It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Exactly. It needed to make a billion to be the launching pad they wanted for their DCU and it ain't gonna make that. It cost at least 250 to produce (I've heard much more in fact) and 150+ to market so making 800 was the bare minimum to reach to break even... so, yeah, misfire, disaster, huge failure, whatever you want to say, it was/is it.
That seems strange, especially since Hollywood types tend to be cautious with their expectations and what not, and also precisely because MoS ostensibly underperformed.
I would have thought that about $800m to $900m total should have been the internal expectation and not more, since only a handful of Marvel films have been able to surpass that, with far more established superheroes to boot.
From the Warner Bros. perspective, they thought Batman *and* Superman *and* Wonder Woman would get them to $1 billion, which is still a third less than the 2012 Avengers movie at $1.5 billion.
The studio wanted *its* version of the Avengers (the Justice League) up and running as soon as possible, while Marvel spent time establishing the solo characters and then having the Avengers.
A lot of people went to see 1963's Cleopatria. Its U.S. box office was $57.8 million. Goldfinger's U.S. box office was $51 million.
The problem? Cleopatra cost so much it still almost bankrupted the studio. So it was a commercial misfire even though it was popular with the film going public.
So at the end of the day, this was just terribly poor forecasting by some beancounters imho. The film is doing pretty much what I thought it would do, knowing who is behind it and given there's no Nolan like genius to take it to a higher level.
Batman v superman was a great film I loved it and nothing will change it also why are t marvel fans championing The way they did The Mandarin?
As for 007 as long as wb just gives EON money we should be fine
100% agreement. There's very little genuine 'critique' these days. The studios have made Box Office a 'thing' and the masses have lapped it up. The whole Marvel v DC nonsense is evidence of that. It's tribal, at the expense of real opinion. These days you pick the blue corner or the red corner. It's a load of old bollocks if you ask me.
Yes in terms of net profit Cleopatra was a disaster; in terms of gross it was a huge success, same with Batman vs Superman - it's gross cannot be called a commercial failure; it' s net value can.
Exactly. The cost of the film makes the difference between success and failure. Deadpool cost a paltry 80 million by comparison.
Erm, Hawkeye and Black Widow aren't and weren't being seeded to have their own solo movies. Furthermore, their characters are a closer representation to their comic book counterparts than the rubbish Snyder tossed at audiences. As for Black Panther, he along with Spider-Man have been hailed as standouts and phenomenal in Civil War, which is great as these 2 are getting their own solo movies. It's called good movie-making and characterisation and any half decent story teller can make such things work. The Russos according to mass reports from actual screenings for critics as opposed to the fan screening BvS held have managed to do this with a whole bunch of superheroes, Snyder couldn't even do it with 3.
You're not one to talk. For someone who thinks BvS isn't a commercial misfire, I suggest you don't explain anything at all and perhaps re-educate yourself on the basics of simple sums let alone economics.
"And somehow, even though Batman v Superman has grossed ridiculous amounts of money ($783 million worldwide, as of this writing), it could either take a loss or barely eke out a profit, because Warner Brothers spent such a jaw-dropping amount of money making and marketing it: reportedly $250 million for the former and another $150 million for the latter. That’s a half-billion-dollar movie, and it has to at least double that worldwide to show a profit (thanks to the portion of those grosses kept by theaters). Thanks to BvS’s free-falling week-to-week numbers – it dropped out of the top slot last weekend, smarting from bad reviews and toxic word-of-mouth – some box office experts are predicting it won’t even clear that hurdle."
http://flavorwire.com/570473/warner-...man-v-superman
I agree, BvS is doing terribly - humour? I know, it's hard to convey in writing...
So I shouldn't explain anyting ... ever ... what a nice chap :)
They can all be foster brothers and let Mendes direct.
I was going to respond, but you countered this argument perfectly, @doubleoego. Thanks for saving me the time.
@Risico007, I could ask a similar question about why some DC movie fans (I think there's about three of you at this point) are championing the Superman and Batman we got in BvS, but I digress. By the way, you do know that in the MCU,
much like how the Broz era got out of control with oneupmanship as they went along - Craig's run is suffering the same fate..... but perhaps thats the EON way - it happened with Sean.... they get caught in this trap of constantly feeling like they need to throw more and more at the screen - when their greatest successes are when the films are 'smaller' and more tightly woven stories...... so if Craig does return for a 5th, i have a feeling that the powers that be, will feel the need to push the envelope further - especially if we are talking about continuing where SP left off.. just my prediction... but it's no different of a mentality than after DAD - had they agreed to keep Pierce on for one more, they more than likely would've continued on in the same vein as DAD - since that movie was a big box office success for it's time... they wouldn't have done a big tonal shift in style had Brosnan stuck around.
Then why the shift in tone anyway? Because they got the cr rights? I think it was more than that. I think they realized that although the previous film had done well commercially that there needed to be a different approach. Just like how after moonraker there was for your eyes only, after die another day there was casino royale, and after spectre (which unlike the previous two ott films was a qualitative success), there will be Dr. Shatterhand :D
All the others started small and ended big and overwrought. That's the EON way it seems. So as I've said earlier, for those wanting a shift in tone and a return to more compact spy fare, it's probably best if we get a new actor too. The higher risks that poses normally tends to focus EON's efforts to do more with far less.
I agree and yes you're absolutely right Moore did effortlessly survive a shift in tone.
Only Sir Roger :).
Of course not Star Wars and Marvel but Star Trek and DC! :))
Let's start steering things a bit more back on track, everyone.
But hasn't the DC/Marvel discussion being to compare how they go about producing a franchise? Don't see how that's not relevant.