Justice League - restarting the thread 1 1

[Bosco685]

The animated version.

 

[Bosco685]

Superman's character in the story is the saddest of all in the alternate reality. He was captured early on by the government, and was never out in the sun to grow strong.

[jsilverjanet]

I’m aware of the story. I like the idea but moving forward Batman should be Bruce Wayne whether it’s affleck or hamm etc 

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

I’m aware of the story. I like the idea but moving forward Batman should be Bruce Wayne whether it’s affleck or hamm etc 

Agreed. And it most probably will be Bruce. But they could build upon the alternate universe for a movie or two.

[Bosco685]

I see Scott Mendleson was feeling upbeat today.

'Justice League' Is The Highest-Grossing Box Office 'Bomb' Ever

Quote

For what it's worth, Justice League earned $750,000 on Monday, making day 25 the first day in which the DC Films offering earned less than $1 million per day. Ditto Batman v Superman, while Wonder Woman earned at least $1m in its first 47 days, Suicide Squad fell below on day 27 and Man of Steel fell below on day 32. Say what you will about year-round blockbuster season, but Man of Steel and Wonder Woman used those summer weekdays to their advantage. Conversely, Justice League has displayed perfectly solid post-debut legs for a film opening in that pre-Thanksgiving slot, if only the opening weekend were larger.

 

To wit, the Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon film has earned $212.88 million in 25 days of domestic release, already achieving a 2.27x multiplier. That's already larger tied with Man of Steel and larger than Dawn of Justice and the various Twilight sequels. And it should have no problem being leggier than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I (2.36x). Alas, The Hunger Games sequels (over/under 2.7x), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2.8x), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2.9x) and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (3.14x) will likely be a bridge too far.

Looks like he is predicting below $700M as the end run. Though other sites are leaning towards the $700M worldwide, and no higher. I did notice on the production budget he is still playing the safety card.

Quote

So the recut over/under $300m-budgeted tentpole...

Most probably because the only budget that resulted in sources so far was the Variety one with a little over $250M as the base, and $25M as the reshoot cost. The Wall Street Journal 'up to nearly $300M' hints at the same figure.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: The Quest to Save ‘Justice League’

Quote

Significant reshoots brought an already big budget up to nearly $300 million, said people close to the picture.

I wonder if the real figure will be confirmed, or drag on as a mystery?

[Bosco685]

Now that Justice League hit a sub-$1 million day, things should slow down even more. Though some of the weeks start slow, and build up from there.

[jsilverjanet]

I get that it’s nowhere near what they expected for the film but to suggest (media) it bombed at $600+ worldwide is a little silly

i get that it doesn’t yield the numbers you’d like but I’d look at Blade Runner as a bigger bomb (still haven’t seen it) 

budget of $150 and only generated $250 million  

Not meeting expectations vs not making money are two very different things

 

[jsilverjanet]

I would also love to see numbers of actual audiences

who’s really going to these movies (comic book movies)

im in the belief that marvel/Disney has created a brand similar to Pixar that no matter what the movie is, a certain percentage of the general public will go see it regardless of what the content is etc. they are brilliant at that (creating brands). Add to that the marvel fans who go multiple times and you’ve easily hit $600-$700 million. If  it’s high quality it will hit $800 easily.

 

DC on the other hand doesn’t have a brand, if it does it’s not a good one to the general public and it’s evident that the general public skipped this movie due the lackluster reviews. Wonder Woman is a brand name and should do well the 2nd time around. I also think that many of the marvel fans are loyal because of the difference in films and just stopped going to these films. 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by jsilverjanet

[Bosco685]

I think if you go to first week articles from Box Office Pro, Box Office Mojo, Deadline or The Hollywood Reporter, they always seem to post the makeup of the audience (gender, age, % of attendance). They may even be getting this from CinemaScore cards being filled out, as with any score submitted the card also asks gender and age. So probably additional-fee analytics not offered to the general public.

So at least looking over first-week release articles, you can find these details mentioned.

[Gatsby77]

14 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Most probably because the only budget that resulted in sources so far was the Variety one with a little over $250M as the base, and $25M as the reshoot cost. The Wall Street Journal 'up to nearly $300M' hints at the same figure.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: The Quest to Save ‘Justice League’

I wonder if the real figure will be confirmed, or drag on as a mystery?

I don't understand why you're continuing to lean on that single Variety piece from Nov. 16, when virtually every other source _since then_ notes "$300 million" or "near $300 million."

Mendelson at Forbes has revised his estimate upwards.

And -- more importantly, so has Variety:

See here (Nov. 19), here (Nov. 20) here (Dec. 1 -- "believed to be as much as $300 million"), and Dec. 7 (“reported to be as high as $300 million”)

Add in the Wall Street Journal, IMDB, Wikipedia, Deadline, Forbes, Hollywood Reporter, etc.

Seems pretty simple.

 

[jsilverjanet]

I wish I saw this amount of passion for other things on the board but hey let’s continually post the real budget numbers until Bosco changes the numbers from $275 to $300

i for one and probably speak for many in this specific thread could give 2 about it 

[jsilverjanet]

Bosco the budget is $276 million 

[jsilverjanet]

Bosco the budget is $301 million

[jsilverjanet]

Ok let’s compromise it’s $282.5 million 

[jsilverjanet]

$302 million 

[bababooey]

 

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

I wish I saw this amount of passion for other things on the board but hey let’s continually post the real budget numbers until Bosco changes the numbers from $275 to $300

i for one and probably speak for many in this specific thread could give 2 about it 

I think I will change it to $275.00001M just to give some folks peace of mind. I'd hate to be called dishonest over posting box office charts.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

I don't understand why you're continuing to lean on that single Variety piece from Nov. 16, when virtually every other source _since then_ notes "$300 million" or "near $300 million."

Mendelson at Forbes has revised his estimate upwards.

And -- more importantly, so has Variety:

See here (Nov. 19), here (Nov. 20) here (Dec. 1 -- "believed to be as much as $300 million"), and Dec. 7 (“reported to be as high as $300 million”)

Add in the Wall Street Journal, IMDB, Wikipedia, Deadline, Forbes, Hollywood Reporter, etc.

Seems pretty simple.

 

Ummmm... (because this is your approach)...you missed the part where I quoted Scott Mendleson's article just the other day (over/under $300m-budgeted) and then the original WSJ article that is now available for general viewing where his estimate is "big budget up to nearly $300 million."

If you take off your shoes and count all the piggies, considering $250M and $275M - the latter is closer to 'nearly $300M'. It just became the fad from the WSJ article that kicked off the entire '$300M+' reference the writer of the article had noted 'nearly $300 million'. So it became easier to post 'assumed to be $300M or more.' Box Office Mojo waits until it can verify a number. Heck, even Coco and Wonder haven't confirmed their final budget yet where BOM will post them. Go check. All shown as 'N/A'.

Is this where you suggest I will go on wikipedia and go change the details to fit MY fantasy? That was a sweet one.

[Gatsby77]

15 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Ummmm... (because this is your approach)...you missed the part where I quoted Scott Mendleson's article just the other day (over/under $300m-budgeted) and then the original WSJ article that is now available for general viewing where his estimate is "big budget up to nearly $300 million."

If you take off your shoes and count all the piggies, considering $250M and $275M - the latter is closer to 'nearly $300M'. It just became the fad from the WSJ article that kicked off the entire '$300M+' reference the writer of the article had noted 'nearly $300 million'. So it became easier to post 'assumed to be $300M or more.' Box Office Mojo waits until it can verify a number. Heck, even Coco and Wonder haven't confirmed their final budget yet where BOM will post them. Go check. All shown as 'N/A'.

Is this where you suggest I will go on wikipedia and go change the details to fit MY fantasy? That was a sweet one.

Sigh...

Good morning! 

1) You quoted Mendelson at Forbes only to then try to discredit him by pointing to a then three-week old Variety piece to try to validate you're uber-minority view. Which is particularly amusing because every subsequent Variety piece cites the higher budget number.

2) You are assuming (as in, guessing) that the single WSJ article is the ultimate source for all the subsequent quotes and coverage citing ~$300 million. We don't actually know that to be true. I, for one, trust the reporters at Forbes, Variety and Deadline to have their own reliable sources.

3) You've essentially staked your claim that the _only_ figure you'll accept is one posted by Box Office Mojo, despite far more reputable financial trades and financially-minded Hollywood trades already having weighed in.

Add to this your own admission that Box Office Mojo first mis-reported Guardians of the Galaxy's budget of $170 million, later revising it to $200 million. (Which, by the way, is considered the appropriate budget because the very Forbes article you cite giving it the $230 million budget notes the final budget for that film was $232.3 million minus $36.4 million in UK tax rebates. Hence, ~$200 million)

4) I wasn't joking about your going in to correct Wikipedia. If you're going to continue to publish false information here -- and holding this particular film's budget to a vastly different standard than any other in either of your DC or Marvel charts -- you should absolutely correct the record for the public at large.

[Bosco685]

19 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Sigh...

Good morning! 

1) You quoted Mendelson at Forbes only to then try to discredit him by pointing to a then three-week old Variety piece to try to validate you're uber-minority view. Which is particularly amusing because every subsequent Variety piece cites the higher budget number.

2) You are assuming (as in, guessing) that the single WSJ article is the ultimate source for all the subsequent quotes and coverage citing ~$300 million. We don't actually know that to be true. I, for one, trust the reporters at Forbes, Variety and Deadline to have their own reliable sources.

3) You've essentially staked your claim that the _only_ figure you'll accept is one posted by Box Office Mojo, despite far more reputable financial trades and financially-minded Hollywood trades already having weighed in.

Add to this your own admission that Box Office Mojo first mis-reported Guardians of the Galaxy's budget of $170 million, later revising it to $200 million. (Which, by the way, is considered the appropriate budget because the very Forbes article you cite giving it the $230 million budget notes the final budget for that film was $232.3 million minus $36.4 million in UK tax rebates. Hence, ~$200 million)

4) I wasn't joking about your going in to correct Wikipedia. If you're going to continue to publish false information here -- and holding this particular film's budget to a vastly different standard than any other in either of your DC or Marvel charts -- you should absolutely correct the record for the public at large.

False information - with more than one reference article?!

Nice try, champ. Keep swinging.