CAPTAIN MARVEL starring Brie Larson (3/8/19) 5 5

[fantastic_four]

10 hours ago, Bird said:

The end of WW was horrible, once they left the war scenes and dealt with Ares it was just bad. Yet another comic book movie ending full of swirling dust and debris. 

Yep.  I loved the first two-thirds, but that last third left me wondering why so many critics loved it.  The only way it made sense was that they were mentally editing the ending out for whatever reasons.

[bane]

13 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Yep.  I loved the first two-thirds, but that last third left me wondering why so many critics loved it.  The only way it made sense was that they were mentally editing the ending out for whatever reasons.

WW suffered from having the same 3rd act as BvS, big punch up in a cloud of dust as someone pointed out earlier, these comic book movies are all cookie-cutter formula, what Marvel movie hasn't had a big battle or hero/villain having it all come down to a massive punch up though? 

Only Doctor Strange had a genius ending battle that broke that mold, all the others pretty much the same to me.

[fantastic_four]

27 minutes ago, bane said:

WW suffered from having the same 3rd act as BvS, big punch up in a cloud of dust as someone pointed out earlier, these comic book movies are all cookie-cutter formula, what Marvel movie hasn't had a big battle or hero/villain having it all come down to a massive punch up though? 

The entire reason I watch superhero movies is to watch super-powered people fighting, so if I don't get a big battle I'm disappointed.  The problem wasn't that Wonder Woman vs. Ares was a battle, it was just a mediocre battle.  I didn't care a whit about Ares, found him goofy as a villain, and I didn't enjoy the way the fight was depicted.  Grading it on a battle scale with the big Civil War airport fight being at the awesome end of the spectrum and Halle Berry Catwoman vs. Sharon Stone at the awful end, Wonder Woman vs. Ares was closer to Catwoman than Civil War.

Edited March 1, 2019 by fantastic_four

[bane]

30 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The entire reason I watch superhero movies is to watch super-powered people fighting, so if I don't get a big battle I'm disappointed.  The problem wasn't that Wonder Woman vs. Ares was a battle, it was just a mediocre battle.  I didn't care a whit about Ares, found him goofy as a villain, and I didn't enjoy the way the fight was depicted.  Grading it on a battle scale with the big Civil War airport fight being at the awesome end of the spectrum and Halle Berry Catwoman vs. Sharon Stone at the awful end, Wonder Woman vs. Ares was closer to Catwoman than Civil War.

I agree to a certain extent. However the Civil War battle scene makes that movie more Avengers 2.5 than Captain America, I will always feel that Civil War needed less characters to be a better, tighter movie.

[fantastic_four]

15 minutes ago, bane said:

the Civil War battle scene makes that movie more Avengers 2.5 than Captain America, I will always feel that Civil War needed less characters to be a better, tighter movie.

It was far more than Avengers 2.5, it was the first truly epic universe-wide crossover that Marvel first started back with the original Secret Wars comic.  It was more like MCU grand epic film #1, with Infinity War and Endgame being MCU grand epic film #2.  Which is fitting given that Civil War was a Universe-wide event in the comics, too.  I'm just as completely fine with Universe-wide films as I was with comics.  The individual characters get their deep dives in their own titles, and having them all group up for battle royales is a terrific thing indeed.  

If Vegas laid odds on this type of thing, I'd put my bet on a Universe-wide Galactus film as next up after Thanos.

Edited March 1, 2019 by fantastic_four

[Prince Namor]

12 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

It's safe to say they the theatrical success of Black Panther took EVERYONE by surprised.  

Spider-verse, on the other hand, has not exactly been a box office bonanza.  In fact, it has under-performed relative to all the accolades.  

2

Let’s see…

Largest December Animated Opening ever…

Doubled its budget in domestic gross…

Won an Oscar…

It only did $17 million less than Garfield Spider-man 2, and that’s with Miles Morales as Spider-man (who’s never had a successful comic book run).  It only did 30 million less than that lame Venom movie and it had two other things going against it: 1. A December release and 2. It’s ANIMATED.

It had to compete with Ralph Breaks the Internet still going strong, Aquaman’s debut in its second week, and even ‘Once Upon a Deadpool’ which did 6 million the week Into the Spider-Verse opened.

While other franchise animated kids movies have gotten destroyed by the Dec-Jan market, the Miles Morales featured 7TH Spider-man movie doubled its budget, set a December animated record and won an Oscar.

That’s not disappointing, that’s a win.

12 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

I personally have no interest in this CM movie because it is nothing but a cheap narrative ret-con in the MCU

 

Uh... they ALL are.

12 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

for the sole purpose of shoehorning this character in at the 11th hour. I don't like that.  That essentially makes this movie completely disposable. But not in the same way the pointless Ant-man and Wasp movie was disposable.  CM is disposable in a borderline intelligence- insulting way that repels me from it even more so than the terribly overrated, and absolutely charmless Brie Larson who they have clearly miscast in the role (I agree with @jsilverjanet up above, his comments on her performance in Room are spot on, you should definitely give it a watch if you are ever in the mood to watch a solid hour of unprovoked hysterical yelling, crying and over acting, which takes up more than half the film).

While I expect Disney to certainly make a technically proficient film,  and there will obviously be a built in audience of people who go to see it simply because they have seen every other Marvel movie,  I personally wouldn't be surprised if it hit Doctor Strange numbers.  CM is no Wonder Woman.

-J.

2

That's certainly what you and many others like you HOPE, as that would help your silly narrative. 

[bane]

37 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

It was far more than Avengers 2.5, it was the first truly epic universe-wide crossover that Marvel first started back with the original Secret Wars comic.  It was more like MCU grand epic film #1, with Infinity War and Endgame being MCU grand epic film #2.  Which is fitting given that Civil War was a Universe-wide event in the comics, too.  I'm just as completely fine with Universe-wide films as I was with comics.  The individual characters get their deep dives in their own titles, and having them all group up for battle royales is a terrific thing indeed.  

If Vegas laid odds on this type of thing, I'd put my bet on a Universe-wide Galactus film as next up after Thanos.

Each to their own as always. 

[Bird]

13 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

In fact, it has under-performed relative to all the accolades.  

Box office has never been highly correlated with "accolades" so this sentences is just plain asinine. Oscar awards, however, are highly correlated with accolades and it DID win the Oscar for best animated feature.

[Jaydogrules]

22 minutes ago, Bird said:

Box office has never been highly correlated with "accolades" so this sentences is just plain asinine. Oscar awards, however, are highly correlated with accolades and it DID win the Oscar for best animated feature.

Green Book won an Oscar too.  I don't know anybody who cares about Oscar winning cartoons (though for the record this is the fourth lowest grossing winner of all time).  Spider-verse flamed out at the box office.  Didn't make Grinch money.  Didn't even make Ralph 2 money.  Barely made LEGO Batman money on a larger budget, and that was considered a disappointment too.  Lowest grossing  "Spider-man" movie by HALF. Complete disinterest from the international market.  Overblown marketing budget guaranteed movie enters home video market deep in the red.  Needs massive performance there to just break even.

Should have been a video release on one-third the budget in the first place.  

-J.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Jaydogrules]

11 hours ago, I like pie said:

Let me get see if I've got this correct. You're saying you don't own any Captain Marvel first appearances?

Ah  you got me.  Everything about this movie looks like hot garbage because Captain Marvel books are out of my price range. 

-J.

[Bosco685]

37 minutes ago, bane said:

Each

I

37 minutes ago, bane said:

to

have

37 minutes ago, bane said:

their

to

37 minutes ago, bane said:

own

agree

37 minutes ago, bane said:

as

with

37 minutes ago, bane said:

always

 

this

37 minutes ago, bane said:

.

thinking.

37 minutes ago, bane said:

[Callaway29]

My only thought, if I were to attempt to place myself in a Disney executive’s shoes, against galactus being the next big bad is...he is also purple heavy. After typing this it sounds ridiculous, even to me, but the thought was still there. 

I could see the average movie goer thinking, “oh another big purple bad guy that’s destroying large chunks of the universe, yawn”...

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

 Spider-verse flamed out at the box office.  Didn't make Grinch money.  Didn't even make Ralph 2 money.  Barely made LEGO Batman money on a larger budget, and that was considered a disappointment too.  Lowest grossing  "Spider-man" movie by HALF. Complete disinterest from the international market.  Overblown marketing budget guaranteed movie enters home video market deep in the red.  Needs massive performance there to just break even.

Should have been a video release on one-third the budget in the first place.  

-J.

Sigh... Let's see.

"Spider-verse flamed out at the box office."

No. Flaming out is a film like Justice League -- which made 40% of its entire domestic run in its first weekend. 

Spider-verse did the exact opposite, making less than 20% of its total domestic take its first weekend. Per Forbes' Scott Mendelson, its 5.29x (so far) opening weekend multiplier makes it the leggiest comic book film since Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles back in 1990.

Which means? People liked it, and word-of-mouth continues to drive people to see it, even 12+ weeks later.

"Lowest-grossing Spider-Man movie" is irrelevant because a) animated films are different beasts and b) it's budget-to-gross revenue is solidly in the top half of all the Spider-Man films. Bosco's chart clearly shows this, that its percentage profitability is far higher than Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man 2 -- even moreso when you consider that more than half of its take is domestic, meaning the majority of the revenue goes back to Sony.

"Overblown marketing budget" -- first, I've seen (and you've provided) no source for your assertions on the marketing budget, and it's *highly* unusual for a studio to spend 100-120% of a film's budget on marketing *unless* it's a cheap Blumhouse horror production, where they spend $20M to promote a $4.5M film like Get Out. More importantly? I provided a source that showed major worldwide brand sponsorships for the film totaled $115M in value. Even if the brands didn't specifically *pay* $115M for that advertising, they certainly paid millions, which (obviously) off-sets the marketing expense.

Finally, It's already profitable from theatrical alone. Any other take isn't just hyperbole, it's just wrong.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Gatsby77

[Jaydogrules]

20 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Sigh... Let's see.

"Spider-verse flamed out at the box office."

No. Flaming out is a film like Justice League -- which made 40% of its entire domestic run in its first weekend. 

Spider-verse did the exact opposite, making less than 20% of its total domestic take its first weekend. Per Forbes' Scott Mendelson, its 5.29x (so far) opening weekend multiplier makes it the leggiest comic book film since Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles back in 1990.

Which means? People liked it, and word-of-mouth continues to drive people to see it, even 12+ weeks later.

"Lowest-grossing Spider-Man movie" is irrelevant because a) animated films are different beasts and b) it's budget-to-gross revenue is solidly in the top half of all the Spider-Man films. Bosco's chart clearly shows this, that its percentage profitability is far higher than Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man 2 -- even moreso when you consider that more than half of its take is domestic, meaning the majority of the revenue goes back to Sony.

"Overblown marketing budget" -- first, I've seen (and you've provided) no source for your assertions on the marketing budget, and it's *highly* unusual for a studio to spend 100-120% of a film's budget on marketing *unless* it's a cheap Blumhouse horror production, where they spend $20M to promote a $4.5M film like Get Out. More importantly? I provided a source that showed major worldwide brand sponsorships for the film totaled $115M in value. Even if the brands didn't specifically *pay* $115M for that advertising, they certainly paid millions, which (obviously) off-sets the marketing expense.

Finally, It's already marketable from theatrical alone. Any other take isn't just hyperbole, it's just wrong.

Boscos charts are interesting but they are hardly gospel or even tell a complete picture of a film's actual budget/profitability, and are often wholly inaccurate.  That you are using it as some kind of authoritative source is ridiculous.  

Not only did Spider-verse flop relative to every other Spider-Man movie, it flopped compared to other cartoons released THIS YEAR.

Nothing you said actually disputes anything in my post (which was all factual), in fact you seem to agree with it.  I don't care about the typical Scott Mendelson "here's-why-this-movie-that-isn't-really-a-success-is-a-success" talking points.

It did not make money (theatrically). Should have been a redbox rental on a fraction of the budget. 

-J.

[Bosco685]

15 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Boscos charts are interesting but they are hardly gospel or even tell a complete picture of a film's actual budget/profitability, and are often wholly inaccurate.

I'll have to inform Box Office Mojo, Box Office PRO, the-Numbers and all the established tracking sites. Their numbers are wholly inaccurate. Hopefully you open up a consulting practice soon so they can 'learn it right'.

[Gatsby77]

16 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

It did not make money (theatrically).

This. This is the patent falsehood my post disproves.

Industry standard for "profitability" is "makes 2.5-3.0x its production budget in worldwide box office."

The 2.5 vs.3.0 disparity is because some films make the bulk of the revenue in the U.S. (higher studio takes = can be a lower multiplier, i.e. 2.5x) vs. some films (like Aquaman) make far more internationally, so it needs 3.0x to recoup.

Marketing expenses are irrelevant because studios offset them via post-theatrical licensing, digital/DVD sales and (yes) advertising partnerships and toy/ancillary licensing.

This is industry standard.

The fact that Spider-verse is already at 4.0x its budget means its profitable. Full. Stop.

[Gatsby77]

P.S. Please show me a source that states Sony spent $100M on net marketing for this film.

That's absurd, as industry standard would dictate more like $50-$60M gross spend, and that number's likely far reduced by the many advertising partnerships (already cited to have $115M worth in ad equivalency value by Deadline).

True net advertising on this film is likely to be closer to $20M -- giving it an all-in cost of ~$110M.

[Jaydogrules]

10 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This. This is the patent falsehood my post disproves.

Industry standard for "profitability" is "makes 2.5-3.0x its production budget in worldwide box office."

The 2.5 vs.3.0 disparity is because some films make the bulk of the revenue in the U.S. (higher studio takes = can be a lower multiplier, i.e. 2.5x) vs. some films (like Aquaman) make far more internationally, so it needs 3.0x to recoup.

Marketing expenses are irrelevant because studios offset them via post-theatrical licensing, digital/DVD sales and (yes) advertising partnerships and toy/ancillary licensing.

This is industry standard.

The fact that Spider-verse is already at 4.0x its budget means its profitable. Full. Stop.

I did a quick analysis on how it is pretty deep in the red in the actual thread for that movie that actually included the bloated market budget (and WRONG, marketing is a pre-release expenditure, and as you correctly pointed out, often exceeds the production budget, that something else might "offset" it later is what's irrelevant, an expense is an expense is an expense).  Head over there and revisit that if you feel like it.  The cost of movies does not end at the production budget, as you just agreed.  It's still not rocket science.  

-J.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Jaydogrules]

8 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I'll have to inform Box Office Mojo, Box Office PRO, the-Numbers and all the established tracking sites. Their numbers are wholly inaccurate. Hopefully you open up a consulting practice soon so they can 'learn it right'.

Yeah yeah we all know you put your finger on the scales (or take it off) from time to time.  

-J.

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Yeah yeah we all know you put your finger on the scales (or take it off) from time to time.  

-J.

Or, you get so fixated on proving your point you belittle someone that shares facts. Again, remember how offended you were that anyone noted Spider-Man: Homecoming may end up less profitable than Wonder Woman?

On 2/19/2019 at 2:04 PM, Bosco685 said:

I try to avoid the profit prediction analysis. There are so many hidden details we just don't have access to until later on (if at all).

Remember when the thinking was Spider-Man: Homecoming was going to be a far more profitable film over Wonder Woman because it had a higher box office? There was even the assumption in no way was SM:H's marketing budget $140M.

Turns out SM:H's marketing budget was $157M, and Wonder Woman was more profitable by $52.8M. Who saw that coming?

Better to stick with the sales tracking and cheering these movies on. Sites like Deadline will sort out profit reality afterwards.

You were so fixated on wanting to hate Wonder Woman because it had so much attention (like it would detract from Spider-Man later on), you ignored facts. Welcome to facts - now.