|
The first Avengers film is fun and is impressive in that it's a sequel to FOUR different films. But holy hell is it ever ugly. The cinematography is poo poo and the action sequences are mostly boring or on the level of a Buffy fight scene. The stand out worst scene for me is the scene in the lab where everyone is yelling at each other and nobody moves, they remain frozen on their marks while getting angrier and angrier. And we all know ho terrible that Whedon sanctioned Cap suit is.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
setafd posted:maybe they can just leave Superman dead since people dislike him lmao I like Supercavill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
I was more impressed that Marvel somehow got Robert Redford to be in a superhero movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:My one-sentence post had as much effort in it as the one I was quoting. That wasn't by accident. And I outright said that people can dislike a movie, and we could even talk about it in ways that aren't one-sentence no-effort posts. That wasn't by accident either. Did Xenomrph really just get fussy with me because I responded to their low effort post with a low effort post? Gyges posted:I like Supercavill. Cavill is the best Superman since Reeve. Really even the contest isn't fair because his competition is Christopher Reeve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I was more impressed that Marvel somehow got Robert Redford to be in a superhero movie. He cost a pretty penny and basically did it for his grandkids (and to pour more money into Sundance seminars, workshops, and whatnot). Most of what he does is for Sundance these days. Kinda like how Pacino generally only takes roles now so he can throw those paychecks into Actor's Studio semester budgets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Cavill is the best Superman since Reeve. Really even the contest isn't fair because his competition is Christopher Reeve. ... I mean...compared to who? Dean Cain? Brandon Routh (who was basically channeling Reeve)? Tom "No Flights, No Tights" Welling? Tim Daly? It's not like there's a lot of stiff competition, there. And I'd probably award the win to Routh if he'd been in a better movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I was more impressed that Marvel somehow got Robert Redford to be in a superhero movie. Not a superhero movie, a 1970s political thriller! Actually one thing that made me laugh about Winter Soldier is that it establishes that Black Widow was both a KGB agent and born in 1984. So I would like to see a future MCU movie about the KGB Toddler Division.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
setafd posted:maybe they can just leave Superman dead since people dislike him lmao Superman owns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Good news then, Batman vs Superman is beating Deadpool. Worldwide Deadpool total is $755,750,859 while Batman vs Superman is $783,485,542. Of course both of them are dogshit compared to Transformers 4, which earned $1,104,054,072 and is thus obviously the most superior movie. I think when people talk about BvS being out earned by Deadpool, they're referring to domestic gross, which is looking pretty possible at this point. The point of mentioning box office at all is because BvS is severely underperfoming expectations. This film should probably have crossed the billion dollar mark already, but in it's third weekend it hasn't even crossed into "profitable" territory (needs somewhere between 800 to 920 million for that) and the box office take is dropping like a stone. Of course box office performance is not necessarily an indicator of how good a film is, but it's insane that a movie about Superman and Batman punching each other that is meant to launch DC's entire franchise may not even make the studio it's money back in the theatrical run. WB was probably looking for somewhere around 1.5 billion to make "Avengers money" profit and there's no way that will happen at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Hollywood accounting is so loving bananas anyways that its really hard for anyone to say whether its a flop or not, unless its something akin to Fantastic Four. Budgets are never accurately reported at this size and no one really knows how much they made from advertising. Ive said this a couple times before in this thread and unless a movie really really bombs, its hard to say how happy studios are with gross. Im sure WB is underwhelmed at this point but I dont think they are panicking. Probably being cautious moving forward sure, but as evidence by their doubling down on their comic movie slate clearly this is more profitable than their usual productions. For instance, nobody even knows how much ASM2 cost, I work in the industry in NYC and am close with one of the gaffers and some other crew and the rumor was upwards of $400m on production alone. There is a reason even with a $700m gross they killed the franchise. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman will be the real tells of the financial viability of the DCEU and if those dont do well....DCs probably gunna start pulling back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Not a superhero movie, a 1970s political thriller! To be fair, they also establish that she was part of the Red Room program that trained female KGB agents from birth. So, technically she was a KGB agent when she was born.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:For instance, nobody even knows how much ASM2 cost, I work in the industry in NYC and am close with one of the gaffers and some other crew and the rumor was upwards of $400m on production alone. There is a reason even with a $700m gross they killed the franchise. And as others have pointed out, ASM2 couldn't even compensate with merchandising the same way BvS can. But yeah, it is bonkers. The only thing we know for certain are the box office numbers and that WB is likely some degree of "disappointed" just compared with other major releases, but we can't even really gage that without knowing true production costs, marketing cost, studio projections, merchandising take, revenue from product placement and advertising partnerships, etc. EDIT: also I'm pretty sure a basic rule of investing is that you don't panic and bail at the first dip, so even them doubling down on other release dates doesn't tell us a ton, other than that they still want this paying out in the long term. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:WB was probably These three words are the entire problem with the BvS revenue discussion: everyone is operating off of assumptions, and as a result, the goalposts keep getting moved. BvS is a failure because it won't hit #1. BvS is a failure because it won't outgross the Avengers. BvS is a failure because it won't hit $1 billion. Etcetera. The only facts we know are this: WB is fine with Snyder continuing work on Justice League, has already started filming it, and just added two more unknown movies to its slate. While it's possible they were expecting more, none of those say "disappointed" to me. They especially don't say "panic button."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
If BvS had the same kind of ad money as Man of Steel then it is doing just fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
In 2013 Batman toys made about $494 million and Superman toys made $277 million. Assuming Batman vs Superman toys make for 5% each of the annual Batman and Superman toys, that's and extra $38.5 million. And who knows how much Wonder Woman toys usually make annually, but there's no way they don't shoot up after the huge positive response to her in the movie. Given the various non box office revenue streams, it's super highly unlikely that Batman vs Superman actually needed to make over $800 million box office to be profitable. Edit: Assuming the studios only get 75% of domestic box office and 15% of international box office, just 2 weeks into it's release Warner Brothers has already gotten $300 million dollars off the movie with no other revenue streams. There's no doubt that Warner isn't making returns like Fox with Deadpool, but they're hardly going to be crying to their accountants. Gyges fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
And that's just toys. There's millions of dollars worth of t-shirts, hats and cereal unaccounted for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:And that's just toys. There's millions of dollars worth of t-shirts, hats and cereal unaccounted for. That stuff is obscene to even think about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Gyges posted:In 2013 Batman toys made about $494 million and Superman toys made $277 million. Assuming Batman vs Superman toys make for 5% each of the annual Batman and Superman toys, that's and extra $38.5 million. And who knows how much Wonder Woman toys usually make annually, but there's no way they don't shoot up after the huge positive response to her in the movie. God save your soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That stuff is obscene to even think about. I saw something about how they've sold half a billion pieces of apparel thus far. I mean hell, I bought 4 Man of Steel shirts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Even last year, I saw a whole bunch of BvS shirts. They probably made the money's production costs back just on shirt profits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
net cafe scandal posted:God save your soul. It's too late, I made a Faustian deal for cool Comic Book cartoon when I was just a wee lad. Being a child I of course knew nothing about deals with the devil or monkey paw wishes and so we got the 1994 Fantastic Four show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even last year, I saw a whole bunch of BvS shirts. They probably made the money's production costs back just on shirt profits. While I try not to shop at Wal-mart, they have a dozen different styles of shirt available and we recently attended one of the largest comic conventions in the country and there was BvS stuff for sale everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
T-shirts are probably bigger than toys, if only because the market is bigger than children and man-children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:T-shirts are probably bigger than toys, if only because the market is bigger than children and man-children. They had 3 different women's styles so you are probably correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I saw something about how they've sold half a billion pieces of apparel thus far. I mean hell, I bought 4 Man of Steel shirts. And people wonder why TMNT is getting a sequel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:And people wonder why TMNT is getting a sequel. I still marvel at the resurgence of TMNT as a property. There was a point about two years ago where the tv toys were flying off the shelves so fast that several "common" figures were selling for two or three times retail on Ebay. Nickelodeon knocked the reboot out of the park on that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
My favorite superman is still george reeves 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I still marvel at the resurgence of TMNT as a property. There was a point about two years ago where the tv toys were flying off the shelves so fast that several "common" figures were selling for two or three times retail on Ebay. Nickelodeon knocked the reboot out of the park on that one. Well, also think about the fact that the property existed even in periods where there was no show because of merchandise. You could argue something similar for Transformers, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:My favorite superman is still george reeves Ben Affleck as George Reeves was the only thing that made Hollywoodland watchable. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, also think about the fact that the property existed even in periods where there was no show because of merchandise. You could argue something similar for Transformers, too. There was a fairly long stretch where the TMNT toy line was dormant though. Transformers have had near constant shelf presence since the line debuted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There was a fairly long stretch where the TMNT toy line was dormant though. Transformers have had near constant shelf presence since the line debuted. Transformer's gimmick as a toy is pretty amazing. On the one hand you have robots that turn into vehicles, on the other I remember one TMNT toy I had that was a duck fighter pilot, came with a hat that didn't fit on his loving head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Transformer's gimmick as a toy is pretty amazing. On the one hand you have robots that turn into vehicles, on the other I remember one TMNT toy I had that was a duck fighter pilot, came with a hat that didn't fit on his loving head. poo poo, I think I owned that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:poo poo, I think I owned that. That hat pissed me off so much, because he looked loving awesome with it in the drawing on the box.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
It kinda bums me out thinking of all the TMNT toys I had as a kid and either trashed or lost over the years. I still have Napoleon Bonafrog (weird name since he looks like a horny toad) and Tattoo (sumo wrestler with stick on tattoos!) I also have a breakdancing Raph, but sadly lost the manhole cover he spins on. Skwirl posted:That hat pissed me off so much, because he looked loving awesome with it in the drawing on the box.  Hah, I like that he has angel like wings to fly. The weirdest TMNT toys I had made you pull strips of plastic through their shells and you'd get a garbled "Cowabunga!" or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
wyoming posted:It kinda bums me out thinking of all the TMNT toys I had as a kid and either trashed or lost over the years. God damned I have such a love hate relationship with that toy. Edit: Just noticed "WACKY WEAPON: Service .45 Pistol"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Nah, the weirdest TMNT toys were the ones that were transformers knock-offs. Like, you'd have Raphael and he'd turn into a jet or some poo poo. I don't think I'm making this up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Nah, the weirdest TMNT toys were the ones that were transformers knock-offs. Like, you'd have Raphael and he'd turn into a jet or some poo poo. I don't think I'm making this up. I know there were ones where they could fold up into their shells and look kinda like a normal turtle, except huge in comparison to your other toys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Nah, the weirdest TMNT toys were the ones that were transformers knock-offs. Like, you'd have Raphael and he'd turn into a jet or some poo poo. I don't think I'm making this up. There was one where they transformed from their anthropomorphic form back into the form of a baby turtle. I had the Donatello of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
I remember there were toys where you could switch out their mutated arms and legs for regular, turtle legs and a little tail. Those things were ugly. Edit: haha 3 posts in a row. Tezcatlipoca fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Yeah I had the Michelangelo that could turn back into a normal turtle. Also had a Donatello that when you squeezed his legs together samurai armor would burst out of his shell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:03
|
|