Why the hell do they need 1 billion? - Justice League (2017) Discussion

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

the reason for it is that it's trying to establish a franchise as big as the MCU.

The general perception is that if the MCU [being a franchise about Super Heroes] is able to make a movie that earns 1 billion, than the DCEU [a similar franchise] should also do the same [even more so, due to the iconic nature of its characters].

Of course it doesn't "need" to do 1 billion at the box office, but it should [given the effect it has on the masses].

Advertisement is not that cheap either.

Revenue does tend to decline for as long the movie is on theaters. The first week being the "let's see how well this movie is received" value and is generally the one that makes the most cash [however, depending how successful it is, word of mouth, good reviews, etc, it may continue to stand for a little while longer]. After that, it starts to decline. Only the overall is important in the end of the day, but the Industry has its own predictions, etc.

What I find a bit abstruse is why people still make reference to the homeland Box Office when the largest share is abroad [namely China and Europe]. Usually, big movies [or big franchises] tend to get more people attending at the cinema than the overall run in the USA [hence why some countries get the movies either sooner or later than on the USA. It's a strategy].

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

They've all made money and will continue to make money.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

obviously. But you have to take into account the relevancy of the characters.

As an example:

Remember when Iron Man first appeared on screen? It was a desperate attempt by Marvel to get out of bankruptcy.
Back then most people outside of the Comic Book community [and Black Sabbath listeners \m/] probably never even heard about Iron Man. Iron who? Iron Machine? Iron Rod?

But everyone knows who Superman or Batman is.

Now, if Marvel was able to get a C lister [with a great performance by RDJ] into the big screen and have a huge it with it [which kicks tarted the franchise as we know it now], then why wouldn't a franchise with Batman and Superman [far more recognized than Iron Man] make the same money?

Avengers happened and it changed the game with the amount of money it made. Now DCEU "must" compete for the same prize with a movie of the same kind.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

They are clearly not making that amount of money but they are still making A LOT of money. And it seems they do not care about the 1 billion dollar mark or they would have stopped. Or they are that stupid and they just keep trying. Anyway, as long as the Nolan aesthetic sticks around, they will never improve.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Oh, they care. As a business they have all the interest in the world to make as much money as they can possibly make [why do you think their movies have "Director/Special/Ultra" editions? Miking the fanboys is a good way of making money].

What they lack is a guy like Feige. Someone who breathes the DC history as much as Kevin breathes Marvel's.

Instead they interfere with the production, rush it, try to use as less money as possible and cut their movies to absurd degrees so they can later milk the fanboys.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I don't think so, the Marvel movies to me are terrible, just like everything else being produced nowadays. Their movies aren't really good, it's a mystery to me why so much success. Who knows. They have people who know the DC characters, they are just trying too hard to be marvel.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

For me, most MCU movies are a "see once" kind of deal. But a fun "see once" thing. The only 3 MCU movies I would rewatch again if they happen to be on tv would be Iron Man, Guardians 1 and Civil War. The rest I really don't care.

I think their approach to Super Heroes on screen is the correct one. Comics are vibrant, full of color and fun to read [or used to be till I stopped reading them more than 2 decades ago]. They also changed some things to the characters stories to be more easily accessible to the non-comic book readers [the last thing a non-comic book reader needs when watching a Super Hero movie is 3 hours of backstory or "check this link for further information on the movie"; or re-watching Batman's parents death happening in every single Batman movie].

The people at the DCEU [even those who said "fuck marvel"] are only now realizing that people in costumes on screen are simply too silly to take seriously. So why not having fun with it? Even Deadpool did it by making fun of the "animated green suit" and "super hero landings" and he is at Fox. It's all very very silly.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I don't agree that it is silly, something like Batman The Animated Series shows how serious it can be and how profound it can be too but it has to be right. Looking back, the atrocious Nolan universe was serious only in color palette. Every single scene is some stupid ass joke that is just not funny and quite embarrassing. It has aged TERRIBLY. And that is the problem in my opinion, it made Batman boring.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

I'm not a Batman fan, so my take on him is that he is boring.

I can't take CBMs seriously. You see grownups on screen in outrageous costumes doing the most ridiculous anti-physics things. How can I take it seriously?

Jokes are fine. If I want "seriousness" all I have to do is turn on the news channel or go outside and look around.

The majority of people don't want that. They want to be entertained. To have a good time.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Art can be entertainment, it doesn't have to be vapid. And if you just want to be entertained, then why the complaints?? The DCEU is as vapid and empty as the cheapest entertainment out there. And that is why it is making money.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Why the complaints? Because I want to have my share of a good time watching Superman which is a Superhero I grew up watching [as well as Flash].

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

and why can't you?? the movie is banal and superficial, it serves to pass the time and be entertained. That's what you want is it? What is the problem?

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

the problem is I don't enjoy this iteration of superman. I don't enjoy the sulking and moaning from him. Can't enjoy the fx's, the pseudo-intellectual drivel, the attempt at "seriousness" and the confounding dark filter lens.

Many more reasons, for sure.

reply

[–] therefdotcom (964) 7 years ago

nolan did the right thing. he took the hero that was easiest to take seriously and did exactly that: take him seriously. he dropped the more ridiculous parts, toned some others down and overall made a damn well trilogy. there are good reasons why there is no robin and no penguin in it, for example. ;)

as for superman, that's also not an easy task. IMHO snyder did it well and also smallville was a great attempt. let's not forget that we are talking about a character here, that can fly for rather silly reasons and shoots lasers out of his eyes.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Nolan's trilogy is the most boring thing in the world, it is virtually unwatchable now.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

You sound lonely there.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

nothing wrong with that, I think for myself.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 7 years ago

This movie had a HUGE marketing campaign. I saw it everywhere, constantly. They definitely dumped a crap load of dough into that.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

Yeah marketing cost movies like these millions. 100 million across the world is certainly possible and worth it if the movie does billion dollar business.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Marketing is expensive and it determines heavily on the success of the movie when it comes to Revenue.

The best Marketing strategy I remember seeing was with Blair Witch Project. The guys made a site with a fake back story and on the poster it said "real found footage" or something in those lines. Cheap, but very very effective [nowadays it wouldn't work though].

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

Yeah I remembered that, some people thought it was real.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

A lot did. I remember back then there was a "special" portion on the Local tv news with "parapsychology experts" talking about witchcraft and the authenticity of the found footage as "groundbreaking" for the Parapsychology area.

They sure looked like imbeciles when the matter of authenticity was put to rest XD

those were the days...

reply

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or genuinely believe this, but this is all inaccurate:

No, a movie's cost is not twice its budget

No, advertising for a movie doesn't cost 100 million.

No, revenue doesn't decline week to week.

- Movies do need to clear a high hurdle (often 2x-2.75x budget) just to start making profit. And they generally need to clear more to justify a sequel.

- Advertising for Man of Steel was $150 million, as was Suicide Squad's. Wonder Woman's advertising campaign was even bigger (although its production budget was smaller than the other two).
http://www.indiewire.com/2013/06/does-man-of-steel-need-to-make-1-billion-to-be-a-success-97206/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Squad_(film)#Box_office

Avengers (2012) marketing cost $100 million, and would likely be closer to $150 million if released today too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2012-05-04/the-avengers-supporting-cast-business

- Revenue, aka box office intake, obviously falls every week - often dramatically. Not sure where you get the idea a movie makes the same $100 million in the second, third and fourth weekends.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Bullshit. All of that is garbage fanboy talk. Nothing has 150 million dollar in advertising. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD. 80 million, 90 million MAYBE, and that's exaggerating A LOT. So get over it.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

It isn't bullshit at all. We are talking about a multi billion dollar industry. The more money you invest on your advertising, the more people will see that advertisement. If more people see your advertisement the better are the chances they'll want your product. That's how it works.

100 million dollars to us, poor schmucks, sounds like a lot, but to the Industry itself is really not that much [specially with all the revenue, contracts, other goods, free publicity - as per example: word of mouth and reviews - and general consumer awareness to the product that brings the consumer to your front door to have a taste of what you are selling].

Billboards cost a lot of money
Announcements/adds on magazines, newspapers, etc, cost a lot of money
TV and radio publicity is very expensive
Internet websites cost money to maintain
Toys and other minor goods associated to a franchise cost a lot of money to make

Here, we are talking about 2 power houses of money making: Disney and WB.

What dictates the success or failure of the movies they are selling is relative to what I show you above [and other things, such as reputation and general quality of the product].

The downside happens when the product they are selling is not that good. If the movie doesn't make more than twice of it's production cost [and to this is added the cost of advertisement] then the movie failed to make any revenue [the list of people who have to be payed is enormous, and so is the cache of the actors].

There are many good movies that fly under the radar because of "poor" marketing/advertisement [think Indie films for the most part].

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Bullshit. 100 million dollars is A LOT OF MONEY for ANYONE, nobody is going to pay that amount for advertising anything. Just to get some perspective, in 1985 Dior spent 40 million to advertise Poison, and Elizabeth Arden spent 20 million in 1991 to advertise Liz Taylor's White Diamonds, the same could be the cost of advertising a blockbuster, and even if we adjust to today's dollars, it would still not be 120 million to advertise for such a product, so studios aren't spending that amount of money, nobody is, specially since no advertising will actually cost so much.

Second, it is not true they have to make twice the budget. Just look on box office mojo and wikipedia to see how some of the biggest hits of the last 30 years, made only 1/3 of profit on their budgets and they were still considered triumphs both critically and commercially.

Third, it is absolute bullshit that studios only get 50% of the profits. Absolute bullshit. If that were the case films would have stopped a long time ago because who the hell is going to pay and go for 100% of the trouble of making something to just get 50% of what that something makes in profit? It's insane and illogical.

Theaters make their money in food and by renting their space I guess, the rent for the showing room does not go up as time goes by, another favorite fanboy theory with zero logic and backing of any kind.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

40 million dollars in 1985 is not the same as in 2017. The industry was neither the same 30 years ago as it is now.

The biggest hits on the last 30 years [with the exception of Titanic and Avatar] never reached the 1 billion dollar at the B.O. And 30 years ago you didn't have the strength of the Internet as it is now. Those that did reach the 1 billion dollar mark did so with a lot of marketing [that costs a lot of money]. 30 Years ago, a movie was considered good mainly because of reviews of a handful of critics and general attendance.
Now [due to the internet] everyone can have a blog and do movie reviews [which, in turn, influences attendance. Why do you think WB only allows reviews to be disclosed so close to the Openings?]

"the rent for the showing room does not go up as time goes by, another favorite fanboy theory with zero logic and backing of any kind. "

Then why do theater tickets, a bucket of popcorn and a soda cost more now than 30 years ago? You think money value stops in time? You think a house rental of 40 bucks a month in 1929 is the same as in 2017? Think again.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I didn't say that, you did. And why are you obsessed with 1 billion?? If 1 billion is what they want again, the business would have ended in 1919.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Your OP is pretty clear with who is obsessed with the 1 billion dollars thing.

reply

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

Indiewire, Bloomberg, Forbes and Deadline (and many more) confirm these figures.

Look at this picture of Los Angeles:
https://i.imgur.com/7i3mFP3.jpg

Think of every movie poster you see at your movie theater, bus ad, billboard, gigantic mural.....just estimate how much that costs for one local area.
https://i.imgur.com/9cRLy7a.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xGMwpy1.jpg

Go ahead - be conservative in your figure. Doesn't really matter - it costs lots of money to put that billboard up, or paint a mural somewhere advertising JL, or holding an elaborate Vanity Fair party/premiere for the stars. Add all of that up, every movie theater in every possible corner of LA........you should have a figure in your head. Okay, now realize this is just Los Angeles.

How many cities are in California? Multiply by 50 states, each w/ many cities. How many countries in the world that regularly view these Hollywood films? Japan seems small, but look how big it is in relation to the US.
https://i.imgur.com/XP77aNM.jpg

It's not a tiny island after all, and right there a significant amount of ad $$$ is spent as well (Germany/Japan being in the Top 6 biggest movie markets in the world). Throw in Canada, Mexico, China & South American countries that are huge markets with thousands of cities. Now that figure in your head should balloon like crazy.

I don't think you have fully appreciated the magnitude of this, and how fast the costs add up to $150 million (I haven't even mentioned the immense costs to have commercial airtime on TV like the Superbowl or NBA game). And I'm not fanboying over this. Marvel, Disney, Universal, FOX....they all go through these enormous marketing costs, which have only increased over these years as competition has increased. There's more films being produced right now than ever in history. Movie marketing, for many of these studios, must ramp up to increase their chances of getting seen these days.

reply

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

(my post hit the character limit so here is another part):

Last of all - not all films have such a disproportionately high figure for their marketing budget. The P&A (Print & Advertising) budget of Justice League will not be the same as that for Lincoln, Grand Budapest Hotel, Daddy's Home 2 or Jigsaw.
Big comic book films will have some of the highest marketing budgets out there because they really need that money back, since their production/marketing budgets are usually the highest as well (makes sense, right?).

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

I'm starting to believe he doesn't understand how the world works.

reply

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

He still thinks a movie's break-even point is just $150-$180 million (see his newer comments below), and that theaters almost make nothing from a ticket sale. And then when you give him articles he calls it all bullshit and fanboy theory.

But his swift dismissal of everything sounds more fanboyish to me. I'm not here to try to crush the dreams of DCEU or Marvel fans - I watch them both. But there's business realities we just can't ignore.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

I agree.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

that's fine. It still won't cost 150 million and it still doesn't need to make twice its budget for profit.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

Ok why do you believe this? We know some of these comic book movies have reached close to or above 150 mil marketing and we know a Bvs didn’t begin profiting till about twice its real budget. I think the same was true with pretty much most of the comic book films, particularly DC films whose additional cost in reshoots has ballooned the budgets.

If a film cost 100 million to make and it earned 100 mil in WWBO it lost money, depending on the marketing cost which is generally not reported as part of the estimated cost for making a film it could have lost a lot of money.

Box office mojo estimates for instance generally do not include marketing and any extra cost for reshooting.

As far as your original post why a billion because avengers bvs and justice league would profit very little from a film that failed to achieve that number. And since the number is achievable. Why not?

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

there is literally no legitimate source for that bullshit argument other than bullshit fanboys, so.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

For a film with an estimated budget of 100 million what is its break even point?

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I would say 150 to 180 million would be the break even point, assuming the advertising budget isn't already in the 100 million.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

So assuming the film spent little to nothing on advertising, was fortunate not to need reshoots, convinced some theaters across the US to take lower than average take from this film and it had no international release . Which is what I have to assume based on the low break even point. On the high end of your projection the film is just a little shy of twice it’s estimated cost.

But a film whose budget is initially 100 mil is unlikely to leave it to chance. So you can pretty much guarantee the marketing will be a lot more especially since a film this costly will try its hand internationally. The studio will want it up to there standards so reshoots are possible and of course theaters try to get as much as they can so we will have to believe they are not going to show a studio random charity in this case. So the break even point based on the same 100 mil production estimate not only rises above 200 mil but may approach closer to 300 mil depending on a combination of these things.

The 2 times rule isn’t set in stone. There are a lot of variables. It just a simple projection on what many films need to profit.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Once more, those are fanboy theories used to demean and destroy things they hate online, like the all female Ghostbusters. Looking on wikipedia and box office mojo you will see that nearly all of the biggest successes in film history, or that were considered as such, did not make twice their budget at the box office.

Furthermore, I just googled the highest advertising budget of all time, I didn't get a clear answer but did get the biggest advertisers in what I assume are the US:

http://adage.com/article/news/meet-america-s-25-biggest-advertisers/242969/

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/10-of-the-worlds-most-expensive-advertising-budgets/

Maybe I am dumb but I am very skeptical about those numbers because no L'Oreal or AT&T product ever sold 1 billion, combined or otherwise, so how does that math work? I have no idea, but notice that NO FILM STUDIO is anywhere to be found on the lists.

Bottomline is no film advertising budget is anywhere near what the fanboys think it is. Surely it's considerably way less.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

I am not a fanboy I actually enjoy both dc and marvel usually. Your articles do nothing to disprove the cost of marketing for these films.

Here is an article from 3 years ago talking about the huge marketing cost of films like these https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818

100 mil for transformers in the US alone.

So you have the added cost of marketing which is expensive, theater cut, any reshoots and miscellaneous cost, extra cost of distributing internationally which is why domestic box office is still very important.

100 mil dollar film trying to get a big return with all the above is not going to break even at 150. It’s not realistic.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

If that is so then they are imbeciles. Imbeciles making imbecile movies for imbecile audiences. They deserve each other.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

Why does the cost of producing a blockbuster film upset you so much? Why was it important to you for the film to profit at a lower level?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

How do you feel now that you've lost another internet discussion?

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I haven't lost anything.

reply

[–] StarWarsRey (566) 7 years ago

Thats because people expect the DCEU movie to make as much money as the MCU.

But what people need to do is stop comparing both and leave each other to do their own thing.

reply

[–] GameOfSlaves (613) 7 years ago

It all about stock prices. It is for all public companies.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

I see you're one of those people that thinks theater chains are charities that never want any money for the movies they show. THAT'S why it's traditionally been a benchmark to make at LEAST double the budget.

reply

[–] Jamfo (408) 7 years ago

Of course they don't need to hit the billion dollar mark. But the reason this number is being held out as a milestone is because of all the noise the DC fans have been making for years when trying to espouse their movies over those of their Marvel counterparts.

The fact is, Marvel has hit this mark four times, and all but one of those, Iron Man 3, were big-event team-up movies.

For the past few years, ever since "The Avengers" hit that mark and changed the game, DC fans have been playing the waiting game. "Just wait until there's a Justice League movie," they would tout. "Then you will see who really is number one in the comic book adaptation genre." DC fans would posit that you could not fairly compare a team-up movie to that of the individual "intro" films, stating the existing DC movies were more fairly compared to Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and not to the super-blockbuster team-up films. I remember discussions with a user back on the old IMDB boards that, if "The Avengers" can hit 1 billion, then a Justice League film could easily double that take. After all, with its pantheon of indelible characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman), the Justice League team-up was the crown jewel of the DCEU and a guaranteed game-changer.

So everyone waited... and "Justice League" debuted. And it was underwhelming.

And now, all of a sudden, all the DC fans who would puff their chests and guaranteed that the Justice League film would just blow the Marvel films out of the water have disappeared. And now we are left with vapid discussions of how "Justice League" is performing, not against "The Avengers", not against "Captain America: Civil War", and not even against the pedestrian "Avengers: Age of Ultron"; no, instead we are comparing the DCEU's CROWN JEWEL, the long-anticipated, can't miss teaming of the most iconic heroes in the comics, to Thor 3. If I had said we would be making that comparison a few months ago, DCEU fans heads would have exploded.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

shrug, it's really not important to me, Marvel will always be second rate. It's funny that even Stan Lee would say they were outselling DC, can't see how if in fact they did.

reply

[–] Jamfo (408) 7 years ago

It may not be that important to you, and it doesn't mean anything to me, either, other than it is making for some awesome backtracking and revisionist history on the part of those DCEU fans who HAVE been militant about all of this.

You saying that Marvel is "second rate" is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

The fact that Marvel's "The Avengers" will beat "Justice League" like a rented mule is fact, and nothing any DC fan can say will change that fact.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

It honestly doesn't say much in this day and age other than cold hard profit, which, depending on who you ask is either everything in the world or nothing at all. I literally had to walk out of Captain America: Civil War because the film was so execrably bad. My point is that, there is no difference between DC films and Marvel films in terms of quality, they are all garbage. Thor was OK, which in these times means great, since almost everything is garbage nowadays. I don't know why people can't see it.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

If there's no difference between Marvel and DC films in terms of quality, why is it movies with two of THE most iconic heroes in existence can't be the hits movies starring B and C list Marvel characters are?

WB is doing a dis-service to great concepts and characters with a misguided direction and half hearted direction. I remember Snyder talking about the deconstruction of heroes being his goal and thinking "that would work for Justice League 3, but you need to CONSTRUCT them before you DE construct them.".

You don't like Marvel and that's fine but the evidence shows that your bias is clouding your judgement.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I'm not clouded at all. I can't offer an explanation because things no longer make sense in the world.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

everything makes total sense. You are just not accepting it.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

what makes sense? explain it.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

it has been explained to you ad nauseam in these post. Your answer is "bs" followed by "it's fanboy theories". So...

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

Marvel movies are ....let's not say "better" because you'll just have a hissy.....more widely accepted and found to be palatable. They are found so in such a degree that they still generate very large ticket sales despite this being deep, deep, deep into a shared universe in a relatively short amount of time because yes, Virginia, there is quality there.

YOU don't agree.

Which is fine.

You're entitled your opinion. But, much like my love of the Core, you have to admit and accept that you are the cheese and you stand alone.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Copernicus and that other guy burned at the stake for being a genius stood alone so I've never felt it's anything bad to stand alone.

As I have said plenty of times before, there is no reason for DC movies or any other shared universe, to be doing so bad if the argument is about quality because Marvel films, with the exception of Thor Ragnarok, are just as horrific. Things just don't make any sense anymore, most people have always been dumb and just sheeple but they are downright fucking lobotomized right now, so yeah Marvel's universe is a huge success, good for them but don't tell me they are doing something "right" because their films are just as awful as most things produced today, so.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

In your opinion.

See?

Like, I think you’re a deluded asshat infinitely frustrated that you’ll never know the touch of a man like you desperately crave so you lash out with impotent rage while wearing Cheeto crusted powerpuff girl underoos....but that’s just my opinion, Martha.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

.... that's an image I'll have to carve out of my eyes with the rustier knives I can find....

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

Then be happy I didn’t mention that he is probably is also angry that he didn’t catch that, when creating his screen name, his phone autocorrected cock for cake and now he’s stuck living a lie...

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

LOL. I was wondering where dafuk were you. :D

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 7 years ago

I know I'm late but....HAHAHAHAHAHA! Just like old times! I love it! XD

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

fuck off you worthless sack of shit.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 7 years ago

Wow....there's an intelligent, cogent retort.....

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

LANGUAGE!!

reply

[–] tanyalawrence (352) 7 years ago

So the argument is that if Justice League doesn't earn 10 bizillion gazillion dollars in its first 90 seconds in cinemas it's a total failure and DC should give up making comic book movies.

reply

[–] ArmadilloKnight (456) 7 years ago

Not that they should give up, but it's definitely a strong indicator that there's something not right with this universe. So maybe they should consider rebooting the whole damn thing and this time have someone competent at the helm.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

but they are still making money

reply

[–] AtomicReturns (1252) 7 years ago

I made a thread showing the real profit figures of Hollywood movies:

https://moviechat.org/tt0974015/Justice-League/5a14ce78e39a4d0012aec612/Here-are-the-actual-profits-that-movies-make-a-lot-harder-than-some-people-think

That is why JL needs to make over a billion. It cost even more than BvS.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

I read a forbes article that seemed to indicate the even with digital sales and physical disc JL is still expected to lose money.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

Its an indicator they should slow down, bring down the budgets and try to make good movies. JL is the pinnacle film and its pretty much guaranteed to fail even if it had WW legs because it cost so much and the expectations associated to it. This film in theory should have had the largest opening and highest totals and it may end up bringing in the least of all the films. This has been a disaster for WB. They can either learn from it or continue down the road that led to it. If you love DC what would you rather they did, try to do better or continue to let the ship go down?

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I doubt it will make a billion. The opening weekend was only $96,000,000, the lowest opening of all the DCEU movies.

😎

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 7 years ago

yeah pretty much true, Suicide Squad couldn't out-gross BvS even with its larger than reasonably expected opening and "good legs", the same BvS which had a massive opening and failed to reach a billion.

WW even fell short and many people loved that film, though seemingly more in the US than internationally, usually if a film break 400 million domestic it threatening a billion WW and i just noticed while its totals are good for international it actually grossed less than domestic, which is good for the bottom line but an interesting weakness for so loved a film.

reply