It will be profitable, but it's still a massive disappointment for WB. A movie with three A-list heroes was supposed to make a billion+.
Fucking Deadpool might make more than it in the US.
>>68174996
bad cast ruined it
>It will be profitable
lol
>Fucking Deadpool might make more than it in the US.
deadpool already has, BvS isn't going beyond 350m. It has some of the worst legs of a super hero movie ever.
>>68174996
kino will always make less than a movie.
>>68175017
A lot of things ruined it.
Now other blockbusters are going to eat up it's international gross
Jungle Book
Huntsman 2
Civil War
>>68174996
Every time I look at Gal Gadot's fake boob molds I think about how much could be stored in there.
>WB thought this would make 2 billion when it will struggle to make 800 million
>>68175081
Yeah ofc. but who wants to go watch a movie with these cunts as the leads and especially the lex choice.
>>68175200
Laughing at somebody else's misfortune?
Is anyone on this damn website nice?
>>68175041
>lol
I don't see the joke. BvS is not a good movie, but it already HAS made a profit. That's not a matter of debate, it's objective fact. The only issue is the scale of profit generated, which is lower than estimated or indeed would traditionally be required to ensure sequels.
>Bad Legs
Agreed 100%, it's paraplegic.
But it's still in profit albeit by a small margin.
The film was Batman v Superman.
It wasn't supposed to be Jesse Eisenberg playing Jesse Eisenberg for nearly 2 hours.
>>68175321
>it already HAS made a profit
no it hasnt
>>68175320
>"Somebody"
Studios are a business, it's feelings aren't hurt by our derision. It's staff should be aware their work will be criticised.
>Misfortune
Tripping over a misaligned slab is misfortune. A coin landing heads if you call tails is misfortune. Failing to print money with Batman and Superman is the result of poor decisions creating a flawed product, it's not "misfortune".
>>68175436
The budget including marketing was 500m.
In order to break even, it needs to make 500m.
As it stands it has made just shy of 800m.
What do we call the excess of 300ishm?
Does "profit" sound reasonable?
>>68175507
>The budget including marketing was 500m.
>In order to break even, it needs to make 500m.
why do you talk about BO when you don't understand it
they don't get 100% of the BO take, especially the foreign BO take where they get even less of a cut. thats why domestic BO is still the most important. theaters, distributors etc etc all get a cut and generally a good stat to use is the studio gets about 50%.
>>68175320
Fuck off with your capeshit. Maybe then we'll be nice.
Maybe.
>>68175535
You're assuming the figures aren't already adjusted. Why?
>>68175507
Hey retard, did you know that movie studios don't take 100% of ticket sales? They take in anywhere between 50% - 80% depending on how long it's been theaters, the theater takes the rest. This percentage is even lower for foreign markets.
So yes, it needs about 800-900 million worldwide to be considered a financial success for WB. Now kindly fucking kill yourself.
>>68174996
I literally just saw this. I think this has been panned for company war reasons outside the movie instead of what's in the movie. More that people are seeing as as a bigger whole than as a movie in itself. Admittedly the Justice League setups were the most jarring parts of it, but all the Batman vs Superman parts heavily outweighed them and were done really well. The people who criticise it for the JL parts would also be very quick to leap to Avengers 2's defence.
>>68175612
Same to you, why are you assuming published figures don't already reflect that?
>>68175589
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW BOX OFFICE MOJO REPORTS THE TAKE. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>68175659
Why would they report a misleading figure? What purpose does that serve?
>>68175436
It hasn't technically with ticket sales yet (although that will tip over very soon, though only just) but it's absolutely made a profit through merchandising. Turkish Airlines also gave them a LOT of money. It's a disappointment, but not a failure.
>>68175652
>>68175589
Websites like BOM only report on tickets sold, they then average it out based on ticket prices in the area. They have no idea how much each individual theater gets off the ticket price during any given week, so they report actual full ticket price sales figures.
All this information is easily googleable, I'm not going to spoonfeed you.
>>68175728
>They then average out
So you're saying the figures ARE adjusted.
>>68175589
>>68175781
No, they average out based on ticket prices across America. A ticket in New York City is around $15, but in rural Nebraska it may be $6. They average this out to a ticket price of around $10 per person.
>>68175703
That didn't help Man of Steel which people were and are still dubious on if it made a profit or not. The fact there is no MoS2 on the cards and Superman is fukin dead says it didn't do well.
>>68175781
That is not what he's saying at all, you stupid fuck.
Not all theaters charge the same. They take the average of the area x tickets sold. Nothing is adjusted for what the theater takes.
What is with /tv/ lately? Nothing but pure fucking retardation the last few weeks.
>>68175825
>>68175868
Well, ok then.
My mistake.
>>68175818
>Millenial
Are you 36+ or -16?
>>68175863
Man of Steel broke even purely through product placement, but it had a lot, LOT more than BvS. BvS had barely anything apart from Turkish Airlines.
MOS2 is possibly on the slate, there's an unknown spot that either Suicide Squad 2 or MOS2 is occupying.
Also Superman dying was planned very early on, as the team (the Snyders, Roven, etc.) always wanted to have Batman unite the justice league after superman "dying" as a seven samurai thing.
However I do agree with you that Superman has not been near as successful as they hoped. Bit of a shame because I'm one of the few that loves this version of him, but hey, it's Hollywood, they should be pandering to people beyond the few like me.
>>68175971
If MoS made a profit, it would immediately be on the slate, it would've been greenlit instead of throwing Batman and WW in there. It's no where to be seen.
>>68176013
It's provable that MOS broke even through product placement, therefore it obviously made some matter of profit from box office, although definitely less than they wanted (they were expecting TDK numbers).
MOS2 not being greenlit is a combination of factors
*MOS2 morphing into BvS
*Preserving the twist of dead Superman
*Them courting George Miller (seems to have failed at this point, but WB are sometimes persistent even when they shouldn't be)
I wouldn't be surprised for the unannounced greenlit DC film to be MOS2 and them just waiting for JL to come out and Superman to come back to life before announcing it. However I totally concede it could just be Suicide Squad 2.
>>68176013
It could have turned a profit, albeit a small one.
Sequels are done by projections. What they think a sequel will make vs what the original did make. Sequels always cost more. If the estimated cost of the sequel is more than the original + profit, there won't be one.
>>68175967
>>68175781
>>68175652
>>68175589
>>68175507
>>68175321
>these are the people that are DC fans.
>>68176062
>>68176136
It's not really provable, it probably made profit off the eventual rights sales, DVDs etc etc like most movies. But MoS2 is no where to be seen 3 years after MoS, that's with two JL movies coming up.
If it did make a profit, which I doubt, then it was an extraordinarily small one. that's with shit like getting 15m off walmart for tickets to give away in promotions, which they actually added onto the gross.
>>68176431
I'm not saying it did make one. Just that it could have and still not have a sequel.
People put far too much into the extras like merchandising. Those are supposed to be fluff profits, not "breaking even" profits. Used to be a film hoped to break even at the box office and the profits typically come from home video/licensing. With pirating now, they focus more and more on BO.
>>68175017
>Not Snyder
>>68175017
Cast was fine. Problem, I think, was that they showed EVERYTHING in the trailers.
I dont get this neckbeard profit logic,so movies like john wick then are total and utter box office failure but still they make sequels of them? I dont get it really.
>>68175393
*violin memes in the background*
DING DING DING DING DING DING
>>68176878
Deadline reported that it made 41.7 million profit from box office alone,and sequel is on the way,it still isnt announced because of Supermans death in BvS,but you bet that one of those 2 unnamed movies is MoS 2.
>>68175321
There is profit to be had, and profit that is PROJECTED. To be guessing at the poor editing and even more so the low critical ratings is enough to get people to deny other movies coming out.
The bad editing would actually affect the projected profit for the movie. Low ratings is going to, AT THE LEAST, put a lot of pressure onto the next movies. Bad pressure.
Since DC reboot superman like every movie, it's surprising a lot of people that BvS was made. It was doubted since the rumors started.
>>68175320
Like saying failing at a videogame is a misfortune. Even when you had hundreds of millions to get it right.
>>68175589
There's a part of marketing that says if you give the ture profit and the inflated profit, which would get you more profit.
The inflated profit. Always assumed reported profit is inflated, in ever way legally possible. To say you made a movie that made 100k instead of a movie you made 10k on, will affect if other people GOTO SEE THE MOVIE.
this is why it's so widely known the profits for movies, because that will affect if other people GOTO SEE THE MOVIE. It's like objective advertising.
music companies would buy 1 million of their own records back in the day because the inflated numbers sold more.
So if they made money, or made their projected profits, dunno.
It's safe to say the movie was a failure. Profit marginalized or not.
>Literally can't be more profitable than an r-rated movie that didn't open in china and had a budget equal to how much you spent on zack snyder and the batman suit alone
Transformers movies were more profitable.
>>68174996
ZACK THE HACK ATTACK
