MovieChat Forums > bb-15 > Replies
bb-15's Replies
The arguments in professional movie reviews are often arbitrary.
* C. Marvel is a very powerful character. From the beginning she is voluntarily holding back her power. It’s always there. She’s like Superman but without the limits of Kryptonite.
Pro critics often say woman action movie characters should not be too strong. I never agreed with that since the male characters in these franchises are that way.
Anyway, this movie is loved by pro critics. Yet C. Marvel is near the top of the list of the most powerful superhero characters.
- In the film she is never really tested. There is little story arc in terms of her power.
* Another pro critic difference; C. Marvel had lots of artsy flashbacks. C. Marvel is praised for it & Suicide Squad flashbacks were criticized because there were too many or were too artsy..
Imo at least.
1. FB2 will continue to make more box office and from now on ~1/2 of box office is profit.
Why does that matter? Because franchise films that make 3x+ their production budget get sequels/prequels.
2. Professional critics scores mean nothing when the topic is “BO (box office) is dropping”.
The first 4 Transformers films were all rotten on RT.
And our personal feelings don’t about this either. I can’t stand the Transformer films. But I recognize that they made money & that they got sequels.
Why?
In terms of sequels all that matters is box office. And the formula which accurate predicts a sequel is what I’ve explained multiple times; making make 3x+ their production budget.
3. As for the studio, Warner Brothers, with this BO performance, imo they will make another Fantastic Beasts film.
WB made “Justice League” which had ~ a $300 million production budget (due to reshoots)! WB probably after streaming/disk sales just broke even with JL.
* Yet, WB didn’t give up on the DCEU. That is important in predicting what WB will do with the FB franchise.
WB released “Aquaman’. It it looks that will be a hit.
- Considering that, and with FB2 making some money in theaters and with streaming/disk sales money coming, yes WB will make another one.
Update; FB2 is now at $611 million box office. (And it will make more.)
Divide that in half (approximate studio take) = ~$305 million.
That covers the production & advertising costs.
Box office 3x + production costs in a continuing franchise almost always gets another movie.
The FB franchise will continue.
* You wrote;
“If your logic was true then simply because the trend of dropping the BO numbers continued...”
That’s not my logic. I never mentioned the 3rd or 4th film in a franchise.
- I responded to your comment about the first two films in a franchise.
That’s all that’s being discussed here; film #1 and film #2.
* You wrote;
“Compared to FB1 it's performing significantly worse, over 40M behind what FB1 did at the same time...
It's not a failure, but a franchise of this magnitude performing like this when we're only two movies in?”
- Again, pay attention to the Star Wars box office when it had only two movies in it.
* “Empire Strikes Back” made $237 million less than “A New Hope”.
Was “Empire” a failure? No.
Comparison to the previous movie means very little. What is most important is costs, box office and making a profit for each movie.
* You also wrote;
“Those were different times.”
Please, all the box office formulas I mentioned still applied in 1977 - 1980. “Empire Strikes Back” made money according to those formulas. That’s all that matters imo.
- Another example;
Spider-Man 1 worldwide box office $821.7
Spider-Man 2 worldwide box office $783.8
The sequel made about $38 million less. Doesn’t matter. Spider-Man 2 made a profit.
- One more example with the same conclusion.
Deadpool 1 $783.1 worldwide box office
Deadpool 2 $734.2 worldwide box office
The sequel was $49 million less. Yet, I’m sure the franchise will continue.
Star Wars: A New Hope, Worldwide box office: $775,398,007
The Empire Strikes Back, Worldwide box office: $538,375,067
Sequel made $237 million less.
Again, all that matters is that FB2 makes some money to keep the franchise going.
I’ve explained the formula which shows that the film needs to get to about $600 million.
I think it can get there. We’ll see.
I focus on the box office formula I mentioned.
Films that even had box office less than 3x the production budget have gotten sequels like Batman Begins, Captain America the First Avenger and Thor.
- The first hurdle is for a film’s box office to get to 2x the production budget, otherwise it’s almost always a flop. Examples of flops which killed big budget sequels; Solo and Green Lantern.
“Crimes”/FB2 is almost at $500 million box office or 2.5 the production budget.
It hasn’t been out a month yet. I’ll wait until February. By then I think the numbers will be fine.
The box office for “The Grinch” doesn’t matter for the success of “Crimes of Grindelwald”.
What matters is the “Crimes”/FB2 box office compared with its costs.
A standard formula for box office success is for it to first be 2x the production budget to pay for that and 3x the production budget to also pay for advertising.
(One part of this formula is that the studio only gets about 1/2 of the box office money.)
- The production budget for FB2 is $200 million.
3x the production budget = $600 million box office (the studio would get about 1/2 of that which = $300 million).
- Can FB2 reach $600 million? Yes.
BB ;-)
Starman; well said. Yes, many audiences are attached to cliches about how Westerns were made decades ago when, as the rancher said at the end of the movie; “Indians have no rights”.
Before 1960, interracial marriage was illegal, every treaty with Native tribes was broken. Then the old Western film mostly became a justification for invasion and submission.
Once the US changed with the civil rights movement, the the genre changed though movies like “Little Big Man”, “Dances with Wolves”, “Windwalker” and “Soldier Blue”.
In history, at the end of the 1800s, there was strong criticism in the North Eastern US of living conditions in reservations, and there was some condemnation of the Wounded Knee massacre. At that time there were some Caucasians who got along with Native Americans and there was some intermarriage which was not stopped by US society.
* Considering the many things which happened in history, this film has a variety of views. There is blind hate. There is openness to connecting with people who are different.
- There is also the question of duty compared with out of control vengeance. That is Christian Bale’s character’s motivation imo. He does his duty. He follows orders. He is brutal but will only go so far within the limits of what he is ordered to do.
Finally, when he has orders from the US President, he expects them to be respected by the locals in Montana. When that is pushed aside by the rancher who also threatens Bale, then he feels he has the right to deliver lethal consequences.
Pretty much my thoughts.
I enjoy these kinds of movies (San Andreas / The Commuter) if I like the main actors and if the action is decent.
Then I can have fun with the regular guy who beats the conspiracy.
A little bit of suspense, a couple of plot twists, some fights / explosions.
It works with Skyscraper.
Agreed. Wonder Wheel is cliche Woody Allen; specifically a lot of the movie is very similar to Blue Jasmine.
* Remember the end of Blue Jasmine?
When Cate Blanchett’s character remembered that she had betrayed her husband to the government?
* In Wonder Wheel Kate Winslett’s character accepted that she betrayed her husband’s daughter which led to her death.
- In Blue Jasmine, after that, Blanchett’s character falls apart.
- With Wonder Wheel, Winslett’s character fell apart, the end.
* Also agreed that the acting was wooden but this was because of the script. It was like an old fashioned stage play.
Allen lit Wonder Wheel like Birdman. But with Birdman the actors talked like regular people.
In Wonder Wheel the actors had some of the most unnatural dialogue in a Woody Allen film.
My rating; 6/10. It got positive points because of the actors & the lighting.
But because of its flaws, I’ll never see this thing again.
I’m just glad I didn’t pay to see it in a theater & saw it for free on streaming.
;-)
Once repeating my argument becomes futile, then I write this;
I agree to disagree and I'll move on.
BB ;-)
It's just imo; in my opinion 🌠
"your argument was that you did not appreciate the silly humor in ragnarok,"
I have two arguments.
1. This first one has to do with rules in a franchise.
You brought up the point that;
"we are still talking about a movie where superman is flying through the air,"
I responded that this was an established rule of the DC franchise. (Since the 1940s, Superman can fly.)
- Then I brought up an example from Ragnarok where Thor, god of thunder, can't avoid a ball bouncing off a wall.
That imo violates the rule in the MCU franchise of Thor's godly coordination skills, such as his ability to catch a hammer at high speed.
That argument has nothing to do with humor.
2. The second argument centers on my personal taste about humor. Singing into a rodent after a scene about cancer I personally consider to not be funny.
BB ;-)
It's just imo, in my opinion 🌠
"we are still talking about a movie where superman is flying through the air,"
That is a rule in the Superman franchise. "JL" pretty much follows DC movie/TV franchise story rules.
- As a contrast, when the god of thunder, Thor (in Ragnarok) throws a ball against a window where it bounces back and he doesn't have the coordination to get out of the way of the ball and it hits him on the head;
What rule in the Marvel MCU films does that follow? After all Thor can catch a hammer flying at tremendous speed.
- But it doesn't matter to our discussion. Because I don't think being consistent with franchise rules matters to 90% of the audience.
And that's fine with me that people have that kind of reaction to films.
It's all for fun to them which leads to silly humor. Star Lord singing into a rodent (right after a scene where his mother died). Ha ha for lots of people.
But since I have a different reaction, there is no need to get insulting about it.
"let's at least try to talk like adults here"
"let's cut the crap"
I am talking like an adult here.
I have a view point. You have yours.
I'd like to agree to disagree and move on.
BB ;-)
It's just imo, in my opinion 🌠
Of course we will disagree.
But since you mentioned "Raganarok", it is not my kind of movie. I liked Iron Man and Avengers but after that, Disney Marvel to me had gotten too silly or imo it sometimes fundamentally doesn't make sense.
I prefer more grounded superhero films like Logan or Justice League.
* I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
Everyone has the privilege of their personal taste.
BB ;-)
It's just imo, in my opinion 🌠
Imo 'I watched it and it was very good'.
My rating, 8/10.
Not perfect but no movie is.
I've seen 17 films in theaters this year and so far "JL" is my favorite.
But I respect those who disagree. Most mass market movie taste has moved in a different direction from what I enjoy and I accept that.
BB ;-)
It's just imo; in my opinion 🌠