Shang-Chi coming to a theater near you 5 5

[Jaydogrules]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:34 AM, Gatsby77 said:

We went back and forth on this ad nauseum in the Venom thread, where you claimed a film had to make back 4.5x its stated production budget *theatrically* to even break even.

That was never true, because (for the umpteenth time), P&A is always assumed to be covered by post-theatrical profits (including DVD sales, streaming, TV, and Cable licensing, toys, etc.) - which you derided as mere *ancillaries* but which often net studios 50-100% of the original theatrical profits.

Even moreso, now, since Disney literally made more from Black Widow's first weekend streaming via Premiere+ than it did from its domestic box office.

More to the point - It doesn't matter if a film is profitable *theatrically* - what matters is that it comes close to break-even, so the lifetime value of the film can turn a healthy profit.

But yeah, ignore all that - because both Shazam and Man of Steel literally were profitable from just their theatrical releases alone.

See also Scott Mendelson's break-down of Shazam here.

 

 

Better title for perennial DC fanboy/apologist Scott mendelsons article-

"If Shazam WASN'T a Flop, I wouldn't Have to be Writing This Article Trying to Convince People (Myself) That it Wasn't".  

Yes, Shazam was a flop.  No, it didn't make any money.  Yes, the same clueless WB studio bosses that green lit a second suicide squad and birds of prey movie are the same ones doubling down on the conditional failure of Shazam. 

Shazam only made 30MM in ancillary (home video).  That's weak.  There is simply no way to twist and contort Shazam into a "success" without looking totally delusional.  

To wit- Venom cost as much as Shazam to make.  Venom made $850MM, 500MM more than Shazam.  THAT was a profitable movie.  

Shazam was not. 

Sorry fans.

-J.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Jaydogrules

[Jaydogrules]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:31 AM, Bosco685 said:

Oh, ye of little research. First it cleared $170M in product placement before the movie was even released. 

How Superman has made $170million without even selling a ticket: Man of Steel takes product placement to new level

Something Disney established a department to generate such revenue like this years before. Which our good fellow Gatsby and you did not realize and used to laugh about that figure was the total dollar value of branded products donated to WB Studios as set pieces.

 

Then it actually hit the 3.0X production budget target ($668.05M) which with expenses countered by the $170M leads to it making even more revenue than was realized. Which is right where Thor (2011) was at 3.0X, higher than Captain American: The First Avenger (2.6X), and just below Iron Man II (3.1X). Though I am sure they had no marketing budgets - but WB/DC films do - in your analysis.

Then it made $120M alone in Domestic Home Theater sales in DVD's and blurays (digital is much larger but unaccounted for as a hidden market). The international figure is not published as the market is so distributed across many countries.

If only some of you would take those hate blinders off and be more open-minded, we'd probably have less friction in this part of the boards. But unfortunately it was due to you, Gatsby and Paperheart with your 'I know things' accounting that got me into tracking all these productions years ago. So you got that going for yourselves.

So is this your long, drawn out way of saying that Man of Steel "isn't" generally considered to have been an under-performer?

Because it still was....

Carry on.

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:32 AM, Bosco685 said:

So all Disney wanted from a $71.3 Billion acquisition was the villains and X-Men from Fox 20th Century?

Yeah that's all they wanted.  

That's exactly what I said. 

-J.

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:13 PM, Jaydogrules said:

So is this your long, drawn out way of saying that Man of Steel "isn't" generally considered to have been an under-performer?

Because it still was....

Carry on.

-J.

That mask must be extra tight.

[Jaydogrules]

On 8/15/2021 at 12:20 PM, Bosco685 said:

That mask must be extra tight.

Tell that to these guys...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiewire.com/2013/06/does-man-of-steel-need-to-make-1-billion-to-be-a-success-97206/amp/

-J.

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:25 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Tell that to these guys...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiewire.com/2013/06/does-man-of-steel-need-to-make-1-billion-to-be-a-success-97206/amp/

-J.

Yeah. Reference anything that ignored reality. Even without the $170M product placement it was an easy success.

Unless you are also assuming Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger and Iron Man II were all failures.

[Jaydogrules]

On 8/15/2021 at 12:51 PM, Bosco685 said:

Yeah. Reference anything that ignored reality. Even without the $170M product placement it was an easy success.

Unless you are also assuming Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger and Iron Man II were all failures.

I'm not getting into these weeds with you about this.  But, yeah, if you have to bring up "product placement" to rationalize your movie as being an "easy success", then you've already lost the argument.  

Oh, and here's another article, to stop with this revisionist history on man of steel.

Yes, the movie was an under-performer.  Not by just a little. By a lot.  Based on even the WB's brass own initial expectations and hype. 

https://variety.com/2013/film/news/warner-bros-sets-bar-high-for-latest-and-priciest-incarnation-of-superman-1200493334/

-J.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:09 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Better title for perennial DC fanboy/apologist Scott mendelsons article-

"If Shazam WASN'T a Flop, I wouldn't Have to be Writing This Article Trying to Convince People (Myself) That it Wasn't".  

Yes, Shazam was a flop.  No, it didn't make any money.  Yes, the same clueless WB studio bosses that green lit a second suicide squad and birds of prey movie are the same ones doubling down on the conditional failure of Shazam. 

Shazam only made 30MM in ancillary (home video).  That's weak.  There is simply no way to twist and contort Shazam into a "success" without looking totally delusional.  

To wit- Venom cost as much as Shazam to make.  Venom made $850MM, 500MM more than Shazam.  THAT was a profitable movie.  

Shazam was not. 

Sorry fans.

-J.

You’re conflating “profitable” with runaway success.

Shazam was absolutely profitable. Full stop.

Meanwhile, the theatrical landscape’s changed. Calling it right here: Carnage won’t break $500M.

Not just because of the pandemic but also because the first film was garbage & many of those who paid to see it the first time now know better.

 

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:09 PM, Jaydogrules said:

To wit- Venom cost as much as Shazam to make.  Venom made $850MM, 500MM more than Shazam.  THAT was a profitable movie.  

Shazam was not. 

Sorry fans.

-J.

This is such a biased attempt to make your point by referencing a film that drastically over-performed and noting that as the gold standard.

That's like the other day someone reference the biggest comic book films and using those as the standard. They are unique across the industry for a reason - they are not the norm. So to point to any of these and assume every film must achieve that financial result is clueless to reality.

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2021 at 4:12 PM, Jaydogrules said:

I'm not getting into these weeds with you about this.  But, yeah, if you have to bring up "product placement" to rationalize your movie as being an "easy success", then you've already lost the argument.  

Oh, and here's another article, to stop with this revisionist history on man of steel.

Yes, the movie was an under-performer.  Not by just a little. By a lot.  Based on even the WB's brass own initial expectations and hype. 

https://variety.com/2013/film/news/warner-bros-sets-bar-high-for-latest-and-priciest-incarnation-of-superman-1200493334/

-J.

Again, any industry analyst that was stating Man of Steel had to make over a $1B to be successful was purposefully setting the film up for failure. It was a relaunch of a solo story about Superman after the character had slowly dwindled down at the box office prior to this film.

Even with Bryan Singer at the helm who had established very strongly the Fox X-Men franchise he couldn't pull it together to rebuild the character's box office clout. Then came MOS. Which went over strongly with domestic and international movie-goers.

It is scary how much you twist facts to fit a negative narrative. Yet all the history is there to prove you (and these 'Hollywood insiders') wrong. All MOS had to do is break that downward trend in a strong way. And it did!

[@therealsilvermane]

Sure, Man of Steel was profitable with $665 million worldwide against a $225 million budget. But when you compare that against Iron Man 3's $1.2 billion box office that year and The Avengers' $1.5 billion and The Dark Knight Rises' $1 billion the previous year, it was very very disappointing against what was hoped for. Heck, even Hunger Games Catching Fire made more money than MOS that year. Add a 56% rotten score at Rotten Tomatoes, and Man of Steel was considered a minor disappointment. 

Of course, a few years later, Batman v Superman says "hold my beer..." 

[kimik]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:35 AM, Gatsby77 said:

How do you figure?

Guardians of the Galaxy was as risky as Eternals & cost $200M with a largely unknown cast, yet knocked it out of the park.

And Captain Marvel (who *nobody* in the collecting world cared about) did $1+ bn.

I mean, I agree that Shang-Chi won't do well - but not because he's unknown, necessarily. But because film watching has fundamentally changed.

If anything, the way forward with superhero films is to niche down - smaller characters, smaller budgets. And with that creativity we can get truly experimental (yet amazing) projects like WandaVision (a series literally *no one* asked for) and Loki.

For instance, I'd love to see a tight $60M budget Daredevil film.

Or another Punisher film a la the Thomas Jane/John Travolta one, but continuing with Jon Bernthal.

Similarly, I'd love to see a $40M Cyborg solo film, even if it went directly to HBO Max.

And let's see an 8-episode Deathstroke series on HBO Max, starring Joe Manganiello. Rumor has it he might be the villain in the forthcoming Peacemaker series anyway...

Marvel needs to generate content to keep D+ subscriptions since more of that money goes directly into their pocket. Going forward, it is cheaper and generates a higher ROI for them to do marginal characters as D+ (see Wanda Vision, Loki, Falcon & Winter Soldier, etc.). They can cut production costs and still put out a passable product, weave a broader story in a serialized TV show format, and then pull it all together in a big screen event that hits the $800M - $1B mark. Spend the money where it counts the most which is a monthly recurring revenue stream from subscriptions that they receive the bulk of instead of sharing box office returns. They are at over 100M subscribers now, which is much more profitable than releasing anything other than an Iron Man/Avengers level movie each month.

Consuming media when you want and how you want is also the way of the future. I look at my kids (16 & 17) and their friends - they spend way more time watching content on smart TV/tablet/phone than going to a movie theatre. The coming generations will be even more used to streaming content and will need to have the content to keep them engaged. The HBO/HBO Max subscription and movie download numbers are sort of bearing this out now with the company's decision to go direct to streaming on a bunch of movies this year.

I am curious to see what impact streaming vs big screen has on actor/actress contracts going forward. It no longer pays to take a % of the big screen only, and may in fact be better for them being paid by the episode/movie instead of taking a cut of the streaming $$$

Edited August 16, 2021 by kimik

[@therealsilvermane]

On 8/13/2021 at 3:42 PM, drotto said:

Predicting $35 million to $55 million opening weekend, with $100 to $165 total domestic. Kinda rough.  That will make it the lowest growing MCU film.

What?!? That's an almost insane low estimate for an MCU movie. I get it. Shang Chi is an unknown character. But that doesn't matter. Black Widow made $80 million opening weekend in the U.S. with same day streaming on Disney+. Shang Chi will be theater exclusive. The same people who saw Black Widow will see Shang Chi. Hardcore MCU fans have already decided this is a must-see now movie. Add in the Asian-American community who will go see this. Add in more of the African-American community who didn't bother to see Black Widow will go see this. Shang Chi should clear $60 million easy its opening weekend. Who cares about the pandemic. If it's a great Marvel movie that's a blast to watch (which Black Widow was not), it will have much stronger legs at the theaters, as folks like me will see it multiple times at the theater since that'll be the only way to watch it for a month and a half. I predict Shag Chi will be the highest grossing movie yet of 2021 when its theatrical run is done.

Edited August 16, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[drotto]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:35 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

What?!? That's an almost insane low estimate for an MCU movie. I get it. Shang Chi is an unknown character. But that doesn't matter. Black Widow made $80 million opening weekend in the U.S. with same day streaming on Disney+. Shang Chi will be theater exclusive. The same people who saw Black Widow will see Shang Chi. Hardcore MCU fans have already decided this is a must-see now movie. Add in the Asian-American community who will go see this. Add in more of the African-American community who didn't bother to see Black Widow will go see this. Shang Chi should clear $60 million easy its opening weekend. Who cares about the pandemic. If it's a great Marvel movie that's a blast to watch (which Black Widow was not), it will have much stronger legs at the theaters, as folks like me will see it multiple times at the theater since that'll be the only way to watch it for a month and a half. I predict Shag Chi will be the highest grossing movie yet of 2021 when its theatrical run is done.

Multiple media sites that predict box office are putting Shang-Chi in that range.  This is not my guess this is what the industry is predicting. You are assuming a few things that we do not know. First, we have no idea if it is a good movie, you can not say it is a great movie (granted you think all MCU films with 2 or 3 exceptions are 8/10 or better). Therefor, we have no idea what word of mouth or re-watch factor will be.  Second, the Asian community tends to be cautious about disease transmission and is more likely to stay home for health reasons given current Covid numbers. You also can never predict how an ethnic group may or may not embrace this type of targeted film making. Just because Black Panther struck a cord with African Americans, there is no way you can assume this enthusiasm transfers to other ethnic groups. These groups are very different, you can not equate them, and they do not automatically support one another based on minority status. We also know China has said no to this film, and that is the exact audience this movie was made for. Third, you can not assume people who saw Black Widow will see this movie, she was an established character, he is not. A well known and generally liked character should easily have a leg up on an unknown one. Show me where the buzz or enthusiasm is for this film? Where are these MCU fans saying this is a must see? Where is you evidence? I know this forum is a small sample, but we are the hard core fans, how many of us seem really excited? Finally, Labor day weekend is a dreadful release weekend. There is a reason a major film has never been dropped on these dates;  people are on vacation, people are eating BBQ with friends, people are seeing family, people are taking a last trip to the beach, people are generally not going to the movies.

 

I do not think theater exclusivity will help this film. Money is tight for many people. If anything the pandemic has made people more patient and tolerant of staying at home.  People are clearly voting convenience of streaming over movie theaters at least while Covid is still here. 45 days and then you can see it for free (provided you have Disney +) is not a long wait in todays world. With those factors, I think people are going to wait.

 

Also, look at Bob Chapek's comments, Disney has written off this film.  You do not call a movie a data point and experiment to investors if you think this movie is a home run.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:27 PM, drotto said:

Multiple media sites that predict box office are putting Shang-Chi in that range.  This is not my guess this is what the industry is predicting. You are assuming a few things that we do not know. First, we have no idea if it is a good movie, you can not say it is a great movie (granted you think all MCU films with 2 or 3 exceptions are 8/10 or better). Therefor, we have no idea what word of mouth or re-watch factor will be.  Second, the Asian community tends to be cautious about disease transmission and is more likely to stay home for health reasons given current Covid numbers. You also can never predict how an ethnic group may or may not embrace this type of targeted film making. Just because Black Panther struck a cord with African Americans, there is no way you can assume this enthusiasm transfers to other ethnic groups. These groups are very different, you can not equate them, and they do not automatically support one another based on minority status. We also know China has said no to this film, and that is the exact audience this movie was made for. Third, you can not assume people who saw Black Widow will see this movie, she was an established character, he is not. A well known and generally liked character should easily have a leg up on an unknown one. Show me where the buzz or enthusiasm is for this film? Where are these MCU fans saying this is a must see? Where is you evidence? I know this forum is a small sample, but we are the hard core fans, how many of us seem really excited? Finally, Labor day weekend is a dreadful release weekend. There is a reason a major film has never been dropped on these dates;  people are on vacation, people are eating BBQ with friends, people are seeing family, people are taking a last trip to the beach, people are generally not going to the movies.

 

I do not think theater exclusivity will help this film. Money is tight for many people. If anything the pandemic has made people more patient and tolerant of staying at home.  People are clearly voting convenience of streaming over movie theaters at least while Covid is still here. 45 days and then you can see it for free (provided you have Disney +) is not a long wait in todays world. With those factors, I think people are going to wait.

 

Also, look at Bob Chapek's comments, Disney has written off this film.  You do not call a movie a data point and experiment to investors if you think this movie is a home run.

Yes, nobody knows if Shang Chi is going to be a good movie until reviews come out and we all see it for ourselves. I'm predicting it will be a good film because the director Daniel Destin Cretton has proven to me he can tell a good story with the two films Short Term 12 and Just Mercy (both featuring Captain Marvel herself).

About the cautiousness of the Asian-American community. Not really from what I see. I live in a city with a high Asian-American population and they've been out and about in force. Maybe they all believe in the vaccine. Chinese media has tried to diss the movie earlier this year as racist and stereotypist and whatever, but that's Chinese media, as in it has an agenda. I know D. Cretton (the Asian-American director) and Simu Liu both seem to believe in the movie they've made so I trust them.

While the buzz hasn't been Endgame overwhelming, I've seen enough interest on social media like Facebook fan groups or Twitter to get that there is substantial interest among MCU fans to see this film. Yes, he's an unknown. Therefore, Shang Chi is going to have to be very good movie to have good word of mouth to bring in the holdouts. Again, I think Shang Chi is going to be a good movie.

Money aint that tight right now. People want to spend their money. They just want to do it safely.

I don't think Chapek has written off Shang Chi. He just seems to make a lot of insufficiently_thoughtful_person statements. He should start traveling with a PR assistant from now on. And maybe for Disney C-level statements to the media, maybe Kevin Feige alone should speak for the MCU.

[Gatsby77]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:35 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

What?!? That's an almost insane low estimate for an MCU movie. I get it. Shang Chi is an unknown character. But that doesn't matter. Black Widow made $80 million opening weekend in the U.S. with same day streaming on Disney+. Shang Chi will be theater exclusive. The same people who saw Black Widow will see Shang Chi. Hardcore MCU fans have already decided this is a must-see now movie. Add in the Asian-American community who will go see this. Add in more of the African-American community who didn't bother to see Black Widow will go see this. Shang Chi should clear $60 million easy its opening weekend. Who cares about the pandemic. If it's a great Marvel movie that's a blast to watch (which Black Widow was not), it will have much stronger legs at the theaters, as folks like me will see it multiple times at the theater since that'll be the only way to watch it for a month and a half. I predict Shag Chi will be the highest grossing movie yet of 2021 when its theatrical run is done.

Drotto already covered most of it, but...

You *really* need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Shang-Chi is a niche / unknown character and - if the release date holds - is coming out when the Delta variant will be worse than it is today.

Further, it looks thematically similar to Snake Eyes, which had a better known actor / more popular character and just... bombed.

The Marvel brand is no more impervious to reality - and changing theater tastes - than the Star Wars brand (see Solo).

[theCapraAegagrus]

Hey, hopefully Shang-Chi is good. Many won't know until it's free on Disney+.

[Microchip]

On 8/16/2021 at 8:39 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Drotto already covered most of it, but...

You *really* need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Shang-Chi is a niche / unknown character and - if the release date holds - is coming out when the Delta variant will be worse than it is today.

Further, it looks thematically similar to Snake Eyes, which had a better known actor / more popular character and just... bombed.

The Marvel brand is no more impervious to reality - and changing theater tastes - than the Star Wars brand (see Solo).

You're looking at things with pre-covid eye's.   The movie land has changed, and won't be back to normal/comparability for a long time.  No studio is putting big bucks into movie promo at the moment, they're playing their cards very tightly.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Microchip

[Bosco685]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:17 PM, paperheart said:

keep pulling and the turd at the end of the string is Justice League

 

On 8/15/2021 at 6:59 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Sure, Man of Steel was profitable with $665 million worldwide against a $225 million budget. But when you compare that against Iron Man 3's $1.2 billion box office that year and The Avengers' $1.5 billion and The Dark Knight Rises' $1 billion the previous year, it was very very disappointing against what was hoped for. Heck, even Hunger Games Catching Fire made more money than MOS that year. Add a 56% rotten score at Rotten Tomatoes, and Man of Steel was considered a minor disappointment. 

Of course, a few years later, Batman v Superman says "hold my beer..." 

This is a fantastic analysis if we were in a Stephen King story about a man born in Maine with no brain. But he was still able to pull together concepts he believed in with no deep thought other than uninformed bias because - you know - he has no brain. So he can't actually apply deep thought into his theories.

So you two believe Iron Man 3, following up after one of the biggest movies of its time (Marvel's Avengers) and seven (7) films into a linked franchise, is the comparison point...

...to the first film in a new franchise, Man of Steel?

That's fantastic! Unbiased, well thought out, effective sources all brought to bear. But again - only if we were in that Stephen King book, 'My Brains Be None'.

[Bosco685]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:54 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Hey, hopefully Shang-Chi is good. Many won't know until it's free on Disney+.

I never put it past hardcore MCU fans to do anything so as to make these movies massively successful. They make it a mission so as to prove their loyalty.

Look at the social media campaigns that took place to drive hate toward Avatar so as to spur people on to go see Avengers: Endgame multiple times so as to beat that evil James Cameron to teach him a lesson. It was crazy the things people were posting so as to flame folks on how Cameron hates MCU fans, and go see the film again so as to show him how wrong he was.

There is loving a franchise and characters associated with this franchise. And then there is taking it too far.

Pandemic or not, all that matters to them is making the MCU a huge financial success. Health be danged!