X-MEN: DARK PHOENIX directed by Simon Kinberg (11/2/18) 4 4

[@therealsilvermane]

59 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I think you meant this.

But I think what we forget is Vuk speaks to how deadly the Phoenix Force is throughout the universe. Though by limiting it to just that scene and not the space portions, it is very easy to forget.

Even more so when Vuk demonstrates her powers in the room, turning everything into mist talking about all the destruction the Phoenix Force had caused before finding Jean. Though it is so brief, the larger threat could be lost on the general audience. That Act 3 would have supposedly addressed this.

This clip brings up one of the problems with Jean's Phoenix persona in the movie. Sure, Vuk is being manipulative here, but it's an important scene of the movie, and we're being given the impression that this inner power is something Jean has been struggling with for a long time. But she just got possessed by the Phoenix Force about 20 minutes of movie time ago. We do see Jean's struggles with her own omnipotent mutant power in the opening scene. So what's the power to be feared here? Is it the Phoenix Force or Jean's mutant power? In Apocalypse, we see a glimpse of the Phoenix in Jean at the end, but before she is possessed by it in DP. Do you see the confusion here?

in the comics, it's cut and dry, as i's totally the Phoenix Force. In Bryan SInger's movies and Last Stand, it's totally just Jean Grey. In this latest version, it's a muddled mix and thus both lose clarity. For me anyway.

Edited June 11, 2019 by @therealsilvermane

[RedRaven]

21 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

When did $362 Million Worldwide on a $100 Million Budget become a failure in this business?

Found what appears to be a decent article on the topic...

https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Money isn't the only metric for success/failure.

Some people. 

[NoMan]

was Dazzler in this movie?

[Bird]

1 minute ago, NoMan said:

was Dazzler in this movie?

yes,one scene unnamed. She was in a second scene that got cut

[RedRaven]

4 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Money isn't the only metric for success/failure.

Some people. 

When the topic of discussion is the relative profitability of a movie in relation to it's budget then money is the primary metric.

[NoMan]

58 minutes ago, Bird said:

yes,one scene unnamed. She was in a second scene that got cut

thanks . i you tubed it. i think i understand.

[Gatsby77]

41 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

When did $362 Million Worldwide on a $100 Million Budget become a failure in this business?

When Jaydog began insisting that movies had to be profitable "theatrically," and thus earn a 4.5x production budget multiple from their theatrical release alone and thus fully cover not just their production budget but also all of the upfront marketing expenses.

That's, of course, not how this works.

First, it means that literally more than half of the MCU films were -- by Jaydog's metric -- not profitable, and films like Iron Man and Captain America: First Avenger would never have gotten sequels.

Every major industry source uses the 2.5-3.0x production budget rule-of-thumb, understanding that there's a lot of variance due to the relative domestic/international split.

While advertising/promotions does indeed add another 40-100% in cost on top of the average production budget, from a quick accounting perspective, it's *always* covered by ancillaries (video and streaming distribution profits, licensing, toy sales, etc.).

Edited June 11, 2019 by Gatsby77

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, RedRaven said:

When the topic of discussion is the relative profitability of a movie in relation to it's budget then money is the primary metric.

I guess.

"...considered a financial failure" should probably be inserted to be perfectly clear.

[RedRaven]

1 minute ago, TwoPiece said:

I guess.

"...considered a financial failure" should probably be inserted to be perfectly clear.

I assumed that from context but yes that would give failure an explicit scope.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, RedRaven said:

I assumed that from context but yes that would give failure an explicit scope.

Well, I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, so I need perfect clarity.

[Gatsby77]

$362 million on a $100 million budget sure beats Captain America: The First Avenger.

Which, as we know, was a horrific financial disaster since it grossed just $370 million worldwide on a $140 million budget.

 

[Jaydogrules]

36 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

When Jaydog began insisting that movies had to be profitable "theatrically," and thus earn a 4.5x production budget multiple from their theatrical release alone and thus fully cover not just their production budget but also all of the upfront marketing expenses.

That's, of course, not how this works.

First, it means that literally more than half of the MCU films were -- by Jaydog's metric -- not profitable, and films like Iron Man and Captain America: First Avenger would never have gotten sequels.

Every major industry source uses the 2.5-3.0x production.

While advertising/promotions does indeed add another 40-100% in cost on top of the average production budget, from a quick accounting perspective, it's *always* covered by ancillaries (video and streaming distribution profits, licensing, toy sales, etc.).

Nope.

The very definition of "ancillary" tells you that those potential alternate income streams beyond the box office are the icing on the cake and not "the cake". Hollywood doesn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars releasing a movie worldwide theatrically on the hope that it might some day turn a profit on home video.  To suggest something otherwise is so profoundly laughably absurd it boggles the mind.  

Again, studios *only keep about 25-50%* of what a movie earns theatrically, depending on its country of release.  Quit using MCU movies from ten years ago as a comparison.  That's just plain dishonest and weak (CA:FA didn't even have a Chinese release).  Use a movie from last year, like Venom.  Once again, Deadline did a breakdown on how this movie that made *$500MM more* than Shazam and Spider-verse's dreadful box office number, on a comparable production and P&A budgets, with comparable worldwide releases, and had a profit of "only" about $250MM *after ancillaries*.  But, but, but... how can that be ??  How can a movie that made $750MM *more* than its production budget, only have a profit of $250MM, including ancillaries?  The industry has changed, as recently as within the last five years.  No one who knows what they are talking about or are being honest and actually *looking* at how a tentpole is being distributed and where it is making the bulk of its money is using that "2.5" multiplier to assess a film's profitability.  When you actually look at an individual movie, just on box office mojo, it doesn't take rocket science to come up with a rough breakdown on how much a studio puts in its pockets and a 4-4x multiplier on a big budget tentpole is about where it's at. 

So again, please explain how movies that bombed at the box office with pathetic $375MM takes on ~$200MM all in budgets were "profitable", theatrically or otherwise. 

-J.

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

27 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

So again, please explain how movies that bombed at the box office with pathetic $375MM takes on ~$200MM all in budgets were "profitable", theatrically or otherwise. 

-J.

 

Easy.

It will take in another $100M+ in DVD sales and TV/Streaming licensing. Which will more than cover the P&A expense.

Here's another example:

Ant-Man (2015, not "10 years ago")

Made $519 million worldwide on a $130 million budget (a 3.99x multiplier, not much more than the 3.62x muliplier at issue with Shazam).

Ant-Man's Deadline-estimated total profit? $104.9 million (source)

Because my definition of "ancillaries" includes all post-theatrical revenue, the bulk of which comes from streaming and TV licensing which yield additional revenue for years.

And we all know it was a failure...because they obviously didn't greenlight a sequel or anything.

[theCapraAegagrus]

35 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Nope.

The very definition of "ancillary" tells you that those potential alternate income streams beyond the box office are the icing on the cake and not "the cake". Hollywood doesn't invest hundreds of millions of dollars releasing a movie worldwide theatrically on the hope that it might some day turn a profit on home video.  To suggest something otherwise is so profoundly laughably absurd it boggles the mind.  

Again, studios *only keep about 25-50%* of what a movie earns theatrically, depending on its country of release.  Quit using MCU movies from ten years ago as a comparison.  That's just plain dishonest and weak (CA:FA didn't even have a Chinese release).  Use a movie from last year, like Venom.  Once again, Deadline did a breakdown on how this movie that made *$500MM more* than Shazam and Spider-verse's dreadful box office number, on a comparable production and P&A budgets, with comparable worldwide releases, and had a profit of "only" about $250MM *after ancillaries*.  But, but, but... how can that be ??  How can a movie that made $750MM *more* than its production budget, only have a profit of $250MM, including ancillaries?  The industry has changed, as recently as within the last five years.  No one who knows what they are talking about or are being honest and actually *looking* at how a tentpole is being distributed and where it is making the bulk of its money is using that "2.5" multiplier to assess a film's profitability.  When you actually look at an individual movie, just on box office mojo, it doesn't take rocket science to come up with a rough breakdown on how much a studio puts in its pockets and a 4-4x multiplier on a big budget tentpole is about where it's at. 

So again, please explain how movies that bombed at the box office with pathetic $375MM takes on ~$200MM all in budgets were "profitable", theatrically or otherwise. 

-J.

Name 1 movie that "made a profit" that you didn't like.

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, drotto said:

There is a massive difference between saying it and briefly showing it.  In the comics there are three and important events that convey the scope of the power.  Saving the M'craan crystal, which really puts Jean on the radar of the Shi'ar.  Then when she destroys the Shi'ar warship, and finally when she destroys the planet and killing 5 billion of those broccoli headed aliens.  All of those events are also comic and universe spanning showing the power is not just a local problem for the X-Men but the power is a cosmic force, and an almost incomprehensibly dangerous one. But omitting all of that it essentially castrates the story. Plus briefly showing what the force has done, does not clearly translate to what Jean can do now.  The film needs to show her being the destructive force, not just hinting she could be.  The actions she is shown doing in the film could have been done by multiple other mutants, it does not convey truly how far above them she is.

We are saying the same thing. I just was considering brevity. The larger threat could be lost on the general audience seeing this film.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

This clip brings up one of the problems with Jean's Phoenix persona in the movie. Sure, Vuk is being manipulative here, but it's an important scene of the movie, and we're being given the impression that this inner power is something Jean has been struggling with for a long time. But she just got possessed by the Phoenix Force about 20 minutes of movie time ago. We do see Jean's struggles with her own omnipotent mutant power in the opening scene. So what's the power to be feared here? Is it the Phoenix Force or Jean's mutant power? In Apocalypse, we see a glimpse of the Phoenix in Jean at the end, but before she is possessed by it in DP. Do you see the confusion here?

in the comics, it's cut and dry, as i's totally the Phoenix Force. In Bryan SInger's movies and Last Stand, it's totally just Jean Grey. In this latest version, it's a muddled mix and thus both lose clarity. For me anyway.

I think where they did show the threat of Jean's powers was mixed into X-Men: Apocalypse. The dream sequence when Charles has to calm her mental instability was the first indication.

Then, when Jean takes on Apocalypse we see how truly powerful she is already. Though it can be confusing seeing a form of Dark Phoenix on display before - well, Dark Phoenix. 

So now having a mentally unstable mutant gaining galaxy-threatening powers would have been a good reminder how big a concern this truly was. Which with her actions in Dark Phoenix we see twice before the later Act 3 scenes. So the Earth-based threat was shown. The larger galazy-wide threat, not so much.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I saw Apocalypse on Sunday, and the CGI is so damn bad for a modern film.

The Phoenix stuff at the end was so dumb.

[Jaydogrules]

46 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Easy.

It will take in another $100M+ in DVD sales and TV/Streaming licensing. Which will more than cover the P&A expense.

Here's another example:

Ant-Man (2015, not "10 years ago")

Made $519 million worldwide on a $130 million budget (a 3.99x multiplier, not much more than the 3.62x muliplier at issue with Shazam).

Ant-Man's Deadline-estimated total profit? $104.9 million (source)

Because my definition of "ancillaries" includes all post-theatrical revenue, the bulk of which comes from streaming and TV licensing which yield additional revenue for years.

And we all know it was a failure...because they obviously didn't greenlight a sequel or anything.

Uh huh.

So never mind the fact that you continue to sidestep the most recent and similar and appropriate comp, Venom, which you're only doing because it blows a massive hole through your- *ahem*- logic...

I guess we will also just ignore the fact that Antman still made about $150MM *more* theatrically than Shazam or Spider-verse, notwithstanding the ~$30MM differences in budget, even Antman was considered a modest success even by 2015 standards.

Flash forward to late 2018-2019, following the success of big, dumb budget Aquaman, and Venom, and less than $375MM for big tentpole hero movies with $200MM all ins on just their theatrical releases, is just plain bad, we are talking FF (2005) numbers here and that was from *15 years ago*. 

But even using your strained and twisted- *ahem*- logic, both Spider-verse and Shazam would have to break out spectacularly on the ancillary market to just break even, let alone make anything resembling a profit (although Spider-verse, with its much higher domestic verses foreign take compared to shazam, has a much better chance).  

-J.

 

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Jaydogrules said:

Uh huh.

So never mind the fact that you continue to sidestep the most recent and similar and appropriate comp, Venom, which you're only doing because it blows a massive hole through your- *ahem*- logic...

I guess we will also just ignore the fact that Antman still made about $150MM *more* theatrically than Shazam or Spider-verse, notwithstanding the ~$30MM differences in budget, even Antman was considered a modest success even by 2015 standards.

Flash forward to late 2018-2019, following the success of big, dumb budget Aquaman, and Venom, and less than $375MM for big tentpole hero movies with $200MM all ins on just their theatrical releases, is just plain bad, we are talking FF (2005) numbers here and that was from *15 years ago*. 

But even using your strained and twisted- *ahem*- logic, both Spider-verse and Shazam would have to break out spectacularly on the ancillary market to just break even, let alone make anything resembling a profit (although Spider-verse, with its much higher domestic verses foreign take compared to shazam, has a much better chance).  

-J.

 

If Venom was the new benchmark for all superhero movies going forward, the studios should just back off now because there was so much going against that movie. Including a traditional Spider-Man character without him in the film, light on story and a character that if the production team had landed Tom Hardy could have gone much differently. It is not the norm.

Yet when comparing to other movies within the same sales range, Shazam and Into The Spider-Verse are more to the top of the list of films considered to have been profitable.

So trying to pitch everyone else's math is off and you have it figured out better when we clearly have films to compare against just makes it comes across like you want to be the devil's advocate more than a fact soothsayer. Unless you are assuming all the other films were a hidden bust at this point.