No Time To Die: Production Diary

11081091111131142507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,092
    re: Batman v Superman....The movie opened big but in the U.S. (second biggest opening in Warner Bros. history), dropped almost 70% its second weekend and was estimated to drop another 54% its third.

    Variety estimated it would take a worldwide $800 million box office for the movie to break even and Deadline: Hollywood had a higher estimate.

    There's also concern whether it can make $1 billion, which many took for granted before the movie was release.

    That's the context of "commercial misfire." Yes, the box office is large and most movies don't reach what Batman v Superman has done so far. But the studio and others had larger expectations.

    I'm not necessarily endorsing the "commercial misfire" label, but just trying to explain it.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The main issue here, from my perspective, is that some 'empty suits' appeared to assume that the film could make more than $800m at the worldwide box office, while at the same time introducing all these new characters. Moreover, they seemed to expect this on the back of a Superman interpretation (MoS, the prequel) that didn't set the box office alight itself 3 yrs ago.

    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.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    The main issue here, from my perspective, is that some 'empty suits' appeared to assume that the film could make more than $800m at the worldwide box office, while at the same time introducing all these new characters. Moreover, they seemed to expect this on the back of a Superman interpretation (MoS, the prequel) that didn't set the box office alight itself 3 yrs ago.

    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.

  • edited April 2016 Posts: 2,115
    re: another commercial misfire example.

    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.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The main issue here, from my perspective, is that some 'empty suits' appeared to assume that the film could make more than $800m at the worldwide box office, while at the same time introducing all these new characters. Moreover, they seemed to expect this on the back of a Superman interpretation (MoS, the prequel) that didn't set the box office alight itself 3 yrs ago.

    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.
    Yes, I can appreciate that they wanted to get the Justice League up quickly and that they were playing catch up to Marvel. However, even then, and even with the power of Batman, they should have realized there was a risk. After all, Batman Begins, despite being a far superior film with a better interpretation of Batman, didn't set the box office on fire 11 yrs ago. I'm sure the 'suits' realized that Batfleck could have misfired (he didn't imho, but the risk was there and that possibility should have been anticipated when approving the budget).

    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.
  • Posts: 9,842
    Yes because Black Panther Hawkeye and black widow were super developed oh wait no they weren't I am sorry how quickly we forget and one film is hardly developed...

    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

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I preferred it when the public didn't give a damn about box office.

    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.
  • Posts: 4,325
    re: another commercial misfire example.

    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.

    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.

  • Posts: 4,325
    Do people know the difference between net and gross? Do I need to explain? Do people study economics?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Yes defining commercial success by the gross which the some of the audience might can be quite different judgement that judging by net.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 1,092
    re: another commercial misfire example.

    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.

    Exactly. The cost of the film makes the difference between success and failure. Deadpool cost a paltry 80 million by comparison.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Yes because Black Panther Hawkeye and black widow were super developed oh wait no they weren't I am sorry how quickly we forget and one film is hardly developed...

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited April 2016 Posts: 11,139
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Do people know the difference between net and gross? Do I need to explain? Do people study economics?

    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

  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    doubleoego wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Do people know the difference between net and gross? Do I need to explain? Do people study economics?

    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 :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2016 Posts: 40,957
    That's like saying a movie that costs $3 billion to make is a tremendous success at the box office if it makes $2 billion, just because $2 billion looks good on paper. Even if it does, it doesn't make it so.
  • Posts: 4,325
    yes
  • Posts: 832
    They should spend that much making a 4 hour long, landmark, avengers vs justice league movie and spend like 3 years making it
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    They should spend that much making a 4 hour long, landmark, avengers vs justice league movie and spend like 3 years making it

    They can all be foster brothers and let Mendes direct.
  • Posts: 832
    :)) Nah it should actually be good and developed hence the 4 hours haha
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Yes because Black Panther Hawkeye and black widow were super developed oh wait no they weren't I am sorry how quickly we forget and one film is hardly developed...

    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.

    I was going to respond, but you countered this argument perfectly, @doubleoego. Thanks for saving me the time.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Yes because Black Panther Hawkeye and black widow were super developed oh wait no they weren't I am sorry how quickly we forget and one film is hardly developed...

    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

    @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,
    The Mandarin is real and he is angry at Kingsley's actor character, so much so that he arranges to get him out of prison to have a word with him, right? Mandarin could very well still be coming to us, in his comic form.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    the only 'misfire' in terms of money from SP was it's inflated budget, and the fact that it had to make around $650 million just to break even.... sometimes, throwing money at a problem is not the best way to fix it... CR accomplished far more, with less, than SP could with an extra $150 million of spending money... bigger doesn't always mean better...

    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.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 832
    HASEROT wrote: »
    the only 'misfire' in terms of money from SP was it's inflated budget, and the fact that it had to make around $650 million just to break even.... sometimes, throwing money at a problem is not the best way to fix it... CR accomplished far more, with less, than SP could with an extra $150 million of spending money... bigger doesn't always mean better...

    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
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The only actor who survived and benefited from a shift in tone was Moore (between MR to FYEO).

    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.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only actor who survived and benefited from a shift in tone was Moore (between MR to FYEO).

    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 :).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Any chance of this debate not needing tedious reference to tiresome comic book franchises every thirty seconds?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Any chance of this debate not needing tedious reference to tiresome comic book franchises every thirty seconds?


    I know!
    That's why I drop out of and only check into threads like this periodically. It seems that many of our members think that Marvel or Star Wars should be the ideal that EON should shoot for. I would hope that as Bond fans (particularly considering the source material) we would be angling for something more complex, mature and substantial (regardless of past transgressions that pushed the franchise in the other direction).

    Of course not Star Wars and Marvel but Star Trek and DC! :))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2016 Posts: 40,957
    I will say it's funny how some call for the closing of this thread when we DO discuss 'Bond 25,' saying that this thread should be closed down due to a lack of concrete information, or we only have rumors, or there's over 100 pages and nothing solid, etc...but then discussing DC and Marvel in here is okay?

    Let's start steering things a bit more back on track, everyone.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    To discuss DC is reasonable, as it's the initials for the current Bond actor as well :))
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I will say it's funny how some call for the closing of this thread when we DO discuss 'Bond 25,' saying that this thread should be closed down due to a lack of concrete information, or we only have rumors, or there's over 100 pages and nothing solid, etc...but then discussing DC and Marvel in here is okay?

    Let's start steering things a bit more back on track, everyone.
    I may be biased, but I don't see a reason to close this thread until Bond 25 is released on Blu-ray.
  • Posts: 4,325
    jake24 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I will say it's funny how some call for the closing of this thread when we DO discuss 'Bond 25,' saying that this thread should be closed down due to a lack of concrete information, or we only have rumors, or there's over 100 pages and nothing solid, etc...but then discussing DC and Marvel in here is okay?

    Let's start steering things a bit more back on track, everyone.
    I may be biased, but I don't see a reason to close this thread until Bond 25 is released on Blu-ray.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.