Originally posted by marwash22
how does that work... from a logical or financial perspective? Where are you getting this info?pretty sure it didn't cost 300+ million to make this movie.
the way i've always heard it explained (from people who actually make movies for a living), is that, making double the production budget is like the movie never happened... meaning, you broke even.
Unless they spent $200mill on marketing the film or something ridiculous like that.
I don't get why people are so caught up on how much this movie is going to profit.
Star Trek Beyond has been out for two weeks and still hasn't matched it's 185 million production budget. Suicide Squad has a 175 million production budget and from what Golgo is preaching is going to surpass that on opening weekend.
However I do think boxoffice matters, to the studious at least.
Originally posted by juggernaut74
I don't get why people are so caught up on how much this movie is going to profit.Star Trek Beyond has been out for two weeks and still hasn't matched it's 185 million production budget. Suicide Squad has a 175 million production budget and from what Golgo is preaching is going to surpass that on opening weekend.
However I do think boxoffice matters, to the studious at least.
Well when people are going on about how the DCEU is breaking records and beating Marvel's Phase I at the box office, it's worth pointing out that these DC movies are not making much profit. They're only grossing more because they're spending much more on marketing than Marvel ever did at that stage.
Star Trek probably won't break even, and I'm glad because it sucked.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well when people are going on about how the DCEU is breaking records and beating Marvel's Phase I at the box office, it's worth pointing out that these DC movies are not making much profit. They're only grossing more because they're spending much more on marketing than Marvel ever did at that stage.Star Trek probably won't break even, and I'm glad because it sucked.
I would have liked Star Trek to make money, tbh. Would have given them reason to make more movies. That and with a new show coming out, positive buzz would be great.
Originally posted by Darth ThorIt didn't suck and I see your hatred is flaring up again. You think when a franchise you claim to like might not get any more big budget films greenlit. That's called being a hater. What's worse is its one stand alone film which has no bearing on the continuation of the film Trek verse. It still hasn't been released in other countries yet so the numbers are not finished yet. You're both ignorant and full of hatred.
Well when people are going on about how the DCEU is breaking records and beating Marvel's Phase I at the box office, it's worth pointing out that these DC movies are not making much profit. They're only grossing more because they're spending much more on marketing than Marvel ever did at that stage.Star Trek probably won't break even, and I'm glad because it sucked.
I saw the same kind of silly behavior after you saw my First Order hit the big screen in the Force Awakens.
Saw this last night.
Spoiler:The first two acts of the film are serviceable, even entertaining, despite the force fed MTV Greatest Hits 'score' to make things hip, but act three and the main villain kills pretty much all momentum the first two acts seemed to be building. I really wanted this to be good because I want the DCEU to last long enough for some more monumental stories to be adapted like Crisis on Infinite Earths and Blackest Night but it seems like WB doesn't have enough faith in the DC properties to get out of the way and are treating these stories like venture capital commodities rather than art. They could have used this film to set up Salvation Run or something but instead it became a thinly veiled attempt at mass appeal rather than making a good movie. Whatever execs at WB are meddling in these films needs to be reprimanded and taken off the DC films division.
There's parts of the film that are good, primarily Deadshot, El Diablo, Harley, and Amanda Waller, but overall it's a bad story with a few good characters that seemed too worried about style versus having worthwhile substance for a lasting narrative (it even punches holes in the overall narrative of the DCEU since there appears to be an abundance of metahumans and magical beings so the reaction to Superman in MOS seems out of place), and Leto's Joker is too small of a sampling to make a good judgment on whether he'll be solid going forward but seems to have been crammed in to get butts in seats off name recognition.
2.3/5.
Still looking forward to Wonder Woman and hoping it will be the first win in this venture, but WB's 0 for 3 now and my faith is gone. It seems like if it's not a Batman stand alone film or a Vertigo property WB can't get their shit together. It just doesn't make sense. They let the Harry Potter stories work straight from the narrative of the books but for the DC Comics films they feel the need to add too much to the recipe to make it palatable (bka profitable) to the public but these characters and stories are already proven commodities. It's frustrating as hell.
Personally, I actually enjoyed this more than BvS, but that's more because I'm a big time fan of villains and I have Lex Luthor on my Mt. Rushmore of Villainy and felt Jesse Eisenberg's adaptation was blasphemous and took me completely out of the film. Then Doomsday happened and I wanted to throw up. Both films overall were about the same structurally, inasmuch as the first two acts give you a false sense of security and hope, then the final act is CGI sadomasochism.