Batman v superman Beats out Deadpool and GoTG.

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gracetrack
#51 Posted by Gracetrack (4774 posts) - - Show Bio

@spambot: That's your opinion. To each his own.

Avatar image for asgaard
#52 Edited by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:

@asgaard: LOL You aren't providing me with any counter-evidence. I was using Deadline for my argument. In a cost/profit projection, which includes projections from home entertainment costs, surely they know to include the costs associated with distribution in theaters. BvS costs are clearly stated to be under $600 million. You claim they are at $900 million. My claim aligns with Deadline, yours do not. Why do I need a better source when you are providing my source for me and then vouching for it? If you are going to claim $900 million and then say Deadline is credible, I expect you to provide an updated Deadline cost projection list that reflects your claim, not mine.

Really? Where it says rental means that money is taken away from the movie theaters Box Office, the projection at this point was that this movie would make $925M worldwide just in movie theaters and yet the total revenue with Tv & streams is just $806.3M! Then they start to acknowledge the costs! Get it?

@spambot said:

@asgaard: There is another one I found on deadline which states that if BvS makes $925m that WB will make $150-200m off of it.

http://deadline.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-opening-weekend-box-office-records-1201726300/

That refers to the same article, so that profit is acknowledging the streams and Tv, do you guys read the article?

likely will turn a minimum profit of $207.9M once all revenue streams are accounted.

Means that with a total of $925M in the worldwide box office (without Tv and Streams) this movie would lose $3.7M million!

8TH UPDATE: Monday 5:31PM. Warner Bros.’ Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justicemight come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run

Avatar image for makhai
#53 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:
@makhai said:

@asgaard: LOL You aren't providing me with any counter-evidence. I was using Deadline for my argument. In a cost/profit projection, which includes projections from home entertainment costs, surely they know to include the costs associated with distribution in theaters. BvS costs are clearly stated to be under $600 million. You claim they are at $900 million. My claim aligns with Deadline, yours do not. Why do I need a better source when you are providing my source for me and then vouching for it? If you are going to claim $900 million and then say Deadline is credible, I expect you to provide an updated Deadline cost projection list that reflects your claim, not mine.

Really? Where it says rental means that money is taken away from the movie theaters Box Office, the projection at this point was that this movie would make $925M worldwide just in movie theaters and yet the total revenue with Tv & streams is just $806.3M! Then they start to acknowledge the costs! Get it?

Yes, really. You are quoting a figure that is assigning one number, then you are claiming another. What is worse, is that you are seemingly conflating two different figures to come to your conclusion. This is unacceptable in any intellectual debate. When you can furnish direct evidence that the total costs are $900 million, you can strut around like you are someone important, not before. Since both your source, as well as mine confirm a $600 million total cost and projects these costs towards home-release, well after theater costs, I am going to maintain my position that aligns with our source. If you are not willing to furnish direct evidence to your claims, you should at least admit that you are speculating, not stating facts.

Avatar image for billybickle
#54 Posted by BillyBickle (433 posts) - - Show Bio

Sad really took nearly 3 weeks for the holy trinity of dc to beat a talking raccoon. And they actually really haven't profit wise. Wtf is wrong with Hollywood. DC has great animated movies,why is it so hard for them to make a movie. I know it's only one bad movie so far but dang it's like shooting yourself in the foot during a foot race .

Avatar image for asgaard
#55 Edited by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:
@makhai said:

@asgaard: LOL You aren't providing me with any counter-evidence. I was using Deadline for my argument. In a cost/profit projection, which includes projections from home entertainment costs, surely they know to include the costs associated with distribution in theaters. BvS costs are clearly stated to be under $600 million. You claim they are at $900 million. My claim aligns with Deadline, yours do not. Why do I need a better source when you are providing my source for me and then vouching for it? If you are going to claim $900 million and then say Deadline is credible, I expect you to provide an updated Deadline cost projection list that reflects your claim, not mine.

Really? Where it says rental means that money is taken away from the movie theaters Box Office, the projection at this point was that this movie would make $925M worldwide just in movie theaters and yet the total revenue with Tv & streams is just $806.3M! Then they start to acknowledge the costs! Get it?

Yes, really. You are quoting a figure that is assigning one number, then you are claiming another. What is worse, is that you are seemingly conflating two different figures to come to your conclusion. This is unacceptable in any intellectual debate. When you can furnish direct evidence that the total costs are $900 million, you can strut around like you are someone important, not before. Since both your source, as well as mine confirm a $600 million total cost and projects these costs towards home-release, well after theater costs, I am going to maintain my position that aligns with our source. If you are not willing to furnish direct evidence to your claims, you should at least admit that you are speculating, not stating facts.

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for spambot
#56 Posted by Spambot (9506 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard: Right. Streams and tv are part of total income. Its not like the article is hiding something. We are talking about all income derived from the making of a movie.

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#57 Edited by Petey_is_Spidey (11828 posts) - - Show Bio

So how much do they need to break even when it comes to their PURELY THEATRICAL RUN? $700 million? $800? 900?

Avatar image for makhai
#58 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

Why aren't you providing the actual evidence that is required of you? You can't keep providing links to estimated costs that state $600 million and insist that it is $900 million. I have eyes. I can see that the source does not align with your estimate. You are trying to draw conclusions without all the facts and you dared to start this conversation with condescension?

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#59 Posted by Petey_is_Spidey (11828 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

Why aren't you providing the actual evidence that is required of you? You can't keep providing links to estimated costs that state $600 million and insist that it is $900 million. I have eyes. I can see that the source does not align with your estimate. You are trying to draw conclusions without all the facts and you dared to start this conversation with condescension?

So its only $600 million??

Avatar image for makhai
#60 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

So its only $600 million??

Based on the evidence that is being provided, that is the estimated total cost.

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#61 Posted by Petey_is_Spidey (11828 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@petey_is_spidey said:

So its only $600 million??

Based on the evidence that is being provided, that is the estimated total cost.

That means they've already broken even. How is this movie a failure then? A disappointment? Sure, but not a failure.

I'm guessing the $925 million is based off of licensing from tv deals and rentals, and even then there profit is still north of $250 million.

Avatar image for makhai
#62 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@petey_is_spidey said:

So its only $600 million??

Based on the evidence that is being provided, that is the estimated total cost.

That means they've already broken even. How is this movie a failure then? A disappointment? Sure, but not a failure.

I'm guessing the $925 million is based off of licensing from tv deals and rentals, and even then there profit is still north of $250 million.

Based on the projections listed by Deadline, they include rentals in the cost of $600 million. It seems that people are coming up with the $900 million figure based entirely on assumptions. The evidence does not support it yet, if it ever will.

Avatar image for asgaard
#63 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

Why aren't you providing the actual evidence that is required of you? You can't keep providing links to estimated costs that state $600 million and insist that it is $900 million. I have eyes. I can see that the source does not align with your estimate. You are trying to draw conclusions without all the facts and you dared to start this conversation with condescension?

Its just that you weren't able to understand the article numbers yet, and i have no idea why because its a really simple box office article, Batman V Superman Profit Projection...

So lets eliminate all the Tv and streams to make it easy for you...

Domestic B.O. $375M

Foreign B.O. $450M

China B.O. $100M

If the movie would end with a total of $925M (Worldwide B.O.)

From the $375M only goes for the Studio (Est. Domestic Rental) $206.3M

From the $450M only this goes for the Studio (Est. Foreign Rental) $180M

From the $100M only this goes for the Studio (Est. China Rental) $25M

=$411,3M yes from the $925M only $411M would go back for WB!

Production Cost $250M

Global P&A $165M

= $415M

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice might come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run

@spambot said:

@asgaard: Right. Streams and tv are part of total income. Its not like the article is hiding something. We are talking about all income derived from the making of a movie.

At least someone gets it!

So how much do they need to break even when it comes to their PURELY THEATRICAL RUN? $700 million? $800? 900?

According to Deadline that number would be $928.7M is up to you if you also want to correctly understand this article or just keep...

Avatar image for makhai
#64 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:
@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

Why aren't you providing the actual evidence that is required of you? You can't keep providing links to estimated costs that state $600 million and insist that it is $900 million. I have eyes. I can see that the source does not align with your estimate. You are trying to draw conclusions without all the facts and you dared to start this conversation with condescension?

Its just that you weren't able to understand the article numbers yet, and i have no idea why because its a really simple box office article, Batman V Superman Profit Projection...

So lets eliminate all the Tv and streams to make it easy for you...

Domestic B.O. $375M

Foreign B.O. $450M

China B.O. $100M

If the movie would end with a total of $925M (Worldwide B.O.)

From the $375M only goes for the Studio (Est. Domestic Rental) $206.3M

From the $450M only this goes for the Studio (Est. Foreign Rental) $180M

From the $100M only this goes for the Studio (Est. China Rental) $25M

=$411,3M yes from the $925M only $411M would go back for WB!

Production Cost $250M

Global P&A $165M

= $415M

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice might come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run

@spambot said:

@asgaard: Right. Streams and tv are part of total income. Its not like the article is hiding something. We are talking about all income derived from the making of a movie.

At least someone gets it!

@petey_is_spidey said:

So how much do they need to break even when it comes to their PURELY THEATRICAL RUN? $700 million? $800? 900?

According to Deadline that number would be $928.7M is up to you if you also want to correctly understand this article or just keep...

I understand the numbers just fine. What I don't understand is you injecting numbers into the figure that you have fabricated and then trying to pass them off as fact, then having the audacity to talk down to those who prefer to stick with only what Deadline themselves have stated. Clearly you think you are an intelligent fellow, but do you really think your behavior reflects that intelligence? Every link you are posting is to the exact same page, which has the figure of $600 million. You are trying to convince us that $600 million is $900 million but you are refusing to furnish the Deadline page that actually has this figure.

Avatar image for general_disarray
#65 Posted by General_Disarray (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel should be compared financially to the Incredible Hulk, and BvS to Iron Man, as they are the studios first 2 films. Every Marvel film now, including Fox ones, has the advantage of riding the momentum. Movies like GotG or Ant-Man would have made a lot less money if it wasn't for all the Marvel films that came before them.

Avatar image for avatar_of_green
#66 Edited by Avatar_of_Green (3214 posts) - - Show Bio

And BvS cost anywhere from 5 to 8 TIMES as much to produce as Deadpool.

Business sense tells you which one did well.

Also don't listen to industry fakers who will tell you it has to make blah blah to profit. That isn't how it works. Suffice to say using formulas it is making nothing but profit by now for studios, figuring in only 60% rent. At AMC theatres for instance it is still at 100% rent, so take that for what you will, it might have made profit at $500M if that is the norm. The oft-quoted ~55% industry-wide take figure includes all those low-budget movies at 10%-25% rent, the majority of releases.

Avatar image for linsanel_doctor
#67 Posted by linsanel_Doctor (8707 posts) - - Show Bio

It is kind of depressing if we compare Deadpool with BvS. I mean I like Deadpool the movie, but really the humor was kind of meh.

BvS had a lot of hype but didn't really deliver...

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
#68 Edited by TSciallsolle3451 (999 posts) - - Show Bio

@nicksmi56: struggling? na..it's the 3rd week bro..the movie probably has 9 more weeks left for its cinema run..

@the_stegman said:

@nicksmi56: I don't know about struggle. It did in three weeks what took Deadpool two and a half months to do.

@petey_is_spidey said:
@nicksmi56 said:

We're living in a day and age where Batman and Superman had to struggle to beat out Deadpool and the Guardians of the Galaxy D:

Struggling? It beat it out in just over two weeks. It barely struggled.

Don't argue...lol

Batman v Superman beating Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy in the box office is roughly the equivalent of a 24 year old short-distance sprinter outrunning a 14 year old long distance runner in a race.

As in, you guys are just doing an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Of course Batman v Superman will naturally get higher box office, it had a higher aim, as seen from its greater production budget and marketing costs. But have you notice how weak the legs are? After a fast sprint, it slowed down tremendously. Hence the analogy of Batman v Superman being a so-called "experienced" short-distance sprinter, who could have done much better than the so-called "amateurish" long distance runners.

If you guys really want to compare - WAIT for Captain America: Civil War. Despite the directors' attempt to shake off the image of it being "Avengers 2.5", it still has the perception of that, and this is comparable to the perception of Batman v Superman being "Justice League 0.5".

Avatar image for killermovies
#69 Posted by Killermovies (1163 posts) - - Show Bio

Still hasn't broke even yet

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
#70 Posted by TSciallsolle3451 (999 posts) - - Show Bio

And lol @ all the angry deniers that rage at the strong evidence that points to the claim that Batman v Superman is not doing well.

What do you get from it doing well/badly? The only reason I am concerned with its profitability is that I want to see more superhero movies.

It is a strong likelihood that Warner Bros is aiming for a higher box office revenue than any of the The Dark Knight trilogy movies, given the contents of the film AND the up-front investments. Its an expensive rendering of Batman + Superman + Wonder Woman + Justice League bit players, supposed to give it the class of an epic movie.

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
#71 Posted by TSciallsolle3451 (999 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for kasino
#72 Posted by kasino (2061 posts) - - Show Bio

Pretty good, great even. Those are comic book movies(hottest things moving) that were praised as being the best, while BvS had to fight extremely negative reviews.

I get BO numbers are a thing to talk about but what's the meter. No other movies profit margins are being mentioned. Being close to a billion is rare but cost is then mentioned. So you have to establish the highest profits. Without it BvS profit is either too high or too low.

I personally like tickets sold if something other then the movie and it's pop culture inclusion isn't being talked about.

Avatar image for asgaard
#73 Edited by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:
@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

I just post the best link that i know about what we are discussing! If it is speculation its from deadline, that $600M costs number does not include the money that is for the movie theaters! Is that simple... You can spin it as you want but that is the correct interpretation of this article... Batman V Superman Profit Projection

With $1.4B at the worldwide box office AaU only had a profit of $382M because the money that goes for the movie theaters is a lot more than people think, and again this money is not included in the movie cost!

Why aren't you providing the actual evidence that is required of you? You can't keep providing links to estimated costs that state $600 million and insist that it is $900 million. I have eyes. I can see that the source does not align with your estimate. You are trying to draw conclusions without all the facts and you dared to start this conversation with condescension?

Its just that you weren't able to understand the article numbers yet, and i have no idea why because its a really simple box office article, Batman V Superman Profit Projection...

So lets eliminate all the Tv and streams to make it easy for you...

Domestic B.O. $375M

Foreign B.O. $450M

China B.O. $100M

If the movie would end with a total of $925M (Worldwide B.O.)

From the $375M only goes for the Studio (Est. Domestic Rental) $206.3M

From the $450M only this goes for the Studio (Est. Foreign Rental) $180M

From the $100M only this goes for the Studio (Est. China Rental) $25M

=$411,3M yes from the $925M only $411M would go back for WB!

Production Cost $250M

Global P&A $165M

= $415M

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice might come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run

@spambot said:

@asgaard: Right. Streams and tv are part of total income. Its not like the article is hiding something. We are talking about all income derived from the making of a movie.

At least someone gets it!

@petey_is_spidey said:

So how much do they need to break even when it comes to their PURELY THEATRICAL RUN? $700 million? $800? 900?

According to Deadline that number would be $928.7M is up to you if you also want to correctly understand this article or just keep...

I understand the numbers just fine. What I don't understand is you injecting numbers into the figure that you have fabricated and then trying to pass them off as fact, then having the audacity to talk down to those who prefer to stick with only what Deadline themselves have stated. Clearly you think you are an intelligent fellow, but do you really think your behavior reflects that intelligence? Every link you are posting is to the exact same page, which has the figure of $600 million. You are trying to convince us that $600 million is $900 million but you are refusing to furnish the Deadline page that actually has this figure.

All the numbers from my posts are in Deadline's article (you can see that below)... At this point i don't know if you are arguing just to not be wrong or just can't understand that when for example a movie makes $100M in China only 25% returns to the movie studio, and this variable is not acknowledged in the production costs, its a percentage that is different in the Domestic Box Office and other foreign markets! The assumption that Deadline's article should gave a figure of $900M as costs for this movie is wrong because AGAIN the percentage that stays with movie theaters is not acknowledged in the the movie costs and that percentage is different in several markets like i previously said! You are saying that only a $900M costs reference has validity here, but the reality is that when a movie makes around $925M in the worldwide box office and more in the foreign than the domestic box office (in the domestic box office a smaller percentage goes for the movie theaters) the movie studio ends with less than half of the final numbers! In B v S case if would end with $925M in the worldwide box office only $411,3M would return to WB and $513,7M would be for movie theaters that showed the movie, if for you add the $513M (that is for the movie theaters around the world) to the movie costs makes sense... do it, but Deadline or any other site with credible box office study/projection never does that, they only acknowledge the movie studio return that for ex. in China would be $25M if the movie make there $100M, $75M is for Chinese movie theaters! Also Deadline's $600M costs figure includes the costs with Tv and Stream not sure why has validity for you when we are debating the movie performance/profit in movie theaters!

Batman V Superman Profit Projection

THUMBSTREAMCOSTSREVENUEPROFIT
Domestic B.O.$375M
Foreign B.O.$450M
China B.O.$100M
Worldwide B.O.$925M
Est. Domestic Rental$206.3M
Est. Foreign Rental$180M
China Rental$25M
Global Home Entertainment & SVOD$260M
Global TV$135M
Total Revenues$806.3M
Production Cost$250M
Global P&A$165M
Global Home Entertainment Costs$91M
Participations, Residuals, Off-The-Tops$92.4M
Total Costs$598.4M
Total Profits$207.9M

So can you explain why in Deadline's projection the total movie costs is $598.4M (and in your interpretation that includes the money that goes for the movie theaters) and with the movie making $925M worldwide in movie theaters, $260M in stream and $135M in Tv but the final profit is only $207.9M??????

$925M+$260M+$135M=$1320M-$598.4M =$721,6M

$206.3M+$180M+$25M= $411,3M + $260M + $135M = $806,3M-$598.4M = $207.9M

I wonder which equation is right? Maybe the one that has the same exact final profits number that we also see in Deadline's article! $207.9M!?

Avatar image for rustyroy
#74 Posted by RustyRoy (16610 posts) - - Show Bio

Nice. It will probably make around 900-950 mils by the end of it's run, disappointing but still pretty impressive. And this is only the 2nd movie in DCEU.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#75 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@voorhees100: In pure numbers? Yes, it made more money, but it still hasn't broken even, for that it would need 800m, and to make a profit it needs 1.2 Billion.

Avatar image for makhai
#76 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

All the numbers from my posts are in Deadline's article (you can see that below)... At this point i don't know if you are arguing just to not be wrong or just can't understand that when for example a movie makes $100M in China only 25% returns to the movie studio, and this variable is not acknowledged in the production costs, its a percentage that is different in the Domestic Box Office and other foreign markets! The assumption that Deadline's article should gave a figure of $900M as costs for this movie is wrong because AGAIN the percentage that stays with movie theaters is not acknowledged in the the movie costs and that percentage is different in several markets like i previously said! You are saying that only a $900M costs reference has validity here, but the reality is that when a movie makes around $925M in the worldwide box office and more in the foreign than the domestic box office (in the domestic box office a smaller percentage goes for the movie theaters) the movie studio ends with less than half of the final numbers! In B v S case if would end with $925M in the worldwide box office only $411,3M would return to WB and $513,7M would be for movie theaters that showed the movie, if for you add the $513M (that is for the movie theaters around the world) to the movie costs makes sense... do it, but Deadline or any other site with credible box office study/projection never does that, they only acknowledge the movie studio return that for ex. in China would be $25M if the movie make there $100M, $75M is for Chinese movie theaters! Also Deadline's $600M costs figure includes the costs with Tv and Stream not sure why has validity for you when we are debating the movie performance/profit in movie theaters!

Batman V Superman Profit Projection

THUMBSTREAMCOSTSREVENUEPROFIT
Domestic B.O.$375M
Foreign B.O.$450M
China B.O.$100M
Worldwide B.O.$925M
Est. Domestic Rental$206.3M
Est. Foreign Rental$180M
China Rental$25M
Global Home Entertainment & SVOD$260M
Global TV$135M
Total Revenues$806.3M
Production Cost$250M
Global P&A$165M
Global Home Entertainment Costs$91M
Participations, Residuals, Off-The-Tops$92.4M
Total Costs$598.4M
Total Profits$207.9M

So can you explain why in Deadline's projection the total movie costs is $598.4M (and in your interpretation that includes the money that goes for the movie theaters) and with the movie making $925M worldwide in movie theaters, $260M in stream and $135M in Tv but the final profit is only $207.9M??????

$925M+$260M+$135M=$1320M-$598.4M =$721,6M

$206.3M+$180M+$25M= $411,3M + $260M + $135M = $806,3M-$598.4M = $207.9M

I wonder which equation is right? Maybe the one that has the same exact final profits number that we also see in Deadline's article! $207.9M!?

You can repost the $600 million figure all you want but as long as their projection says $600 in total costs, I am not going to be accepting your make-believe figure of $900 million. Please provide the Deadline claim of $900 million. Your current reported figure only supports $600 million. You can't post the Deadline source, call it credible, then say that it is wrong because it doesn't align with your unsupported figure of $900 million.

Avatar image for asgaard
#77 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai:

You are just in damage control to try no look that were wrong in all the replies!

By the pattern, obviously that you will not accept other article by Forbes (of the same subject) by here it is, says exactly what i keep saying to you, other users may find it interesting in how the movie business works, not that you didn't, you just can't admit that you are wrong in your claim!

$250 million in production costs and another $165 million for global marketing.

The current box office trajectory suggests a final domestic theatrical gross of around $345 million, and a final international tally of around $550 million. Of that $895 million in projected box office receipts, Warner Bros will get to keep around 52 percent of the domestic grosses, and a weighted average of around 39 percent of the foreign tally (that’s 25 percent of the roughly $100 million from China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

So that gets us to a sum of about $395 million in theatrical rentals going into Warner Bros’ coffers. Was The $400 Million Warner Bros. Put Into 'Batman v Superman' A Good Investment?

In this article view if the movie would end with $895M in the worldwide Box office (movie theaters) WB would only get $395M - (production costs & marketing $415M) = -$20M

Avatar image for makhai
#78 Edited by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

@makhai:

You are just in damage control to try no look that were wrong in all the replies!

By the pattern, obviously that you will not accept other article by Forbes (of the same subject) by here it is, says exactly what i keep saying to you, other users may find it interesting in how the movie business works, not that you didn't, you just can't admit that you are wrong in your claim!

$250 million in production costs and another $165 million for global marketing.

The current box office trajectory suggests a final domestic theatrical gross of around $345 million, and a final international tally of around $550 million. Of that $895 million in projected box office receipts, Warner Bros will get to keep around 52 percent of the domestic grosses, and a weighted average of around 39 percent of the foreign tally (that’s 25 percent of the roughly $100 million from China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

So that gets us to a sum of about $395 million in theatrical rentals going into Warner Bros’ coffers. Was The $400 Million Warner Bros. Put Into 'Batman v Superman' A Good Investment?

In this article view if the movie would end with $895M in the worldwide Box office (movie theaters) WB would only get $395M - (production costs & marketing $415M) = -$20M

Now you are throwing around baseless accusations in an attempt to provide your illegitimate figures credibility.

The only thing I will not accept is your factually vapid claims. I asked you several times for the source that confirms your $900 million cost projection. You repeatedly only provide evidence that either supports or outright stated that the cost is less than $600 million. Then you post an opinion piece by Forbes as 'evidence'. An opinion piece mind you, that does not list the sources for their figures either.

What claim have I made that you can call incorrect? I have only been adhering to the very source that YOU said was credible and simply disregarding your fabrications and conjecture. Even if the true costs do work out to be the figures that you have essentially made up, you still wouldn't be right because you went about it by doing little more than guessing. Pulling numbers out of the air. It brings to mind the old adage of the broken watch. You can't use one estimate, then say it is another estimate. That is not applying logic, reason, truth, or facts. You cannot conflate two completely unrelated figures, and then apply them to the one we are discussing. That too, is a misapplication of logic, reason, truths, and facts.

There is nothing wrong with me simply using the data that you had vouched for. I simply refuse to accept your speculation as fact. If you can actually furnish reliable figures, or an adjusted cost/profit projection from Deadline, then I will adjust my position and you will get to feel like the amazing, all-important person you obviously believe yourself to be.

Avatar image for asgaard
#79 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

@makhai:

You are just in damage control to try no look that were wrong in all the replies!

By the pattern, obviously that you will not accept other article by Forbes (of the same subject) by here it is, says exactly what i keep saying to you, other users may find it interesting in how the movie business works, not that you didn't, you just can't admit that you are wrong in your claim!

$250 million in production costs and another $165 million for global marketing.

The current box office trajectory suggests a final domestic theatrical gross of around $345 million, and a final international tally of around $550 million. Of that $895 million in projected box office receipts, Warner Bros will get to keep around 52 percent of the domestic grosses, and a weighted average of around 39 percent of the foreign tally (that’s 25 percent of the roughly $100 million from China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

So that gets us to a sum of about $395 million in theatrical rentals going into Warner Bros’ coffers. Was The $400 Million Warner Bros. Put Into 'Batman v Superman' A Good Investment?

In this article view if the movie would end with $895M in the worldwide Box office (movie theaters) WB would only get $395M - (production costs & marketing $415M) = -$20M

Now you are throwing around baseless accusations in an attempt to provide your illegitimate figures credibility.

The only thing I will not accept is your factually vapid claims. I asked you several times for the source that confirms your $900 million cost projection. You repeatedly only provide evidence that either supports or outright stated that the cost is less than $600 million. Then you post an opinion piece by Forbes as 'evidence'. An opinion piece mind you, that does not list the sources for their figures either.

What claim have I made that you can call incorrect? I have only been adhering to the very source that YOU said was credible and simply disregarding your fabrications and conjecture. Even if the true costs do work out to be the figures that you have essentially made up, you still wouldn't be right because you went about it by doing little more than guessing. Pulling numbers out of the air. It brings to mind the old adage of the broken watch. You can't use one estimate, then say it is another estimate. That is not applying logic, reason, truth, or facts. You cannot conflate two completely unrelated figures, and then apply them to the one we are discussing. That too, is a misapplication of logic, reason, truths, and facts.

There is nothing wrong with me simply using the data that you had vouched for. I simply refuse to accept your speculation as fact. If you can actually furnish reliable figures, or an adjusted cost/profit projection from Deadline, then I will adjust my position and you will get to feel like the amazing, all-important person you obviously believe yourself to be.

The problem in all your pointless spin (my own opinion about it, not fact) is that regardless any box office number...

Only 52 percent of the domestic grosses goes for the movie studio...

Only 39 percent of the foreign tally goes for the movie studio (that’s 25 percent of China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

... this equation is always applied to any Hollywood movie studio (US) production, and isn't part of the costs like you claim!

So generically when a movie makes $1B (worldwide in movie theaters) more than half is for the movie theaters around the world this is really easy to understand, the problem with B v S is that WB spent a lot of money in the production and marketing and is not making a lot of money domestically like for ex. the previous 2 Batman movies!

To be as profitable as the lower-budget “Man of Steel” -- and some of the more successful Marvel films, which generate 44 percent net profit on average -- “Batman v Superman” would have to gross $1.15 billion worldwide, Holden estimates.

Bloomberg

Avatar image for makhai
#80 Edited by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

The problem in all your pointless spin (my own opinion about it, not fact) is that regardless any box office number...

Only 52 percent of the domestic grosses goes for the movie studio...

Only 39 percent of the foreign tally goes for the movie studio (that’s 25 percent of China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

... this equation is always applied to any Hollywood movie studio (US) production, and isn't part of the costs like you claim!

So generically when a movie makes $1B (worldwide in movie theaters) more than half is for the movie theaters around the world this is really easy to understand, the problem with B v S is that WB spent a lot of money in the production and marketing and is not making a lot of money domestically like for ex. the previous 2 Batman movies!

To be as profitable as the lower-budget “Man of Steel” -- and some of the more successful Marvel films, which generate 44 percent net profit on average -- “Batman v Superman” would have to gross $1.15 billion worldwide, Holden estimates.

Bloomberg

I haven't made any claims other than factual claims need to be supported by factual evidence. I have been adhering only to the data that you originally provided and vouched for. It is not my problem that you made claims and then have consistently refused to back them up with factual evidence. That problem, and obvious shame, is yours and yours alone. You can post opinion piece after opinion piece like you seem to insist on doing, but opinions, as you pointed out in reference to yourself, are not facts. If Deadline is a reliable source, why are you contradicting that source with opinion articles? If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least be doing it with something that remotely resembles fact. Unfortunately for you, no amount of opinion pieces are going to add credibility to a claim of fact that has no facts. Furthermore, no amount of exclamation points is going to turn $600 million into $900 million.

Avatar image for asgaard
#81 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

The problem in all your pointless spin (my own opinion about it, not fact) is that regardless any box office number...

Only 52 percent of the domestic grosses goes for the movie studio...

Only 39 percent of the foreign tally goes for the movie studio (that’s 25 percent of China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories).

... this equation is always applied to any Hollywood movie studio (US) production, and isn't part of the costs like you claim!

So generically when a movie makes $1B (worldwide in movie theaters) more than half is for the movie theaters around the world this is really easy to understand, the problem with B v S is that WB spent a lot of money in the production and marketing and is not making a lot of money domestically like for ex. the previous 2 Batman movies!

To be as profitable as the lower-budget “Man of Steel” -- and some of the more successful Marvel films, which generate 44 percent net profit on average -- “Batman v Superman” would have to gross $1.15 billion worldwide, Holden estimates.

Bloomberg

I haven't made any claims other than factual claims need to be supported by factual evidence. I have been adhering only to the data that you originally provided and vouched for. It is not my problem that you made claims and then have consistently refused to back them up with factual evidence. That problem, and obvious shame, is yours and yours alone. You can post opinion piece after opinion piece like you seem to insist on doing, but opinions, as you pointed out in reference to yourself, are not facts. If Deadline is a reliable source, why are you contradicting that source with opinion articles? If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least be doing it with something that remotely resembles fact. Unfortunately for you, no amount of opinion pieces are going to add credibility to a claim of fact that has no facts. Furthermore, no amount of exclamation points is going to turn $600 million into $900 million.

Like i was saying in my opinion the Forbes article, the Bloomberg article and Deadline's study/projection B v S, only around $900M+ box office from movie theaters, B v S starts to make money for the studio (WB)

Maybe i underestimate how today people are terrible at math and that is why you weren't able to understand Dealines's projection yet, so i will try like when people just started to learn math.

So this are all the numbers in Deadline's projection, to help in the associations lets give this numbers familiar names.

Domestic B.O. $375M (Batman Number)

Foreign B.O. $450M (Superman Number)

China B.O. $100M (Wonder Woman Number)

Worldwide B.O. $925M (Darkseid Number)

Est. Domestic Rental $206.3M (Robin Number)

Est. Foreign Rental $180M (Supergirl Number)

China Rental $25M (Donna Troy Number)

Global Home Entertainment & SVOD $260M (Flash Number)

Global TV $135M (Arrow Number)

Total Revenues $806.3M (Anti-Monitor Number)

Production Cost $250M (Charizard Number)

Global P&A $165M (Blastoise Number)

Global Home Entertainment Costs $91M (Lugia Number)

Participations, Residuals, Off-The-Tops $92.4M (Pikachu Number)

Total Costs $598.4M (Pokemon Number)

Total Profits $207.9M (The Presence Number)

So let's start with Pokemon's Number (Total Costs $598.4M) that includes (Charizard, Blastoise, Lugia & Pikachu) but not the money that is for movie theaters, (you know because people that works at movie theaters doesn't do it for movie passion), that money is a percentage [only 52 percent of the domestic grosses goes for the movie studio, only 39 percent of the foreign tally goes for the movie studio (that’s 25 percent of China, and 42 percent of the aggregated grosses from all other overseas territories)] of Batman Number, Superman Number and Wonder Woman number, so WB (the movie studio) in the end only gets (Robin, Supergirl & Donna Troy) and that numbers are not acknowledged in the movie costs as you see in the equations...

Darkseid +Flash+Arrow =$1320M- Pokemon =$721,6M

($925M+$260M+$135M=$1320M-$598.4M =$721,6M) (This one is wrong)

Robin +Supergirl+Donna Troy = $411,3M + Flash + Arrow = Anti-Monitor - Pokemon = The Presence

($206.3M+$180M+$25M= $411,3M + $260M + $135M = $806,3M-$598.4M = $207.9M) (this was how Deadline get to that final Number $207.9M (The Presence).

But This study acknowledges all the profits (Anti-Monitor), that includes (Robin +Supergirl+Donna Troy+Flash+Arrow) (Theaters, Stream & TV) and also all the costs (Pokemon) that includes (Charizard, Blastoise, Lugia & Pikachu) but what matters in our discussion is the movie theaters cost/profit and we only need in the equation (Charizard, Blastoise,) Costs, (Robin, Supergirl, Donna Troy) profit.

Robin +Supergirl+Donna Troy = $411,3M

($206.3M+$180M+$25M= $411,3M)

Lets call the $411M (Doomsday Number) Now to this number we will need to acknowledge the movie production costs and marketing (Charizard, Blastoise).

Charizard + Blastoise = $415M Lets call this number the (Jigglypuff Number)

($250M + $165M = $415M)

So........ Doomsday - Jigglypuff = -$3,7M

$411,3M-$415M=-$3,7M

This is why Deadline's says in a very explicit way that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice might come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run & likely will turn a minimum profit of $207.9M once all revenue streams are accounted...

8TH UPDATE: Monday 5:31PM. Warner Bros.’ Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justicemight come up $3.7M million short of breaking even in its global theatrical run. However, the first title in DC features 2.0., which was blasted by critics with a 29% Rotten score and given a B CinemaScore from audiences, likely will turn a minimum profit of $207.9M once all revenue streams are accounted.

So the Pokemon number ($598.4M) only has value for the overall study its pointless to use it when we are speaking of the Theaters cost/profit equation. And in this other occasion Deadline says specifically that...

Remember, our sources calculated that in order for BvS to turn a minimum profit in the theatrical window, it would need to do about $925M in global ticket sales.

Remember, our sources calculated that in order for BvS to turn a minimum profit in the theatrical window, it would need to do about $925M in global ticket sales

Actually this content was in my first post that you reply to, so could it be possible that you are wrong because can't understand anything in this study beyond the Pokemon Number ($598.4M) or is Anthony D'Alessandro wrong? The guy that wrote all the Deadline's articles/studies/projections regarding B v S that we are talking about?

Avatar image for neongamewave
#82 Posted by NeonGameWave (19333 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the movie is doing well but not that well it should have been able to outpace both movies without issue despite critical clashing from fans and critics alike, however the movie should still stand out as a success just not a standard for success.

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
#83 Posted by TSciallsolle3451 (999 posts) - - Show Bio

people still discussing this in detail?

  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy had lower expectations going for them.
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy had lower costs
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy are better received critically, which has a positive effect on revenue
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy grossed less than Batman v Superman
  • Likelihood: Batman v Superman revenue is likely going to slow down, meaning revenue vs revenue comparison it may not even surpass The Dark Knight.
  • Reasonable conclusion is that Batman v Superman is relatively less successful compared to Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy.

'nuff said.

Avatar image for never_give_up
#84 Posted by never give up (24994 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard: You seem to be going very hard over "fictional characters" why is that?

Avatar image for asgaard
#85 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard: You seem to be going very hard over "fictional characters" why is that?

Can you point where did i make any comment about the fiction side of B v S or the characters portrayed there? I just pointed numbers regarding the box office performance/expectations, like i do for every movie because i am a big movie fan and also from the business side... Also can you point where i am wrong (since you reply)? If not why are you replying to my post without any content about what i am discussing? Is it personal?

Avatar image for never_give_up
#86 Posted by never give up (24994 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:
@never_give_up said:

@asgaard: You seem to be going very hard over "fictional characters" why is that?

Can you point where did i make any comment about the fiction side of B v S or the characters portrayed there? I just pointed numbers regarding the box office performance/expectations, like i do for every movie because i am a big movie fan and also from the business side... Also can you point where i am wrong (since you reply)? If not why are you replying to my post without any content about what i am discussing? Is it personal?

I can reply to anyone :P

There's just a lot of anger and arrogance in your posts.

Just letting you know and I will continue to do so if I want to because I can.

Avatar image for thorthunder98
#87 Posted by Thorthunder98 (6919 posts) - - Show Bio

people still discussing this in detail?

  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy had lower expectations going for them.
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy had lower costs
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy are better received critically, which has a positive effect on revenue
  • Fact: Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy grossed less than Batman v Superman
  • Likelihood: Batman v Superman revenue is likely going to slow down, meaning revenue vs revenue comparison it may not even surpass The Dark Knight.
  • Reasonable conclusion is that Batman v Superman is relatively less successful compared to Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy.

'nuff said.

yuppp that sounds right

Avatar image for asgaard
#88 Posted by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:
@never_give_up said:

@asgaard: You seem to be going very hard over "fictional characters" why is that?

Can you point where did i make any comment about the fiction side of B v S or the characters portrayed there? I just pointed numbers regarding the box office performance/expectations, like i do for every movie because i am a big movie fan and also from the business side... Also can you point where i am wrong (since you reply)? If not why are you replying to my post without any content about what i am discussing? Is it personal?

I can reply to anyone :P

There's just a lot of anger and arrogance in your posts.

Just letting you know and I will continue to do so if I want to because I can.

Currently i just don't have any interest in anything regarding you! If i did break any rule report it, because like i said i could care less about what you think about my posts!

Avatar image for makhai
#89 Posted by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard: So someone refuses to accept your opinion so the great and highly intelligent Asgaard can only think to resort to insults? It seems to me that in your effort to show everyone how highly you think of yourself, you have continuously failed to support factual claims with actual facts. You consistently insist on using opinion articles as evidence, when opinion articles are no more fact than your opinion of yourself.

So far, the only facts that can be observed, at least in this thread, is that you are unable to furnish factual evidence and when your opinions are challenged for the opinions that they are, you immediately resort to incendiary tactics. These tactics are usually indicative of a highly insecure person but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have some personal stuff going on that is making you appear as someone with a misplaced sense of narcissism and that you are in reality an alright individual.

As for Deadline, I am still waiting for a total cost/projection update that reflects your claims, rather than the claims in the original article that feature an estimated $600 million in costs. As I said, when you can provide this, I will adjust my position because the facts will then support it. I will not adjust my position simply because you have an opinion that is backed with unprovoked aggression.

Avatar image for never_give_up
#90 Edited by never give up (24994 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard:Fine don't bring anything up in the future regarding my posts.

@makhai

So someone refuses to accept your opinion so the great and highly intelligent Asgaard can only think to resort to insults? It seems to me that in your effort to show everyone how highly you think of yourself, you have continuously failed to support factual claims with actual facts. You consistently insist on using opinion articles as evidence, when opinion articles are no more fact than your opinion of yourself.

Funny thing is he's getting heated over "fictional characters". You can feel the aggression and arrogance in his posts. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, oh what the heck I'll laugh anyway ;)

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for asgaard
#91 Edited by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio

@makhai said:

@asgaard: So someone refuses to accept your opinion so the great and highly intelligent Asgaard can only think to resort to insults? It seems to me that in your effort to show everyone how highly you think of yourself, you have continuously failed to support factual claims with actual facts. You consistently insist on using opinion articles as evidence, when opinion articles are no more fact than your opinion of yourself.

So far, the only facts that can be observed, at least in this thread, is that you are unable to furnish factual evidence and when your opinions are challenged for the opinions that they are, you immediately resort to incendiary tactics. These tactics are usually indicative of a highly insecure person but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have some personal stuff going on that is making you appear as someone with a misplaced sense of narcissism and that you are in reality an alright individual.

As for Deadline, I am still waiting for a total cost/projection update that reflects your claims, rather than the claims in the original article that feature an estimated $600 million in costs. As I said, when you can provide this, I will adjust my position because the facts will then support it. I will not adjust my position simply because you have an opinion that is backed with unprovoked aggression.

I didn't insult anyone i just tried to explain again Deadline's projection, since the beginning that you were the one that tried the tactics that you described and continue with the exploration of that same angle that doesn't produce any effect on me, i just continue to explain again and again Deadline's article and how the movie business works, and even when the writer himself says it in clear English you refused to accept that for Deadline (since their first profit projection) B v S only makes money in movie theaters if end up with +$900M in the worldwide box office, but still can profit with Tv and stream. link

No Caption Provided

So its not about accept my opinion its about acknowledge what Anthony D'Alessandro (from deadline) wrote and i post it in post #43 of this thread, there was no need for you keep spinning it again and again, why didn't you just said that you will wait for more data, and that the current looks premature?

Avatar image for makhai
#92 Edited by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

I didn't insult anyone i just tried to explain again Deadline's projection, since the beginning and you were the one that tried the tactics that you described and continue with the exploration of that same angle that doesn't produce any effect on me, i just continue to explain again and again Deaddine's article and how the movie business works, and even when the writer himself says it in clear English you refused to accept that for Deadline (since their first profit projection) B v S only makes money in movie theaters if end up with +$900M in the worldwide box office, but still can profit with Tv and stream. link

So its not about accept my opinion its about acknowledge what Anthony D'Alessandro (from deadline) wrote and i post it in post #43 of this thread, there was no need for you keep spinning it again and again, why didn't you just said that you will wait for more data, and that the current looks premature and confusing?

Oh please. You do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit to your own actions. You made clear veiled insults on both my intelligence, as well as the intelligence of anyone who dares disagree with you. Surely you are aware that you can explain your opinions on the projections without resorting to thinly veiled attacks.

I have made no such attacks, veiled or otherwise. Refusing to agree with your opinion is NOT an attack on your intelligence. I have been able to observe, through your treatment of others, behaviors that indicate security issues and I immediately stated that I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply have things going on that only make you appear this way. That is not an attack but an observation. There is no need to imply that I have difficultly with math when I have given you no evidence to support such a libelous accusation. I have not done anything that warranted suggestions of stupidity either, yet you decided to do just that when simply insisted on using only projections that we both had agreed were credible, and not opinion articles. If you think that a person disagreeing with you is incendiary, then perhaps intellectual debate is just not the place for you. I only called you out for using opinions as facts. I still am calling you out for that because it is inconsistent with formal debate.

You now post a quote from Deadline that outright contradicts Deadline's previous estimate. In the original article, the total profits ranged in the $200 million, now this other article is saying that it needs $925 million to turn a profit. I am sorry but anyone can see that there is a discrepancy here. $200 million is not a minimum profit and that language is decidedly misleading since it clearly means minimum satisfactory profit, not minimum profit period. Not only that, but the $925 million figure is separate from the $200 million profit figure, which is calculated only from post-theater revenue. So if rentals, GHE, SVOD, and TV alone provide net profits in excess of $200 million when stood against total costs, then even if box office profits are only half of ticket sale costs, that is still quite the handsome profit, which alone tallies in the $400 million range as of right now.

There is no spinning on my part. I simply don't like you using your opinion as thought it were fact and then berating users who disagree with you. Like that NGU guy. He made one comment to you and you immediately spit venom at him. That's not respectable behavior. In the end, your claim that BvS needs to make over $900 million remains patently false. Even if we accept some of the opinion articles you have used. Therefore I am able, in good conscience, to dismiss your claims as inaccurate.

Avatar image for asgaard
#93 Edited by Asgaard (4570 posts) - - Show Bio
@makhai said:
@asgaard said:

I didn't insult anyone i just tried to explain again Deadline's projection, since the beginning and you were the one that tried the tactics that you described and continue with the exploration of that same angle that doesn't produce any effect on me, i just continue to explain again and again Deaddine's article and how the movie business works, and even when the writer himself says it in clear English you refused to accept that for Deadline (since their first profit projection) B v S only makes money in movie theaters if end up with +$900M in the worldwide box office, but still can profit with Tv and stream. link

So its not about accept my opinion its about acknowledge what Anthony D'Alessandro (from deadline) wrote and i post it in post #43 of this thread, there was no need for you keep spinning it again and again, why didn't you just said that you will wait for more data, and that the current looks premature and confusing?

Oh please. You do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit to your own actions. You made clear veiled insults on both my intelligence, as well as the intelligence of anyone who dares disagree with you. Surely you are aware that you can explain your opinions on the projections without resorting to thinly veiled attacks.

I have made no such attacks, veiled or otherwise. Refusing to agree with your opinion is NOT an attack on your intelligence.I have been able to observe, through your treatment of others, behaviors that indicate security issues and I immediately stated that I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply have things going on that only make you appear this way. That is not an attack but an observation. There is no need to imply that I have difficultly with math when I have given you no evidence to support such a libelous accusation. I have not done anything that warranted suggestions of stupidity either, yet you decided to do just that when simply insisted on using only projections that we both had agreed were credible, and not opinion articles. If you think that a person disagreeing with you is incendiary, then perhaps intellectual debate is just not the place for you. I only called you out for using opinions as facts. I still am calling you out for that because it is inconsistent with formal debate.

You now post a quote from Deadline that outright contradicts Deadline's previous estimate. In the original article, the total profits ranged in the $200 million, now this other article is saying that it needs $925 million to turn a profit. I am sorry but anyone can see that there is a discrepancy here. $200 million is not a minimum profit and that language is decidedly misleading since it clearly means minimum satisfactory profit, not minimum profit period. Not only that, but the $925 million figure is separate from the $200 million profit figure, which is calculated only from post-theater revenue. So if rentals, GHE, SVOD, and TV alone provide net profits in excess of $200 million when stood against total costs, then even if box office profits are only half of ticket sale costs, that is still quite the handsome profit, which alone tallies in the $400 million range as of right now.

There is no spinning on my part. I simply don't like you using your opinion as thought it were fact and then berating users who disagree with you. Like that NGU guy. He made one comment to you and you immediately spit venom at him. That's not respectable behavior. In the end, your claim that BvS needs to make over $900 million remains patently false. Even if we accept some of the opinion articles you have used. Therefore I am able, in good conscience, to dismiss your claims as inaccurate.

So you dislike myself and posts... And this subject/thread was just a way of express that feelings by keep spinning it and use some of the mentioned tactics to try demonstrate how bad user i am? This is the internet, honestly i don't deserve such importance, either way if i broke any rule or just because i am that terrible user that you claim, you should report it to moderators, can't see what is the purpose of judging the behavior of other users if your role in the forum/site doesn't have moderation functions, and its wrong use other users as examples when you don't know the context behind some actions... I never followed your posts/behavior, but by this thread sample/purpose i really don't care what is your opinion about me, and even if WB makes tomorrow a press conference confirming that if B v S doesn't make $900M+ in movie theaters the movie will lose money for the studio, i just want avoid future interactions.

The impression that you want to give in your last post content is that you still didn't understand Deadline's (only) article regarding B v S profit projection, but that is just to keep it spinning, because in the end that never had any importance in your agenda here, but i will end our interaction agreeing with you on something! In the end (Stream, Tv, Merchandise, Extended Cut) B v S will still make a lot of profit for WB!

Avatar image for makhai
#94 Edited by makhai (3389 posts) - - Show Bio

@asgaard said:

So you dislike myself and posts... And this subject/thread was just a way of express that feelings by keep spinning it and use some of the mentioned tactics to try demonstrate how bad user i am? This is the internet, honestly i don't deserve such importance, either way if i broke any rule or just because i am that terrible user that you claim, you should report it to moderators, can't see what is the purpose of judging the behavior of other users if your role in the forum/site doesn't have moderation functions, and its wrong use other users as examples when you don't know the context behind some actions... I never followed your posts/behavior, but by this thread sample/purpose i really don't care what is your opinion about me, and even if WB makes tomorrow a press conference confirming that if B v S doesn't make $900M+ in movie theaters the movie will lose money for the studio, i just want avoid future interactions.

The impression that you want to give in your last post content is that you still didn't understand Deadline's (only) article regarding B v S profit projection, but that is just to keep it spinning, because in the end that never had any importance in your agenda here, but i will end our interaction agreeing with you on something! In the end (Stream, Tv, Merchandise, Extended Cut) B v S will still make a lot of profit for WB!

I don't care for how you treat people who don't accept your opinions as fact, no. As for this thread, I don't think I have ever encountered you before, so the accusation that I am using this thread as a way to air prior grievances is, just as your opinions on the BvS article, completely baseless and just like your other accusations and suggestions of inferiority of other users in this thread, it is also libelous.

I don't know how bad of a user you are. I haven't encountered you before, likely because I have been focusing on things other than this site and your post count leads me to believe you may be fairly new. You are right about your true lack of importance, though I am not sure why you bring it up. When you foul, I mention it since we are in a debate with opposing ideas. That is how debate works. You make claims, I either agree with or oppose them and then I explain why. Your understanding of debate seems to be that you can make a claim, insult, or accusation, and then I must simply accept it. I am sorry to tell you that this is unacceptable, but I may be holding you to a standard that you may not be capable of reaching. You haven't demonstrated that you are worth thinking of beyond this discussion yet, as much as you would like to think otherwise. So the suggestion that I am using this thread as a means to harm you is frankly, ridiculous. Furthermore, I never said you broke a rule, but you can be a completely miserable person without breaking rules. You are attempting a straw man, which is pretty distasteful, if I do say so myself. What I am getting from you is that since you are unable to back up your claims with facts, you are now trying diversionary tactics and the utilization of logical fallacies in order to draw attention away from the fact that your claims have not been well-supported. You also seem to be attempting a straw man in an effort to blow my observations of your tactics out of proportion in order to make them appear illegitimate, which is also a fairly substandard practice.

I don't need to know the context behind whatever story you have with another user. I have nothing but negative associations with you as of right now and I am able to refrain from acting like a child. Is it really so hard to hold yourself to such a standard? Furthermore, your opinion of me, just like your opinion of BvS, doesn't seem to be factually based, so I can dismiss it just as I have been dismissing all of your opinions. If you want to avoid future interactions, then I encourage you to resist the urge to hit my reply button. Given that you think someone disagreeing with you is a personal attack on you, I can't say that I am exactly excited by the notion of future conversations with you either. You don't conduct yourself in a way that is deserving of respect or praise.

I understand the article just fine. I also am able to analyze and understand context. 'Minimum profit' has many connotations and based on the evidence you have provided, your literal interpretation seems to be fundamentally wrong. You throw out accusations of spinning but I have been as direct as humanly possible in this thread. Any misunderstandings on your part are not my failures. Your accusation of a mysterious agenda is also libelous and just like all your attempts at veiled insults, completely baseless. I am not going to make claims on BvS because that would be absurd, given that the best evidence provided so far seems to have some inconsistencies. What I will say though, is that if the original Deadline article is accurate, then BvS is going to make a respectable amount of money, both before and after theatrical release.

Avatar image for robochota
#95 Edited by Robochota (44 posts) - - Show Bio

OK, many people are confused and i made a comeback to explain this.

The studio keeps around to 50% of the American Box Office.

If this movie cost 400 millions it needs 800, if it cost 350 it needs 700, but thats only with the american box office.

International box offices is his own thing, in some parts they make like 25 cents from every dollar and in other places, they can do like 55 cents for every dollar or more, but as a rule they make less from the International since most of countries dont give them 50% of the box office and they have to pay taxes of this money, so this mean International Box Office is a risk, you can have a huge International Box Office, but your movie could still be a bomb.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925

The problem is that BvS looks huge, but its mostly on the International Box Office, since we know, it needs to make more of the double in International Box Office to make a profit from this, it means, this movies isnt making huge tons of cash, the movies isnt a bomb, but i am sure isnt a huge hit and is pretty clear is going to make less money for the studio that The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.

Because those films were bigger hits in the American Box Office.

So it could mean that Batman alone, is a better investment for the Studio that the Justice League.

Also this is a huge budget movie that had everything in his favor vs 2 movies that had everything against them, the fact Deadpool just from the box office will win more money that BvS will win from every single deal WB does, it just point out hat BvS actually got stomped.

Avatar image for silverpool
#96 Posted by SilverPool (4562 posts) - - Show Bio

It's not really "beating" them. Both GotG and Deadpool (especially DP) will probably be more profitable than BvS.

Avatar image for manwhohaseverything
#97 Posted by Manwhohaseverything (3818 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know, nor care, if BvS is making profit or not. ( get $0 either way) What I do know is 2 weeks out and it's at just under $800 million. That sounds good, but I'm 1000% certain WB expected more. heck, I expected more and I don't even work for WB. Had this movie only cost $100 Mill to make, they'd be thrilled. But it didn't and they aren't. Folks quit taking this personally, that the DCEU is off to a shaky start isn't your fault. That BvS wasn't as good as it should have been, also not your fault. That the MCU is doing well, not to your credit. It just is what it is.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.