are trending.   Simply because re-watching an old good film preferable over watching a disappointing new film.

That's a great analogy and similar to the "sweet spots" analogy I've been giving. 

They hit the "sweet spots" of a solid food with the addictive, sugary taste that attracts the taste buds, but without offering the substance needed to nourish someone and eventually, the health of the patient suffers. 

You can only fake it for so long.