- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Former WB Employee Pens Open letter to the CEO, Says Wonder Woman is a mess
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:46 pm to Breesus
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:46 pm to Breesus
Jupiter Ascending
Yeah that movie is crazy stupid.
I remember halfway through wondering if Hollywood now just thinks we're all just morons because of the comic craze and will eat up any half-baked, far-fetched nonsense cgi crap.
Yeah that movie is crazy stupid.
I remember halfway through wondering if Hollywood now just thinks we're all just morons because of the comic craze and will eat up any half-baked, far-fetched nonsense cgi crap.
1
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:48 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
With the hiring of a great director
What are you basing that on? The movie Monster? Or the one show she directed?
It's not like she has an established resume of greatness.
quote:
the star's guest appearance in BvS ending up as one of the high points of the movie,
That whole movie was so bad. So so so bad. It wasn't hard to be a high point. I will say she was better than I expected.
quote:
great cast
Agreed.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:49 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
I fully expect WB to start investing in more main stream horror movies. Their James Wan movies, both directed by and produced by, are making a killing. The Conjuring series is incredibly successful, and the movies are R rated.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:53 pm to abellsujr
quote:
heir James Wan movies, both directed by and produced by, are making a killing. The Conjuring series is incredibly successful, and the movies are R rated.
James Wan is the reason I'm so pumped about Aquaman (A character I know nothing about)
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:54 pm to Breesus
quote:
great cast
Agreed.
Honestly, I'm still a bit skeptical about Gal Gadots acting.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 1:55 pm to RLDSC FAN
I have no faith in WB to get any of their DC properties right, but I also don't think a former employee who was fired in 2014 has any fricking clue about a movie that doesn't come out until next year.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 2:09 pm to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
Good news for Wonder Woman...
LINK
quote:
BAD BOYS 3 Pushes Release Date, Leaving WONDER WOMAN Prime Box Office Real Estate
Sony's Bad Boys 3, now officially titled Bad Boys For Life, has moved off of its June 02, 2017 release date, setting up Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman for a potential monstrous weekend box office haul.
LINK
Posted on 8/12/16 at 2:19 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
Sony's Bad Boys 3, now officially titled Bad Boys For Life, has moved off of its June 02, 2017 release date
It's time to wake up and make the fricking donuts, Sony.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 2:40 pm to RLDSC FAN
WB's DC movies (despite being polarizing) are making money. Their horror movies are making money. They had two movies get nominated for best picture last year. Central Intelligence was a hit (I've never seen it). If their Fantastic Beasts series works out, they'll be fine in reality. I do think they need to do better with DC obviously, and I hope that the changes that they've made will improve that property. But those characters are still proving to be big money, despite being a mix bag as far as reception.
Last year was not great for WB, but this year is better. I don't think things are nearly as bad as the "whistle blower" would suggest. Just my opinion. A lot is riding on Fantastic Beasts, though.
Last year was not great for WB, but this year is better. I don't think things are nearly as bad as the "whistle blower" would suggest. Just my opinion. A lot is riding on Fantastic Beasts, though.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 2:47 pm to abellsujr
Warner has made over a billion dollars in domestic box office sixteen years in a row (including this year). That's an industry record.
Now other studios outsell them from year to year, and their profit margins vary from movie to movie, but they consistently put product in the U.S. theaters that draw in tons of people.
Now other studios outsell them from year to year, and their profit margins vary from movie to movie, but they consistently put product in the U.S. theaters that draw in tons of people.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 3:18 pm to Breesus
quote:
Fury Road was fricking awesome. Possibly the best late coming addition to a franchise outside of Star Wars in a long time
It also under-performed big time. It only made $370 million ww on a $150 million budget (not counting marketing). I doubt she was referring to the dog movie Max b/c that was a small budget family flick that only cost $20 million to make (though it probably barely broke even at $44m).
I think the major tent pole movies under-performing is more what GL was talking about as she also mentioned The Hobbit movies diminishing monetary returns due to mediocrity (and they were mediocre). To compare, the LOTR movies all did better financially w/each film. In fact, The Hobbit movies were pretty much saved by their international numbers and even then none of them made more than Return of the King which didn't have the same level as distribution as that was right when studios were really figuring out how much more they could make on the world market. Also, the Hobbit movies cost over twice as much to make than the LOTR movies which took a HUGE bite out of profits.
Man of Steel and BvS are also examples of a movies that should have been a much bigger financially than they were so even if they ended up in the black it wasn't enough to keep a ton of people form being fired.
You have to remember the purpose of a tent pole movie is to carry the studio financially through the entire year. It's not enough for them to simply get into the black and make a profit.
Look at it this way, Nintendo made profit on both the Gamecube and WiiU. However, they did not perform to the expectations Nintendo had so even though they didn't ultimately "lose" money they were financial failures. It's the same thing here. WB expected much higher returns and didn't come close to what they could (and should TBH) earn on those properties.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 3:39 pm to Waffle House
quote:
I think she means this Max
i thought that as well but that Max was MGM. had to mean mad max. which is an effing fantastic film.
on the topic of the OP. Marvel is apple and DC is Windows in today's world unfortunately. one can make really good products but the consumer is too ingrained to realize the "classic" (DC) is making decent stuff, the challenger (apple/marvel) is making too fancy or over the top stuff to see it's not that much better.
i say this a marvel>DC guy.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 3:41 pm to Dr RC
Each movie basically made a billion dollars. I mean, honestly, how much do movies need to make these days for people to keep their jobs?
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 3:50 pm to abellsujr
quote:
Each movie basically made a billion dollars. I mean, honestly, how much do movies need to make these days for people to keep their jobs?
Once again, you can't look at a tent pole movie in a vacuum. They are expected to carry the studio for the entire year (thus the name tent pole). If a tent pole under-performs and the studios doesn't have a ton of breakout minor hits it puts them in the position of possibly being in the red for the year.
Also, you need to take a look at just how much the Hobbit movies cost to make and market vs the LOTR movies. They cost over double just to make. It does not matter that they all nearly made $1 billion when they made several hundred million less than WB likely expected and made less w/each outing compared to the LOTR flicks making more each time out. Hell, since they were carried by the international numbers it may be even worse for them b/c they don't get near the theater splits from many international markets that they would get from US theaters.
So yes, an individual move making $500 million is good. But if the studio expected it to make $800 million they are $300 million in the hole for their financial planning and that causes a ripple effect that reduces budgets or outright kills other films that they plan on making in the future.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 4:00 pm to Dr RC
quote:OK, but WB has had some minor hits this year. Conjuring 2 (I would say major with it's budget), Central Intelligence (again, small budget), Lights Out, and we're only half way in the year.
Once again, you can't look at a tentpole movie in a vacuum. They are expected to carry the studio for the entire year. If a tent pole underperforms and the studios doesn't have a ton of breakout minor hits it puts them in the position of possibly being in the red for the year.
quote:Oh, I agree. But how can we possibly know what they expected these movies to make? Do we know that they didn't expect a billion? I don't think they expected the first trilogy to do as well as it did, hence the reason why they spent more on the new trilogy. They had similar expectations, and they got those for the most part. Making over a billion dollars is not an easy feat. If they expect that for every movie they spent a couple of hundred million on, then yeah, that's a mistake. But I'll use GotG as an example. That movie cost well over 200 mil to make and they brought in under 800 mil. It's considered to be a huge success. Why is this a success and The Hobbit is not?
Also, you need to take a look at just how much the Hobbit movies cost to make and market vs the LOTR movies. They cost over double just to make. It does not matter that they all nearly made $1 billion when they several hundred million less than they likely expected.
quote:Again, if they are throwing all of their chips in and making decisions based on expecting a billion dollars from every 200 mil movie, they are fricked.
So yes, an individual move making $500 million is good. But if the studio expected it to make $800 million they are $300 million in the hole for their financial planning at that causes a ripple effect that reduces budgets or outright kills other films that they plan on making in the future.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 4:27 pm to abellsujr
quote:
OK, but WB has had some minor hits this year. Conjuring 2, Central Intelligence, Lights Out, and we're only half way in the year.
Sure, but are those enough to cover what WB expected to make w/other films that under-performed? It's tough to know since they don't release those numbers but it's a fact that a tentpole under-performing can really bone a ton of other movies being made at a studio.
quote:
Oh, I agree. But how can we possibly know what they expected these movies to make? Do we know that they didn't expect a billion? I don't think they expected the first trilogy to do as well as it did, hence the reason why they spent more on the new trilogy. They had similar expectations, and they got those for the most part. Making over a billion dollars is not an easy feat. If they expect that for every movie they spent a couple of hundred million on, then yeah, that's a mistake. But I'll use GotG as an example. That movie cost well over 200 mil to make and they brought in under 800 mil. It's considered to be a huge success. Why is this a success and The Hobbit is not?
Well obviously we aren't privy to what they thought they could make w/the Hobbit movies but considering they spent over $600 million to make they before marketing it seems safe to assume they expected a few hundred million more per film at minimum.
Again, I point to the fact that the Hobbit movies really made their $$$ on the international market and they won't get the same splits that they get from the US. Simply coming in something $30 million under is enough to kill another movie even if the tent pole made $1 billion. Studios are much closer to breaking even each year that people realize.
quote:
Again, if they are throwing all of their chips in and making decisions based on expecting a billion dollars from every 200 mil movie, they are fricked.
Sure, but that's how the system works. All the big studios rely on their tent pole movies to fund everything they do for the year. This has become even more pronounced in this era b/c of the fact that the big budget blockbusters have become the only thing that consistently draw people to theaters. Pirating has had a real effect on their profits even though so many people try to deny it. There are a frick load of people who no longer go to theaters for non blockbuster type movies when they can just steal shite w/things like Kodi.
Hell, even though it's becoming more common to see movies hit a billion many seem to forget that actual ticket sales are doing very poorly. 2016 is on track to sell the fewest tickets since the 1920s. LINK That makes it an even bigger deal when the mega budget flicks that people actually show up to don't meet expectations.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 4:42 pm to Dr RC
If you're saying that studios expect over a billion on all movies they spend 200 plus million on, I think that's incorrect, but nice effort 
.
Also, you and I do not know what their expectations are. Also, we don't know what their true budgets are, so none of this meaningful. But if the budgets reported are true, according to you:
GotG: 232 mil to make, 772 mil at the box office HIT
BvS: 250 mil to make, 872 mil at the box office FAIL
The Hobbit Trilogy: 600 mil to make, 2.9 BILLION at the box office. FAIL
If you believe that is actually true, I don't know what to tell you.
. Also, you and I do not know what their expectations are. Also, we don't know what their true budgets are, so none of this meaningful. But if the budgets reported are true, according to you:
GotG: 232 mil to make, 772 mil at the box office HIT
BvS: 250 mil to make, 872 mil at the box office FAIL
The Hobbit Trilogy: 600 mil to make, 2.9 BILLION at the box office. FAIL
If you believe that is actually true, I don't know what to tell you.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 4:54 pm to abellsujr
That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying those movies likely had higher expectations than what their actual returns were. The letter to WB is evidence this is probably the case.
It's not even a secret that BvS was expected to make more so I don't know why you would deny that it was a disappointment for WB. You still seem to be looking at the returns in a vacuum instead of the whole picture.
Once again, just b/c a movie does well financially in relation to what it cost DOES NOT mean that it was a success in relation to what the studio needs it to do to fund their other projects. Movies studios are a business just like everything else. When product doesn't meet projections it's a negative that causes issues even if said product was a financial success by most measures (which is why I brought up Nintendo w/the Gamecube and WiiU).
Not sure why you can't see the difference between actual profits vs projected profits or why a tent pole under-performing is a kick in the teeth even if it made a healthy profit.
Also, bringing up GotG is silly b/c that was clearly not meant to be Disney's major tent pole movie for that year. BvS and the Hobbit movies however where absolutely supposed to be WB's biggest films of the year. This isn't even debatable.
It's not even a secret that BvS was expected to make more so I don't know why you would deny that it was a disappointment for WB. You still seem to be looking at the returns in a vacuum instead of the whole picture.
Once again, just b/c a movie does well financially in relation to what it cost DOES NOT mean that it was a success in relation to what the studio needs it to do to fund their other projects. Movies studios are a business just like everything else. When product doesn't meet projections it's a negative that causes issues even if said product was a financial success by most measures (which is why I brought up Nintendo w/the Gamecube and WiiU).
Not sure why you can't see the difference between actual profits vs projected profits or why a tent pole under-performing is a kick in the teeth even if it made a healthy profit.
Also, bringing up GotG is silly b/c that was clearly not meant to be Disney's major tent pole movie for that year. BvS and the Hobbit movies however where absolutely supposed to be WB's biggest films of the year. This isn't even debatable.
This post was edited on 8/12/16 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 8/12/16 at 5:07 pm to Dr RC
I understand what you're saying. My point is, these movies are not financial losses. I'm surprised you think that GotG was not expected to do well considering that high budget. BvS well? No, but I think they expected good numbers. And they got it. The studios are still making a shite load on these movies is all I'm saying, whether they expected more or not.
Posted on 8/12/16 at 5:11 pm to SabiDojo
Point Break wasn't bad but it had no star power and should have just gone with another name because it could never live down the fact that it was a terrible idea to remake it.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News