paperheart Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, TwoPiece said: Venom was never "so bad it's good". Aquaman can be brainless fun if you suspend disbelief. What is Venom, even? It doesn't commit to any genre. Outside of Tom Hardy the film is literally worthless. At least co-stars in Aquaman acted well (outside of Black Manta IMO). Venom is an incoherent mess that, without Hardy, is total garbage. If you want to contend this statement - go ahead - name 1 thing good about the movie that doesn't involve Tom Hardy. it ended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, TwoPiece said: Venom was never "so bad it's good". Aquaman can be brainless fun if you suspend disbelief. What is Venom, even? It doesn't commit to any genre. Outside of Tom Hardy the film is literally worthless. At least co-stars in Aquaman acted well (outside of Black Manta IMO). Venom is an incoherent mess that, without Hardy, is total garbage. If you want to contend this statement - go ahead - name 1 thing good about the movie that doesn't involve Tom Hardy. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: 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. 1 character (and variant on character) does not make a movie good. In fact, that makes it really bad that not a single other character is compelling enough for a fanboy like yourself to even mention. Just accept that Venom is awful, and on its best day, is not as good as Aquaman on its worst day. Budget-this and budget-that are just excuses. They cast turds alongside Hardy and it obviously shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, TwoPiece said: 1 character (and variant on character) does not make a movie good. In fact, that makes it really bad that not a single other character is compelling enough for a fanboy like yourself to even mention. Just accept that Venom is awful, and on its best day, is not as good as Aquaman on its worst day. Budget-this and budget-that are just excuses. They cast turds alongside Hardy and it obviously shows. "Turds"? Four time academy award nominee Michelle Williams? Three time academy award nominee and Emmy winner woody Harrelson? Emmy award winner riz ahmed? Your comments are so out of left field and ridiculous I can't even muster a response (other than this one, that is lol). -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faster friends Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, JM2 said: 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. If it evens out then I’m not sure the point of your post? What formula would you use to determine profit to the studio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JM2 said: 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. 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. Edited January 30, 2019 by Jaydogrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: "Turds"? Four time academy award nominee Michelle Williams? Three time academy award nominee and Emmy winner woody Harrelson? Emmy award winner riz ahmed? Your comments are so out of left field and ridiculous I can't even muster a response (other than this one, that is lol). -J. Michelle Williams and her character were cardboard. Lol you think that a 5 second post-credit scene warrants a mention? I would take a good, long, hard look in the mirror regarding the bolded statement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, TwoPiece said: Michelle Williams and her character were cardboard. Lol you think that a 5 second post-credit scene warrants a mention? I would take a good, long, hard look in the mirror regarding the bolded statement... Lol I refuted your outlandish statement by citing the easily verifiable acting bona fides of the cast, I have nothing to reflect over. As to the first part of your comment, Yes I do. This movie is Part One of a trilogy. They did what they needed to do and while i didn't love every minute of it, i eagerly await to see where they take it with the talent they have in place. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: Lol I refuted your outlandish statement by citing the easily verifiable acting bona fides of the cast, I have nothing to reflect over. As to the first part of your comment, Yes I do. This movie is Part One of a trilogy. They did what they needed to do and while i didn't love every minute of it, i eagerly await to see where they take it with the talent they have in place. -J. Awards that co-"stars" have won outside of the film does not mean that their character and acting were "good" in the movie. Case in point: Venom. Lol. No refute provided supporting their value in said movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said: Awards that co-"stars" have won outside of the film does not mean that their character and acting were "good" in the movie. Case in point: Venom. Lol. No refute provided supporting their value in said movie... Oh damn for a minute there I thought you were describing Aquaman, lol, which also cost $200MM more to make twice the bad movie and profit half the money. -J. Edited January 30, 2019 by Jaydogrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: Oh damn for a minute there I thought you were describing Aquaman, lol, which also cost $200MM more to make twice the bad movie and profit half the money. -J. Deflecting with excuses, again. Sounds like Sony had no confidence in their property and WB knew they were investing into a good movie with a great director. Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, JM2 said: 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. 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. Edited January 30, 2019 by Jaydogrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, Bosco685 said: JFC that suit is so gorgeous. Bosco685 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimik Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, JM2 said: 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. 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. Edited January 30, 2019 by kimik JM2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatsby77 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 hours ago, TwoPiece said: Awards that co-"stars" have won outside of the film does not mean that their character and acting were "good" in the movie. Case in point: Venom. Lol. No refute provided supporting their value in said movie... This. Exactly this. See also the current film "Serenity." You know - the one starring Academy Award winners Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway alongside Academy Award nominees Diane Lane and Djimon Hounsou? It's still hot garbage. The difference between Ghost Rider (starring Academy Award winner Nicolas Cage alongside Academy Award nominees Sam Elliott and Peter Fonda) and Venom? Both were hot garbage, but at least Ghost Rider has comedic re-watch value. JM2 and theCapraAegagrus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour 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. What makes anyone assume Chinese investments were involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
