• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BO 08•12-14•16 - SOS Suicide Squad swiftly sinking, scarcely smokes Sausage soiree

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've picked the weirdest hill to be banned on

Ok ok, fine haha. I'm just thoroughly confused as to what's going on here. :p
_____

In other news, I just got back from Star Trek and I really don't get why it's bombing? I mean, I get the bad advertising campaign, but I feel like I saw people everywhere saying the main "problem" was that it was too much like a ToS episode or something? I never watched the series, but the movie in most ways pretty much felt perfectly in line with the two JJ films, so I'm not really sure what people are saying is so different?
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Ok ok, fine haha. I'm just thoroughly confused as to what's going on here. :p
_____

In other news, I just got back from Star Trek and I really don't get why it's bombing? I mean, I get the bad advertising campaign, but I feel like I saw people everywhere saying the "problem" was that it was too much like a ToS episode or something? I never watched the series, but the movie in most ways pretty much felt perfectly in line with the two JJ films, so I'm not really sure what people are saying is so different?

It was boring.

Like Kirk and Spock's revelations are so "mid season TV show" simple. Characters literally sit around and talk at each other. Important shit happened off screen between films. Action scenes were a jumbled mess.

Biggest problem is we're told that the five year mission changed Kirk, but we're not shown it.
 
It was boring.

Like Kirk and Spock's revelations are so "mid season TV show" simple. Characters literally sit around and talk at each other. Important shit happened off screen between films. Action scenes were a jumbled mess.

Biggest problem is we're told that the five year mission changed Kirk, but we're not shown it.

I mean, I suppose I can understand the bolded viewpoint, but I don't really get the rest? The movie certainly didn't seem overly talky to me, and I felt like everything was pretty regularly in motion. And that's the specific line I've heard the most - that it's too talky. I just don't really see that, it's not like the large "sit and talk" section of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy or anything.

But then I'm the weirdo who doesn't understand how Into Darkness is a "remake" of Wrath of Khan, so maybe I just don't get Star Trek the same was everyone else.
 

tomtom94

Member
In other news, I just got back from Star Trek and I really don't get why it's bombing? I mean, I get the bad advertising campaign
That's basically the reason why. Same with Ghostbusters. They both crippled themselves with bad first trailers that no amount of word of mouth was going to save.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
I mean, I suppose I can understand the bolded viewpoint, but I don't really get the rest? The movie certainly didn't seem overly talky to me, and I felt like everything was pretty regularly in motion. And that's the specific line I've heard the most - that it's too talky. I just don't really see that, it's not like the large "sit and talk" section of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy or anything.

But then I'm the weirdo who doesn't understand how Into Darkness is a "remake" of Wrath of Khan, so maybe I just don't get Star Trek the same was everyone else.

I just found it boring.

But I'm not a Star Trek guy. I don't care about discussions of morality, I just want to see a fun film.
 
That's basically the reason why. Same with Ghostbusters. They both crippled themselves with bad first trailers that no amount of word of mouth was going to save.

I get that. I guess I was just more confused about the other reasons people attributed to it failing to succeed (specifically the complaint I mentioned, though also Into Darkness supposedly tanking it when that movie was well received by general audiences and critics), rather than the actual reason itself.

I just found it boring.

But I'm not a Star Trek guy. I don't care about discussions of morality, I just want to see a fun film.

That's fair.
 

Harmen

Member
Yeah, Ben Hur is going to bomb extremely hard. And while I am not really against remakes, this seems like such a waste of money.

The original actually holds up amazingly well. I saw it for the first time last year and the famed chariot race is more tense than 90% of todays cgi fest action scenes. And some of the setpieces are amazing. And even though I am not religious at all, the Jesus scenes were pulled of in a fantastic, subtle and kind of mysterious way, with god tier music.
 

Blader

Member
I have no idea what they were expecting from a Ben Hur remake starring the guy from Boardwalk Empire. The guy was actually on Kimmel a couple weeks ago and mentioned how the 10-12 minute chariot race scene took 6 weeks to film, which sounded excessive.

That's about as long as it took to film the chariot sequence in the original.
 
That's about as long as it took to film the chariot sequence in the original.

that shit looks stunning on bluray. you can see just how expensive it was for it's time.

this in comparison just looked kinda wack in the trailers. kind of hilarious how they can't top it 50 years later with far better tech and resources at their disposal. lames.
 

Ahasverus

Member
Superman has too many goofy villains, if we are talking about things that translate to the big screen. No one wants to see him face Toyman, Parasite or Metallo for $10.
I'm sorry but parasite could make for a great survival horror movie. Think the thing, in space. I'm in.
 
Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven a month a part?

What a time to be alive.

magnificent seven looks pretty fun honestly. that's a remake i can get down with. particularly with the cast involved. loved the original and the original original (seven samurai) even more, but this looks like a pretty solid take on it
 

kswiston

Member
$4.1M for Suicide Squad on Wednesday.

Another poor Wednesday hold from Tuesday. Down 57% today week on week. If Thursday follows the same pattern, it will come in at $3.5M.
 
$4.1M for Suicide Squad on Wednesday.

Another poor Wednesday hold from Tuesday. Down 57% today week on week. If Thursday follows the same pattern, it will come in at $3.5M.
Couple days in a row of it being below Guardians. Wonder how the third weekend will compare.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Is it true for most films they need to make 2.5x their budget to be profitable when accounting for advertisement and other costs? I recall seeing that here before.
 
Is it true for most films they need to make 2.5x their budget to be profitable when accounting for advertisement and other costs? I recall seeing that here before.

idk tbh, because marketing costs can vary

If BvS' production budget was $250 million and advertising at least $150 million (which is probably an extreme low-end), you'd need $800 million to break-even, which is over 3x.
 

kswiston

Member
Couple days in a row of it being below Guardians. Wonder how the third weekend will compare.

Guardians made $25M in its third weekend. That was always out of reach.

High end is going to be $20-21M if Thursday's drop isn't too bad, and if the weekend increases are good.

Anything under $19M would be a pretty poor show. $290M vs $300M is not that big a difference profit wise, but $300M definitely looks better on paper. Another high 50s+ drop is not going to get the film there.

Suicide Squad is done having days over Guardians though (not counting late, barely of consequence dollar cinema bumps in 5-6 weeks). Guardians really started to shine in its 4th weekend. Guardians had a bigger fourth weekend than Civil War.
 

BumRush

Member
Is it true for most films they need to make 2.5x their budget to be profitable when accounting for advertisement and other costs? I recall seeing that here before.

Somewhat, but as KSwis could explain much better than I can, it really depends on where that money is made. Domestic provides much better return than certain foreign markets.
 

kswiston

Member
Somewhat, but as KSwis could explain much better than I can, it really depends on where that money is made. Domestic provides much better return than certain foreign markets.

Yup. The rough guideline is that studios take 55% of the domestic gross, 40% of the international gross (minus China), and 25% of China's gross. International territories all have their individual percentage takes, but that is a good guideline.


Let's look at two extreme examples: Warcraft and Straight Outta Compton. I will round the grosses to the nearest $5M mark for easy numbers.

Warcraft
DOM: $45M
INT: $165M
CHINA: $220M
WW: close to $435M

Using the 55/40/25 guideline, you get ~25 + 66 + 55 = $146M going to the studio (Universal /Legendary)


Straight Outta Compton
DOM: $160M
INT: $40M
CHINA: $0M
WW: around $200M

Using the 55/40/25 guideline, you get 88 + 16 = $104M going to the studio (Universal)


So while Warcraft made more than double Straight Outta Compton worldwide, it's studio cut was maybe 40% higher (ignoring the fact that Legendary's parent company Wanda owns several theatre chains)
 

3N16MA

Banned
Does the average person really know most of the villains attached to superheroes outside of a few big ones?

Really doesn't matter how goofy they're in the comics because we have seen films do great with goofy and boring ass villains. No reason Brainiac or Metallo couldn't make a good villain. Make them interesting enough on film and people will leave with a positive impression. Many of these films introduce these villains for the first time to a good chunk of the audience.
 

Timu

Member
I had no idea Ben Hur was coming out or even being made and I follow movies daily. Weird.
I knew about it last month...and by the trailers I knew it wasn't going to do very well(in reviews at least, we'll see if it's a box office flop).
 

BumRush

Member
Yup. The rough guideline is that studios take 55% of the domestic gross, 40% of the international gross (minus China), and 25% of China's gross. International territories all have their individual percentage takes, but that is a good guideline.


Let's look at two extreme examples: Warcraft and Straight Outta Compton. I will round the grosses to the nearest $5M mark for easy numbers.

Warcraft
DOM: $45M
INT: $165M
CHINA: $220M
WW: close to $435M

Using the 55/40/25 guideline, you get ~25 + 66 + 55 = $146M going to the studio (Universal /Legendary)


Straight Outta Compton
DOM: $160M
INT: $40M
CHINA: $0M
WW: around $200M

Using the 55/40/25 guideline, you get 88 + 16 = $104M going to the studio (Universal)


So while Warcraft made more than double Straight Outta Compton worldwide, it's studio cut was maybe 40% higher (ignoring the fact that Legendary's parent company Wanda owns several theatre chains)

Like I said, Kswis will say it much better than me lol
 

kswiston

Member
Does the average person really know most of the villains attached to superheroes outside of a few big ones?

Really doesn't matter how goofy they're in the comics because we have seen films do great with goofy and boring ass villains. No reason Brainiac or Metallo couldn't make a good villain. Make them interesting enough on film and people will leave with a positive impression. Many of these films introduce these villains for the first time to a good chunk of the audience.


What's the biggest comic villain turn around in a live action movie (outside of a 2 minute throwaway cameo by someone like Batroc)?

Most of the time, what we get on screen is worse than the source material.
 

MMarston

Was getting caught part of your plan?
So I'm guessing SS is gonna have a huge drop this weekend because it seems like any and all WOM about it has abruptly stopped this soon
 
What's the biggest comic villain turn around in a live action movie (outside of a 2 minute throwaway cameo by someone like Batroc)?

Most of the time, what we get on screen is worse than the source material.

Bane in TDKRises, maybe. At least relative to his presence in media outside the comics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom