THE BATMAN starring Robert Pattinson (2022) 13 13

[William-James88]

On 3/19/2022 at 10:06 AM, Bosco685 said:

As of Thursday's tally The Batman sits at 2.6x production budget and climbing

Great news. At this point, it's a bonnified success nomatter how many records we wish it would break. With that ratio, it has fully made back all it's investment, making everything after this pure profit and that's before merchandise and home video sales which is the most profitable part of any movie cycle (due to the cost being either none or close to none).

I watched the film for a third time this week and that first hour just flies by. The action scenes always feel great but that middle part about the back and forth between bruce, falcone and alfred just drags. But then you get to the rooftop where Selina has that dirty cop and the film just goes right back to that brisk pace. I love the look and feel of the film and of Pattinson's Batman so I decided to go back and watch the Dark Knight which is usually held as the true gold standard for Batman (and blockbuster movies in general). And well, yeah, the Dark Knight is one hell of a beast of a film. Perfect pacing, amazing visuals, very inventive and just an absolutely killer performance by Heath Ledger. He just feels so real, it's scary. Seeing him on screen is perfection, but I did feel like there were elements of The Batman that make is just as worthwhile and important to Batman lore as The Dark Knight. I'll give a little rundown and compare.

Villains: yeah, while the take on the Riddler in The Batman was good, Heath Ledger's Joker is probably the best villain I've ever seen in a film. And while the Harvey Dent thing may be rushed (at least the conclusion of that), it's still a solid telling. Love the scene in the car with Maroni.

Batman's look: I think both are as good. I forgot how bad the neck area of the early Batman Begins suit was and it was really jarring while watching the beginning of the Dark Knight but then he gets the better articulated suit and it's so much better and iconic that I realize how I could have forgotten about the earlier one. Oddly enough, for a realistic take on Batman, the cowl is very cartoony. I think it looks great, but it looks far more detailed than I remember. As for the Battinson, the suit is really good and I love the placement of the cape, very much in line with my favourite look of Batman, what I picture in my head, and the cowl looks more realistic, less at odds with the aesthetic of the film. I don't like those damn seams, but the folds which make the brown are excellent and I like the profile more, along with the angle of the nose (Bale's is more demonic and pointy) especially with how much of the lower jaw is exposed. Very reminiscent of how Jim Lee draws those parts of the cowl. I do preffer the symbol on Pattison's suit (and how it's a gadget of its own), there is no contrast in that area on bale's suit.

The fighting: I think the fighting usually gets better in every rendition of Batman as the costume department finds ways to give us a more functional suit everytime. While the Battinson did rely more than I'd like on his bullet proof suit (granted, I still loathe how batfleck has someone shoot him behind the head twice and it's no biggie) at least it works with the vision of the film. He will not use guns and yet has to deal with them constantly, so bullet proof armour is essential. The fighting is fine here, there are glimpses at greatness but we are still far from what I feel can be truly accomplished with Batman (just check the Batman vs Shredder fight in the Batman TMNT film). This actually reminded me a lot of how it looked like when I was playing the arkham game the first time and I hadn't fully perfected the counter (or i'd still try to get a strike in rather than counter). So that was fun, even though it meant it reminded me of an amateurish Batman. Bale's fighting is slow and stilted in the Dark Knight. I'd say it's the aspect that aged the worst after we've seen the later iterations. The Hong Kong sequence is the best part when it comes to action resulting from Batman alone but that's because the fighting is interwoven within an amazing setpiece.

Action: Dark Knight is better. While Batman's fighting isn't great, there is nothing in The Batman that beats the whole bit with the Bat pod and the truck, or the bazooka drive by. Of course, it isn't aiming to beat that, this isn't that type of film, which is fine. But if someone is looking for a great action film, one is obviously a better choice. That Hong Kong scene is also great. It feels like a scene straight from the comics with an established Batman that can just accomplish any mission he sets for himself. Not a fan of the final set piece which I feel is deliberately disorienting to hide the limitations in the fighting. There are 2 bits from the Dark Knight that I never liked that opinion didn't change on my latest viewing and they are both about people suffering greater impacts than the scene shows. First it's when the bus crashes into a goon at the beginning, I don't feel the impact at all. And same for when Batman crashes when avoiding the Joker. I think both are to keep a PG 13 rating but it really makes those scenes suffer. As does the bit with the pencil trick and killing Gamble. Both feel more tam then they should be.

Bruce Wayne: I preffer the way Bruce interacts with Alfred in the Dark Knight but I don't like the doofus Bruce Wayne persona. I really like the take on Bruce in The Batman. It really drives how consumed he is that he cannot simply be Bruce. I really like him having sunglasses indoors. It nears parody of Lego Batman's Darkness No Parents song but I still like that they went all the way with it. Those moments with batman unmasked made the film even more visceral. I don't like the way he treats Alfred though.

Alfred: I freaken LOVE Michael Cain's Alfred, the Dark Knight wins here hands down.

Gordon: Both are great, I have 0 issues with either take. Both seem to be lifted off the comic. I wonder why Gordon is so easy to do and get perfectly right compared to other characters.

Romance: I forgot how weak the romance plot is in the Dark Knight. What a waste of time. Obviously we need it for the Harvey Dent segment, I don't mind that. But anything involving Bruce doesn't add anything to the film for me. While I don't think it's great in The Batman either, it adds to the character. Here we see that Bruce/Batman is feeling a fascination for someone, it's a turning point for him. We get to see him being uncomfortable around someone else and it tells us how alone he's been all these years. I don't feel the Jim Lee kissing scene is warranted though. Batman Returns still isn't beaten on this front.

Gadgets and vehicles: Both are as good for what they aim to do. I always hated the Tumbler (odd how I realize I dislike the Batsuit and the main car in Batman Begins even though I do still like that film), to me the Batmobile was always more about speed and I usually associate a more slender shape to it. The Batpod in the Dark Knight is a great addition to Batman lore, I just love that thing. it adds to Batman's improved mobility. The Batmobile in The Batman is better than the Thumbler (for one, it's a car) and it works super well with the DIY aesthetic of the film. Plus I love how we build up to it, seeing it at different stages through the film until the full reveal. While not as stylized as other Batmobiles, it still feels like Batman's car. As for the other gadgets, I love those gel bombs in the Dark Knight, the release mechanic makes for a great visual, showing Batman's tactical prowess. At the same time I love all the variations on the grapple gun's usage in The Batman. I love how second nature it is to the Battinson, reminds me a lot of how second nature it was to me while playing the Arkham games. The release mechanism integration into the arms is a nice touch and, as a combo with the bullet proof suit, it shows how someone who hates guns would be able to face armed assailants. As mentioned before, the symbol being a large knife is really cool and I do like how he uses his utility belt. It's not peak Batman but we are getting there. I also really like his Batcave, better than anything we saw in the Nolan films. The tech used in The Batman has lots of screens, switches and buttons. It's tech we don't have yet but it has an analogue feel to it too, reminds me a lot the look from the Animated Series, like future tech done in the 40s.

So there you have it. All my thoughts on both movies. Pretty cool that while the MCU has all the money and the fans, the Batman films have a real special kind of quality. And as KAV said, we haven't even seen a true realization of Batman as he is in the comics and the games yet. But till then, there is just so much damn good content out there that I can wait. I also have thoughts on the dialogue but they aren't fair since the Dark Knight's dialogue has been so ingraved in my brain (both good lines and bad lines) that I can't compare them for myself truthfully yet.

Edited March 21, 2022 by William-James88

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

Now at 3.0x production budget, which is an easy metric to confirm this film is deep into profitability territory.

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/20/2022 at 10:23 AM, Bosco685 said:

Now at 3.0x production budget, which is an easy metric to confirm this film is deep into profitability territory.

 What?  

You may want to double check those "metrics". 

Production $200MM + $150MM worldwide P&A (at least, its probably closer to $200MM)=  $350MM all in (at least).

North American -  $300MM × 50% = $150MM

Everywhere else $298MM × 40%=  $119MM

= $269MM back to. Warner so far.

Which means still about $81MM (at least) away from break even after 3 weeks and absolutely no serious competition and still very far from anything resembling a profit.

To which I continue to say

 

Meh.

(But hey, it's doing a lot better than the last 3 DCEU movies so that's still saying something , right? 

-J.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

On 3/20/2022 at 3:45 PM, Jaydogrules said:

 What?  

You may want to double check those "metrics". 

Production $200MM + $150MM worldwide P&A (at least, its probably closer to $200MM)=  $350MM all in (at least).

North American -  $300MM × 50% = $150MM

Everywhere else $298MM × 40%=  $119MM

= $269MM back to. Warner so far.

Which means still about $81MM (at least) away from break even after 3 weeks and absolutely no serious competition and still very far from anything resembling a profit.

To which I continue to say

 

Meh.

(But hey, it's doing a lot better than the last 3 DCEU movies so that's still saying something , right? 

-J.

Oh nice...another Jaydog special.

The old "Not profitable unless it grosses 4.5x production budget in theatrical alone."

AKA "only 2 of the first 7 MCU films broke even"

AKA hogwash.

Because it ignores that marketing and P&A costs are off-set by such things as:

• Product placement
• DVD sales
• Streaming licensing
• Toys & merchandising licensing

Nope -- 2.5x theatrical is the "all-in" break-even metric (if domestic is strong); 3.0x theatrical (if domestic is weak).

Here, domestic is strong - so the film is (as Bosco pointed out) solidly in the black.

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/20/2022 at 2:53 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Oh nice...another Jaydog special.

The old "Not profitable unless it grosses 4.5x production budget in theatrical alone."

AKA "only 2 of the first 7 MCU films broke even"

AKA hogwash.

Because it ignores that marketing and P&A costs are off-set by such things as:

• Product placement
• DVD sales
• Streaming licensing
• Toys & merchandising licensing

Nope -- 2.5x theatrical is the "all-in" break-even metric (if domestic is strong); 3.0x theatrical (if domestic is weak).

Here, domestic is strong - so the film is (as Bosco pointed out) solidly in the black.

Ah, the old  "the ancillaries are (will be, hopefully) strong so the movie made money!".

No.

Each and every one of the items you mention (except "product placement", and if you are relying on product placement to put your movie over the top, then you've already lost the argument) HAVE THEIR OWN COST BASIS, ie, DVD's, toys etc cost ADDITIONAL money over and above production and P&A to produce, and , at least in this case, this will be streaming on HBO max, which isn't any additional revenue to Warner (unless you want to count "new subscribers" which is impossible to quantify).

That 2..5x production "metric" hasn't been valid since the '90's and the advent of the true global film market and the exponential costs associated therein.  Just like at No Time to Die as another worldwide release which had a $500MM all in. .  I'm actually being CONSERVATIVE with my estimates for Batman at $350MM, it's probably more like $400MM.

And even conservatively No, the movie has not made a profit yet and isn't even close to a profit yet.  

-J.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:54 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Ah, the old  "the ancillaries are (will be, hopefully) strong so the movie made money!".

No.

Each and every one of the items you mention (except "product placement", and if you are relying on product placement to put your movie over the top, then you've already lost the argument) HAVE THEIR OWN COST BASIS, ie, DVD's, toys etc cost ADDITIONAL money over and above production and P&A to produce, and , at least in this case, this will be streaming on HBO max, which isn't any additional revenue to Warner (unless you want to count "new subscribers" which is impossible to quantify).

That 2..5x production "metric" hasn't been valid since the '90's and the advent of the true global film market and the exponential costs associated therein.  Just like at No Time to Die as another worldwide release which had a $500MM all in. .  I'm actually being CONSERVATIVE with my estimates for Batman at $350MM, it's probably more like $400MM.

And even conservatively No, the movie has not made a profit yet and isn't even close to a profit yet.  

-J.

You forgot to add in your dream sequence:

• $50M to decorate a special trailer for Pattinson that covered all the themes to his previous movies in an independent film sort of way
• $110M to cover the daily special meals Matt Reeves demanded of oysters triple-coated in extra virgin olive oil and goose barnacles with humble vanilla pods on the side with Matsutake mushrooms as part of an 18-course hourly meal
• $25M for daily golf outings as Zoe Kravitz requires this to ensure sufficient sun baths as part of her cleansing rituals

If you are going to dream up expenses, dream big!

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/20/2022 at 4:55 PM, Bosco685 said:

You forgot to add in your dream sequence:

• $50M to decorate a special trailer for Pattinson that covered all the themes to his previous movies in an independent film sort of way
• $110M to cover the daily special meals Matt Reeves demanded of oysters triple-coated in extra virgin olive oil and goose barnacles with humble vanilla pods on the side with Matsutake mushrooms as part of an 18-course hourly meal
• $25M for daily golf outings as Zoe Kravitz requires this to ensure sufficient sun baths as part of her cleansing rituals

If you are going to dream up expenses, dream big!

All that's already accounted for in the original production budget.   

-J.

[William-James88]

FYI, toys have 0 cost for Warner, ONLY profit. They are licensed out to Spin Master, McFarlane, Mattel ect. And Warner will make money regardless of how many are bought by us or our kids.

Also, costs for BluRays is ridiculously cheap. Production is automated, so there is minimal labour compared to other products (like Action Figures) and they are lightweight and compact, meaning transportation costs are also minimal. And Blu Rays are also just additional profit since regardless if we buy it, they are already ordered by Walmart, Target, Amazon, ect, so it's guaranteed income with crazy margins for Warner.

[▫️]

Unless Jaydog is an accountant at WB I think its safe to say he’s just regurgitating something he once read which he thinks is still the standard today. Its all rainbows and sunshine in the worlds economy now so of course WB’s plan was to splurge on this Batman movie to break even. Because they love the fans and don’t care about their bottom line.

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/20/2022 at 7:13 PM, William-James88 said:

FYI, toys have 0 cost for Warner, ONLY profit. They are licensed out to Spin Master, McFarlane, Mattel ect. And Warner will make money regardless of how many are bought by us or our kids.

Also, costs for BluRays is ridiculously cheap. Production is automated, so there is minimal labour compared to other products (like Action Figures) and they are lightweight and compact, meaning transportation costs are also minimal. And Blu Rays are also just additional profit since regardless if we buy it, they are already ordered by Walmart, Target, Amazon, ect, so it's guaranteed income [[bwith crazy margins for Warner.[/b]

Incorrect.  None of those companies pays "crazy margins" for that kind of merchandise to anybody, the wholesale cost is extremely miniscule, and , in any event, entirely irrelevant to a movie's theatrical take.  

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/20/2022 at 10:30 PM, ▫️ said:

Unless Jaydog is an accountant at WB I think its safe to say he’s just regurgitating something he once read which he thinks is still the standard today. Its all rainbows and sunshine in the worlds economy now so of course WB’s plan was to splurge on this Batman movie to break even. Because they love the fans and don’t care about their bottom line.

Nice projection. 

As I said, I'm actually basing it on CURRENT global P & A costs, I even mentioned another CURRENT movie with a comparable budget that also got a global release (including China) as a comp, and the thumbnail regional splits I cited are beyond dispute, try again.    

These numbers, for DC's biggest hero are just unimpressive, sorry.  We are still at Suiice Squad 2016 numbers, and that movie was a late summer release, had actual competition,  and no China, and genuinely sucked. Not that. China will be doing much for this movie after all with its soft opening there (yeah, yeah , Corona).

-J.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jaydogrules

[▫️]

On 3/21/2022 at 1:17 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Nice projection. 

As I said, I'm actually basing it on CURRENT global P & A costs, I even mentioned another CURRENT movie with a comparable budget that also got a global release (including China) as a comp, and the thumbnail regional splits I cited are beyond dispute, try again.    

These numbers, for DC's biggest hero are just unimpressive, sorry.  We are still at Suiice Squad 2016 numbers, and that movie was a late summer release with no Chima, and genuinely sucked. Not that. China will be doing much for this movie after all with its soft opening there (yeah, yeah , Corona).

-J.

It’s ok, you just believe whatever figures you are fed. They must be accurate. Are you available to do my taxes?

 

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:21 AM, ▫️ said:

It’s ok, you just believe whatever figures you are fed. They must be accurate. Are you available to do my taxes?

 

Yeah, I'll believe the figures that are published all over industry box office tracking sites, and will continue to be unimpressed.  

-J.

[▫️]

On 3/21/2022 at 1:29 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Yeah, I'll believe the figures that are published all over industry box office tracking sites, and will continue to be unimpressed.  

-J.

So WB put out the budget for the movie. Then other sites published it. 

So you read something on the internet and believed it to be true? 

[Bosco685]

On 3/21/2022 at 6:29 AM, Jaydogrules said:

Yeah, I'll believe the figures that are published all over industry box office tracking sites, and will continue to be unimpressed.  

-J.

Well, since a movie balance sheet is like any other business P&L can you let us know the following filming incentives and additional credits:

1) How much Tax Incentives The Batman received for each filming location to reduce costs, and how do you know?

2) The Batman was filmed in both the UK and Chicago, USA which are known to also provide Cash Rebates to counter local expenses in addition to tax incentives; how much was that again and how do you know?

3) With any Product Placement Revenue how much was that amount again, and how do you know?

4) Certain USA states and countries also offer a Sales Tax Incentive and Lodging Expense Incentive to encourage local filming: did The Batman receive such incentives, and how do you know?

5) Studios are also offered Fee-Free Location Incentives so as to encourage filming in the area: did The Batman receive such incentives, and how do you know?

- B

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/18/2022 at 1:56 PM, chrisco37 said:

He looked to be in good shape to me.   He wasn't jacked, but he was lean/cut up. 

What did you think of Michael Keaton?  He didn't look like he could kick anyone's arse and he played Batman.   

He's thin, but he's always been thin.

Were there any shirtless shots of Keaton in Batman?

I can't criticize their physique if they don't take their shirts off. Bale and Affleck both looked the role of a physical vigilante, so their shirtless shots worked.

[Gatsby77]

On 3/20/2022 at 6:54 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Each and every one of the items you mention (except "product placement", and if you are relying on product placement to put your movie over the top, then you've already lost the argument) HAVE THEIR OWN COST BASIS, ie, DVD's, toys etc cost ADDITIONAL money over and above production and P&A to produce, and , at least in this case, this will be streaming on HBO max, which isn't any additional revenue to Warner (unless you want to count "new subscribers" which is impossible to quantify).

How so?

Did you not see the deluge of articles noting that No Time to Die had well over $90 million in revenue from product placement - well before the film's first trailer dropped?

To believe that The Batman didn't have at least $50 million of its costs instantly covered by product placement isn't just naive - it's intellectually dishonest.

But go ahead...keep discounting all of the above as mere "ancillaries."

The 2.5x - 3.0x production budget in global theatrical remains the standard precisely because all of those lifetime ancillaries cover the P&A costs -- yes, even now that P&A can be as high as 100% of the production budget itself.

[Straw-Man]

loved it.  prefer d.k. and rises, but like it as much as begins.  was fine with the length, only minor complaint was the soundtrack was sometimes obtrusive.