Movie: Warner to release fewer films after BvS letdown - Page 3

TheFireLexus

This article is confused and proof that the bias a lot of people refer to is real. The article makes it out that BvS is a failure and WB is adjusting their strategy in response to that, but the entire crux of the "news" is that WB is scaling back on "other kinds" of films, and focusing on their superhero slate, along with other tentpoles. Why would they be focusing on more superhero films if this one was such a failure? Sense = 0.

Quote:

Originally posted by fridayteenage

ATRLers truly believe everything they read.

Given the big portion of box office taken by the theatres, and how a reported $150 million was spent on marketing, it has not made back its budget.

Not everyone has power like the billionaire couple Bey and Jay.

LOL. No. Box office is only one part of a movie's earnings. A huge part, sure, but still only one. That marketing budget was likely already made back before the movie even hit theatres, thanks to product placement and merchandising. This article from Forbes goes into a lot of detail, and crunches the numbers.
Excerpt:

Quote:

Take the $800 million figure, and subtract the $350 million ridiculously-unrealistically low figure we got earlier as the conservative lousiest-of-lousy situation for the non-box office revenue streams associated with the film. You get $450 million with that math, right? That’s about how low Batman v Superman’s total worldwide box office would have to be to really be in the “danger zone” for Warner, when all is said and done.

It's already made about $250 million more than that. So. Yeah.

Shinning

Superhero movies are lame. Only the Dark Knight series are worth watching.

Nialler

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFireLexus

This article is confused and proof that the bias a lot of people refer to is real. The article makes it out that BvS is a failure and WB is adjusting their strategy in response to that, but the entire crux of the "news" is that WB is scaling back on "other kinds" of films, and focusing on their superhero slate, along with other tentpoles. Why would they be focusing on more superhero films if this one was such a failure? Sense = 0.

LOL. No. Box office is only one part of a movie's earnings. A huge part, sure, but still only one. That marketing budget was likely already made back before the movie even hit theatres, thanks to product placement and merchandising. This article from Forbes goes into a lot of detail, and crunches the numbers.
Excerpt: It's already made about $250 million more than that. So. Yeah.

1) Event movies are generally replacing dramas and character pieces which moved into TV. BvS failure was never going to prevent them from exploring their biggest IP.
2) Anyone can be a Forbes contributor. That article was written by a fanboy (checked his twitter).

ChapelHooker

I'm so sick of all of these super dark, extremely overdramatic superhero films. Like the world is at stake in every single one of them. I need my fun X-Men movie now!

vamp

“you can’t tell me Batman v. Superman is so much less valuable [than Jurassic World].”
JW was a good movie.

TheFireLexus

Quote:

Originally posted by Nialler

1) Event movies are generally replacing dramas and character pieces which moved into TV. BvS failure was never going to prevent them from exploring their biggest IP.

If you cannot see the contradiction inherent in the notion of doubling down on something because that something supposedly "failed" then there's really little else that can be said.

Quote:

2) Anyone can be a Forbes contributor. That article was written by a fanboy (checked his twitter).

Not sure in what universe you think this happens, but 1) Mark Hughes is a journalist actually employed by Forbes. 2) His article is based on actual facts and figures. Being a "fanboy" has no bearing on that.