RE: The Dark Knight (2008).


"some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

My yearly revisit of this gem and it just seems to get better with each passing rewatch. It has become such an easy watch now, so much so that I have started to pick on some fleeting funny moments, like this one scene, where a goon saw the Bat signal, and he was like "naaah, i ain't gonna catch no Baty smoke tonight" and bro just dipped 😅.

A total risk for Christopher Nolan taking on this project as it differs marginally from the type of movies he usually makes prior, but he totally cooked, makes me genuinely wonder if DCEU albiet now defunct, even made a better flick, post this?

A torchbearer for the flicks in this genre. Kinda poetic that the shining light for CBM for such a long time now, is The Dark Knight.

Proper..Proper.... Proper Film 👏🏿✨


9/10.

oyaskii:
lol people were clamouring for an "original" story and yet The Fall guy is stilling at the B.O.

The biggest factor from the list imo, is the streaming platform. The other factors are just an offshoot of it. The streaming platforms are so much now that they are now in a fierce competition to get the biggest title to stream on their platform, if not on release day, within a month of release. If people know the biggest title is available on VOD within a very short time, they aren't gonna be spending astronomical fees for food and movie tickets, and so it just trickles down to the other factors.

In other words people don't really support Original content as they always scream to want.
So in the meantime na go chop; sequels, prequels, spin-offs, IP release taya throughout this decade. It's just starting sef and hasn't hit full gear. Na go complain taya. 😂😂

May 2024 looking to be the biggest month this year? 🤔🤔

joseph1832:
movie has above average rating, wonder why it's not doing well.

Anyway sha, make e do comot for high sea make men feast.

Use this one hold body fess.

Audiences just love to shout " we want original content" without backing shït up. Simple.

Habemus profits for WB on this movie.

Between this movie, Dune, GxK and WONKA; WB already in the green. More than enough to cover for the losses in DCEU last releases. And big bucks to support new films.

PEAK! Is that you?!
The cast list is just too juicy and this trailer smells like an instant hit. Love the retro music too. Darn good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fYtuE_ZJ4E?si=7LoyYz6c0otJy81C

Hello hello, went back to watch old comedy movies.

Little Man
Ride Along 1&2
Think like a man 1&2

Kevin Hart in movies >>>>>>>>>

You still carry barbie for head this 2024?!
We have suffered enough at your hands

abduleez1:
Habemus profits for WB on this movie.

Between this movie, Dune, GxK and WONKA; WB already in the green. More than enough to cover for the losses in DCEU last releases. And big bucks to support new films.

Abigail

🎥 Abigail (2024) = 5.9/10 ✔️ ❤️

Started well but had a terrible ending.

Bongadu:



8/10

Is it Korean

Link pls

Abigail 6/10

Seems this ppl have no clue how to give us better vampire movies like

The Underworld.
Dracula


Please recommend tight vampire movies.

abduleez1:


In other words people don't really support Original content as they always scream to want.
So in the meantime na go chop; sequels, prequels, spin-offs, IP release taya throughout this decade. It's just starting sef and hasn't hit full gear. Na go complain taya. 😂😂

Your statement seems to imply that big studios have not experienced commercial failures in the past with some of their prequels, sequels, remakes and whatnot. You can only repeat a strategy so many times before it eventually leads to negative consequences. While it is true that employing this approach may allow them to save on marketing costs, its long-term viability is questionable. Box office earnings have declined, indicating a shift in the industry. In such circumstances, it would be prudent for filmmakers to reduce movie budgets and expenses, particularly if the story being told does not necessitate the use of CGI, VFX, or other elements that significantly inflate costs.

It is also crucial for them to prioritize conducting thorough quality reviews and eliminating the release of subpar content intended solely to attract moviegoers. Furthermore, the strategy of assembling numerous star actors and actresses to bolster box office revenue has lost its efficacy. The success of such an approach is not as guaranteed as it once was, considering the various factors that can contribute to its failure. Instead, allocating a fraction of the budget towards acquiring talented minds to develop and review high-quality scripts would be a more sensible investment. Audiences are more inclined to voice their dissatisfaction with poor scripts than with a good movie that lacks star power.

SOZINN:



Your statement seems to imply that big studios have not experienced commercial failures in the past with some of their prequels, sequels, remakes and whatnot. You can only repeat a strategy so many times before it eventually leads to negative consequences. While it is true that employing this approach may allow them to save on marketing costs, its long-term viability is questionable. Box office earnings have declined, indicating a shift in the industry. In such circumstances, it would be prudent for filmmakers to reduce movie budgets and expenses, particularly if the story being told does not necessitate the use of CGI, VFX, or other elements that significantly inflate costs.

It is also crucial for them to prioritize conducting thorough quality reviews and eliminating the release of subpar content intended solely to attract moviegoers. Furthermore, the strategy of assembling numerous star actors and actresses to bolster box office revenue has lost its efficacy. The success of such an approach is not as guaranteed as it once was, considering the various factors that can contribute to its failure. Instead, allocating a fraction of the budget towards acquiring talented minds to develop and review high-quality scripts would be a more sensible investment. Audiences are more inclined to voice their dissatisfaction with poor scripts than with a good movie that lacks star power.

Of course some IP films will surely fail.
While I understand your point, the number of failed franchise films can't be compared to new original films. The facts and figures is disproportionately skewed to favour IP films. You can't even count 10 original films that have been critically acclaimed and done fantastically at the box office for last 5 years. I can easily count over 20 off the top of my head for IP films.

Also the excuse of poorly written films doesn't stick here. There's been a deluge of top quality original films released in the past few years and yet no widespread love. How many original films can you count that has surpassed at least $300mn worldwide in the last 5 years??
Yet, Mediocre IP films will still clear that milestone real quick unless it's god-aweful utterly bad.

If a much maligned Aquaman 2 movie can make over $400mn at US box office with all the doom and gloom flop predictions and the end of the DCEU, then audiences don't really know what they want. Cos this support is outrightly lacking for newer films.

Even at that all this wouldn't really be a problem for me. It's the annoying talk of "no original content" in town that annoys me. Audiences shouldn't complain about shït and instead vote with their wallets as they consistently do. It's a business as you've rightly said and studios are only following the habits of audiences which is always rooting for the nostalgic movies— 'the familiar' at the expense of "risky" original films. You complain of no original films yet when they arrive, no support. As an executive producer of a big movie studio what does that tells me?


Here's a few movies that was quite received well (and in theatres) both critically and from audience response yet none has made money even close to an averagely successful IP films with $350mn WW. 👇🏽👇🏽

@ SOZINN

To highlight the hypocrisy of the average moviegoer who uses poor scripts as an excuse when every year at least 5 really good widely released original films releases but no interest shown in box office.


Where's Original movies with critical acclaim and box office success with $350mn or more like these👇🏽👇🏽 also note some of these movies were among the top ten highest grossing films in their individual release year as well as award contenders and winners.

"The Revenant" (2015) over $533mn
A Star is Born (2018) $400mn+
The Martian (2016) $630mn+
La La Land (2016) $440mn
Coco (2017) $800mn
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) $377mn



In these past few years we've had top quality content in The F@belm@n$, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Northman, EEAAO, Triangle of Sadness, Poor Things, Pearl, Anatomy of a Fall, Saltburn etc.

Yet no audience turn out.
Shït is so bad in fact seeing new original films being marketed seems like a guaranteed flop.

abduleez1:
@ SOZINN

To highlight the hypocrisy of the average moviegoer who uses poor scripts as an excuse when every year at least 5 really good widely released original films releases but no interest shown in box office.


Where's Original movies with critical acclaim and box office success with $350mn or more like these👇🏽👇🏽 also note some of these movies were among the top ten highest grossing films in their individual release year as well as award contenders and winners.

"The Revenant" (2015) over $533mn
A Star is Born (2018) $400mn+
The Martian (2016) $630mn+
La La Land (2016) $440mn
Coco (2017) $800mn
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) $377mn



In these past few years we've had top quality content in The F@belm@n$, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Northman, EEAAO, Triangle of Sadness, Poor Things, Pearl, Anatomy of a Fall, Saltburn etc.

Yet no audience turn out.
Shït is so bad in fact seeing new original films being marketed seems like a guaranteed flop.

Original movies should just strike VOD deals, make their small coins and call it a day, than engaging in a cinematic run that they are not even sure of even making their budget in a month. The VOD deals are even becoming more juicy now, increased competition and all that, because of the sheer number of streaming platforms that exist, so they can leverage on selling to the highest bidder, some like Disney+, Hulu and MAX are even combining to form a super streaming line, so imagine the money offer for a VOD release, from these kind of super streaming line.

Just leave cinema for none IP established titles as an original film, as these ones have enough nostalgic juice to ensure you recoup next to nothing, cuz with cinema adventure being crazily expensive now, people will rather risk it for what they know. The Fall Guy that even has an official Guinness world record, is out this May, but The Kingdom of the Planet of the Ape, The Garfield Movie, and Furiosa:A Mad Max Saga are also out this May. Ain't no way it was surviving this none IP giant franchise sandwich.

Westman001:
Abigail 6/10

Seems this ppl have no clue how to give us better vampire movies like

The Underworld.
Dracula

Please recommend tight vampire movies.

“The blood memories of this wretched creature have shown me that your treachery knows no bound.”

“Why would I listen to your lies, when the journey to the truth is so much sweeter? “

I do not like watching Horror movies but “Underworld: Evolution - 2006” dope die!

I equally love “Underworld: The Rise of the Lycans - 2009”.

For your recommendations, try watching these:

1.) John Carpenter’s Vampires - 1998

2.) Van Helsing - 2004.

3.) Operation Overlord - 2018.

Westman001:
Abigail 6/10

Seems this ppl have no clue how to give us better vampire movies like

The Underworld.
Dracula


Please recommend tight vampire movies

1.The Hunger---1983

2.Near Dark---1987

3.Interview With The Vampire---1994

4.The Night Flier---1997

4.Blade---1998 ,Blade 2--2002 & Blade Trinity-- 2004

abduleez1:
@ SOZINN

To highlight the hypocrisy of the average moviegoer who uses poor scripts as an excuse when every year at least 5 really good widely released original films releases but no interest shown in box office.


Where's Original movies with critical acclaim and box office success with $350mn or more like these👇🏽👇🏽 also note some of these movies were among the top ten highest grossing films in their individual release year as well as award contenders and winners.

"The Revenant" (2015) over $533mn
A Star is Born (2018) $400mn+
The Martian (2016) $630mn+
La La Land (2016) $440mn
Coco (2017) $800mn
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) $377mn



In these past few years we've had top quality content in The F@belm@n$, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Northman, EEAAO, Triangle of Sadness, Poor Things, Pearl, Anatomy of a Fall, Saltburn etc.

Yet no audience turn out.
Shït is so bad in fact seeing new original films being marketed seems like a guaranteed flop.

It all depends on the budget and the marketing. A movie sometimes is profitabl if it makes its budget back and some more. Monkey man is profitable, it made its budget back, doubled it and it'll definitely do well on streaming. Dune part two did not even make net profit in it's theatrical run even though it made 700m+.
Poor Things a shit ton of money, why? It wasn't even in wide release, it had no marketing budget, and made close to 150 million in limited theatres on a paltry budget

oyaskii:
Original movies should just strike VOD deals, make their small coins and call it a day, than engaging in a cinematic run that they are not even sure of even making their budget in a month. The VOD deals are even becoming more juicy now, increased competition and all that, because of the sheer number of streaming platforms that exist, so they can leverage on selling to the highest bidder, some like Disney+, Hulu and MAX are even combining to form a super streaming line, so imagine the money offer for a VOD release, from these kind of super streaming line.

Just leave cinema for none IP established titles as an original film, as these ones have enough nostalgic juice to ensure you recoup next to nothing, cuz with cinema adventure being crazily expensive now, people will rather risk it for what they know. The Fall Guy that even has an official Guinness world record, is out this May, but The Kingdom of the Planet of the Ape, The Garfield Movie, and Furiosa:A Mad Max Saga are also out this May. Ain't no way it was surviving this none IP giant franchise sandwich.

Another big problem is how physical media is dying out bro🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️ no one is buying physical movies anymore and that was were most tiny movies made their money back like Paper Soldiers and those 80s movies. Back then movies like the lion King made 2 billion dollars in physical media sales sometimes even way bigger than its theatrical run movies like Boogie Nights, Terminator and even Die Hard

abduleez1:


Of course some IP films will surely fail.
While I understand your point, the number of failed franchise films can't be compared to new original films. The facts and figures is disproportionately skewed to favour IP films. You can't even count 10 original films that have been critically acclaimed and done fantastically at the box office for last 5 years. I can easily count over 20 off the top of my head for IP films.

Also the excuse of poorly written films doesn't stick here. There's been a deluge of top quality original films released in the past few years and yet no widespread love. How many original films can you count that has surpassed at least $300mn worldwide in the last 5 years??
Yet, Mediocre IP films will still clear that milestone real quick unless it's god-aweful utterly bad.

If a much maligned Aquaman 2 movie can make over $400mn at US box office with all the doom and gloom flop predictions and the end of the DCEU, then audiences don't really know what they want. Cos this support is outrightly lacking for newer films.

Even at that all this wouldn't really be a problem for me. It's the annoying talk of "no original content" in town that annoys me. Audiences shouldn't complain about shït and instead vote with their wallets as they consistently do. It's a business as you've rightly said and studios are only following the habits of audiences which is always rooting for the nostalgic movies— 'the familiar' at the expense of "risky" original films. You complain of no original films yet when they arrive, no support. As an executive producer of a big movie studio what does that tells me?


Here's a few movies that was quite received well (and in theatres) both critically and from audience response yet none has made money even close to an averagely successful IP films with $350mn WW. 👇🏽👇🏽

It is evident that we have differing interpretations of what constitutes commercial success. I cannot accept the figure of $300 - $350 million that you are presenting as a benchmark because the movies you mention vary significantly in terms of budget. You are grouping movies with budgets as low as $10 - $15 million, which received minimal marketing, together with movies that had budgets exceeding $100 million solely for production costs, in order to meet the $300 million threshold. Additionally, there are a considerable number of original films with budgets as low as $6 million. When considering their production budgets and applying a multiplier of 2.65x to 2.8x, it becomes apparent that most original films were already successful prior to their digital release. However, this analysis excludes films for which budget details were not publicly disclosed, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

Furthermore, I would argue that, in terms of percentages, the number of commercially successful original films can be compared to the number of commercially successful films based on existing intellectual properties (IPs). It is important to note that studios often make little effort to inform audiences outside of the United States and Canada about the existence of a significant number of their original films. Moreover, the fact that a movie might not generate ten times its budget in box office earnings or become widely discussed should not serve as a reason to abandon new ideas, mismanage budgets, or avoid taking the first steps. From my perspective, the horror genre appears to be performing well, and even the romance genre is demonstrating some success.

Illusioneffect:

Another big problem is how physical media is dying out bro🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️ no one is buying physical movies anymore and that was were most tiny movies made their money back like Paper Soldiers and those 80s movies. Back then movies like the lion King made 2 billion dollars in physical media sales sometimes even way bigger than its theatrical run movies like Boogie Nights, Terminator and even Die Hard

It is about moving with the times bro. Physical media holds almost no essential value over digital media other than nostalgia. Digital media is portable and can be accessed anytime, doesn't take up physical space and doesn't degrade over time.

Physical media used to also have better picture quality and sound quality compared to Digital media when they were just starting out. 4K Ultra HD and DTS used to be a Blu-ray disc thing, but most VOD services now, have their contents up to 4K res now with 6.1CH Dolby Atmos sound. Get a 4K Netflix plan and pair with a solid sound bar, and see "Underground" (2019), the experience is so immersive and all the action looks like it's happening around you...a true cinematic experience right inside your living room without need for a physical media.

Besides how many true "classics" are out these days that deserves owning a physical media of it? Oppenheimer is the only one i can think of.

Physical media won't phase out, but it gonna be less and less of a thing as the time goes by. COVID lockdown opened people's eyes to how going digital is probably the way forward cuz when people couldn't go out to buy physical media, they relied heavily on digital media, and i think it stuck with people, and apart from media, it spread to other sectors, People now knew that you could be a customer care from the comfort of your room for a company that is continents away.

Illusioneffect:

It all depends on the budget and the marketing. A movie sometimes is profitabl if it makes its budget back and some more. Monkey man is profitable, it made its budget back, doubled it and it'll definitely do well on streaming. Dune part two did not even make net profit in it's theatrical run even though it made 700m+.
Poor Things a shit ton of money, why? It wasn't even in wide release, it had no marketing budget, and made close to 150 million in limited theatres on a paltry budget

Poor Things didn't make close to $150mn. It did $117mn on a $35mn budget. I can't called that a paltry sum even for a movie of its calibre. And that money despite being profitable ain't all that impressive bro. 3.3x multiplier for your budget is basic Hollywood average road to profitability calculation. It's even less impressive judging by it's small budget cos its way easier to do that. If a $100mn+ budgeted film did 3x it's budget and above that would be more impressive.

Poor Things not having a marketing budget is straight up hilarious. Cos we definitely saw how widely campaigned for that movie was. And contrary to what you said Poor Things made a wide release. It started out as a limited release in early December and increased to wide release during Xmas into the new year with awards buzz.
There's no movie with a limited release that's making $100mn+ at the box office. It's virtually impossible.

A small movie with that $35mn budget makes good money when its doing 5x it's budget and above in theatres. Cos smaller movies like that usually spend equal amount of production budgets on marketing to get more eyes on it. So, ONLY theatrically that movie might just have made a paltry $5mn or less. It possibly can make more with the help of ancillary revenue from streaming and dvd sales.

But a $200mn film will never spend $200mn as its marketing budget. It will be in the range from $100mn-150mn.


Monkey Man is skirting barely profitable realm. Produced for $10mn and made 30mn in BO. Half of that $$ goes to cinemas and distributors. So you're left with $15mn. Deduct the production budget and you're left with $5mn. And that's if there's no backend profit participation by the producers or actors of the movie. So really, that $5mn profit is barely there. It mainly just ensures that the project didn't lose money. But of course there's digital and dvd sales to help it if they do their financial calculations well. I've not even talked about marketing, so that movie might just not make any profit at all if we're only looking at theatrical numbers. The only good thing is that it didn't flop and made back it's budget. Profitability is a huge question mark.

Hollywood box office calculations is not just as simple as that.

As for DUNE PART TWO, it's wait and see as those bigger movies usually have complex financials. I would have straight up said Dune 2 was slightly profitable with it theatrical run but because of it being postponed from last year and marketing paused and restarted (which means more spending) and also gaining interest for insurance for not releasing.

But what I'm sure of.... DUNE PART TWO is definitely making sweet profit in the secondary market (in streams and physical media). In fact that money is easily tripling if not quadruple anything that Poor Things or Monkey Man can hope to make.
And this is one of the reasons Hollywood studios would keep giving us sequels, prequels and more IP films.

Looking at the BARBIE financials, that movie made $150mn and $200mn for physical media and streaming & network television deals respectively. That's $350mn alone which easily covers both production budget and marketing. We're even yet to calculate theatrical box office. That is what a big movie like DUNE PART TWO can do. DUNE part two is still in theatres sef despite its digital release.

SOZINN:



It is evident that we have differing interpretations of what constitutes commercial success. I cannot accept the figure of $300 - $350 million that you are presenting as a benchmark because the movies you mention vary significantly in terms of budget. You are grouping movies with budgets as low as $10 - $15 million, which received minimal marketing, together with movies that had budgets exceeding $100 million solely for production costs, in order to meet the $300 million threshold. Additionally, there are a considerable number of original films with budgets as low as $6 million. When considering their production budgets and applying a multiplier of 2.65x to 2.8x, it becomes apparent that most original films were already successful prior to their digital release. However, this analysis excludes films for which budget details were not publicly disclosed, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

Furthermore, I would argue that, in terms of percentages, the number of commercially successful original films can be compared to the number of commercially successful films based on existing intellectual properties (IPs). It is important to note that studios often make little effort to inform audiences outside of the United States and Canada about the existence of a significant number of their original films. Moreover, the fact that a movie might not generate ten times its budget in box office earnings or become widely discussed should not serve as a reason to abandon new ideas, mismanage budgets, or avoid taking the first steps. From my perspective, the horror genre appears to be performing well, and even the romance genre is demonstrating some success.

I'm not saying movies not hitting the $300mn milestone as an original film doesn't constitute as box office success. Of course all movies aren't made equal. What I'm saying is you'd be hard pressed seeing a big budget or moderately sized original at $75mn-100mn hit that sweet benchmark now. Despite now when the shouts of boring repetitive IPs is loudest.

There's hardly original films that are solid breakout hits both critically and financially in the 2020s. That's why I gave examples of some original films with their box office numbers in the 2010s. I'd be hard pressed remembering and searching for that similarity in 2020s landscape.

The super hits I can remember are the likes of Barbarian with a $45mn BO on a $5mn budget. EEAAO over $140mn. Then there's Parasite with over $260mn BO but that's still in 2019.

I'm taking the horror genre as an outlier cos as it stands it's only the consistently successful genre that can generate 5-10x it's budget and above. Even at that that genre is mostly dominated by the same IP fever with the Conjuring Franchise, Scream, Stephen King Universe, Saw, Paranormal Activity etc.

Most if not all the biggest box office movies in the horror genre all come from existing IPs. And that's despite most of them working in a similar budget range, $10-15mn as the least and around $35mn+ for the biggest .

All these deductions are from well known movies for a movie watcher and even if film Studios "supposedly" don't do enough to market their original films, most likely as a movie lover you'd hear about the movie from associates, friends and family or on the internet. So informing audiences or not seems an excuse to me especially for original films where it's model is usually to drive up support from international audiences with premieres at film festivals et al with critics marketing before landing in the US.

Movie like The Creator shouldn't be flopping hard like it did last year.

And I still maintain my stance; audiences are more about talk and no substance without actually caring for original films. Make the next Batman or Star Wars film come out, you go see as everywhere go dey make noise.

These are the reasons I don't really count those $10-35mn budgeted films as anything or the horror genre as a whole cos the tiny budget is already advantageous. The threshold is too small not to prosper.

With the noise of "no original content" you'd think when a decent one arrives audiences sheer support would put it past $300mn. Cos anything not hitting that mark isn't really enough to catch industry attention. That's why I'm hypothetically using that benchmark. In the 2010s you could easily see any original film hit $250-300mn+ irrespective of the budget size.

The number of flop original movies is as many if not more than flopping big IPs.

How do you respond to this ??




Me unzips pants asap

oyaskii:
Original movies should just strike VOD deals, make their small coins and call it a day, than engaging in a cinematic run that they are not even sure of even making their budget in a month. The VOD deals are even becoming more juicy now, increased competition and all that, because of the sheer number of streaming platforms that exist, so they can leverage on selling to the highest bidder, some like Disney+, Hulu and MAX are even combining to form a super streaming line, so imagine the money offer for a VOD release, from these kind of super streaming line.

Just leave cinema for none IP established titles as an original film, as these ones have enough nostalgic juice to ensure you recoup next to nothing, cuz with cinema adventure being crazily expensive now, people will rather risk it for what they know. The Fall Guy that even has an official Guinness world record, is out this May, but The Kingdom of the Planet of the Ape, The Garfield Movie, and Furiosa:A Mad Max Saga are also out this May. Ain't no way it was surviving this none IP giant franchise sandwich.

Actually, a film theatrically released has more hope of making more than just straight up streaming releases.
you'd actually pay more for it cos now streamers vying to buy it can easily see it's figures and performance and readily value it. So if a film performed well at the box office, most likely you're paying more for it in streaming as opposed to just dumping it on streaming without any proper evaluation.

streaming is good yeah for some titles but contrary to popular belief the money is in going to theatrical first then streaming next. Even if your movie didn't perform well theatrically you can recoup some money at the secondary market. For streaming only, there's no option of that. And it's factually proven, movies that are released in theatres always perform way better than movies just dumped on streaming. Cos more people see and are aware of theatrical movies and their marketing. More negotiation leverage for the filmmaker.

if you doubt me, it's easy. Check out the numbers for Zack Snyder's Justice League vs all WB streaming day and date releases for its block buster movies. It couldn't match any one of them in streaming viewership numbers. Not Suicide Squad (2021), not GvK, not Mortal Kombat. Not to talk of other movies that had proper theatrical run like The Batman.

Why you're thinking streaming pays really well is cos of the largesse you see Netflix and co (Apple & Amazon) handing out. Even at that these streamers are now curbing that trend. And the only reason they were doing these spending spree is because they were vying for top tier content and filmmakers with traditional studios. The only way to sweeten the deal and easily make top filmmakers look their way was the money and freedom to do what they want. Quite unlike traditional Hollywood studios.

Where streaming is way more profitable is in the TV series domain.
Even Apple TV+ makes movies for theatrical release first before streaming now. Why?


Disney and WBD streaming collaboration isn't really a new streaming service for them all. It's a "bundle". Eg, pay $60 and get access to Max, Disney+, ESPN+, FX and Hulu. And it's only in the US. They're all still operating independently.

For me, I don't see this changing significant subscriber numbers asides reducing "churn" (subscribers that come for a program and quit later on before coming back for the next event project). This will mostly keep subscribers numbers stable and aid growth.
Consumers are clearly protesting this deal as they say its back to the old cable days.

Can't wait....

New LOTR is always welcome...so far it's not what Amazon gave us.

abduleez1:


Poor Things didn't make close to $150mn. It did $117mn on a $35mn budget. I can't called that a paltry sum even for a movie of its calibre. And that money despite being profitable ain't all that impressive bro. 3.3x multiplier for your budget is basic Hollywood average road to profitability calculation. It's even less impressive judging by it's small budget cos its way easier to do that. If a $100mn+ budgeted film did 3x it's budget and above that would be more impressive.

Poor Things not having a marketing budget is straight up hilarious. Cos we definitely saw how widely campaigned for that movie was. And contrary to what you said Poor Things made a wide release. It started out as a limited release in early December and increased to wide release during Xmas into the new year with awards buzz.
There's no movie with a limited release that's making $100mn+ at the box office. It's virtually impossible.

A small movie with that $35mn budget makes good money when its doing 5x it's budget and above in theatres. Cos smaller movies like that usually spend equal amount of production budgets on marketing to get more eyes on it. So, ONLY theatrically that movie might just have made a paltry $5mn or less. It possibly can make more with the help of ancillary revenue from streaming and dvd sales.

But a $200mn film will never spend $200mn as its marketing budget. It will be in the range from $100mn-150mn.


Monkey Man is skirting barely profitable realm. Produced for $10mn and made 30mn in BO. Half of that $$ goes to cinemas and distributors. So you're left with $15mn. Deduct the production budget and you're left with $5mn. And that's if there's no backend profit participation by the producers or actors of the movie. So really, that $5mn profit is barely there. It mainly just ensures that the project didn't lose money. But of course there's digital and dvd sales to help it if they do their financial calculations well. I've not even talked about marketing, so that movie might just not make any profit at all if we're only looking at theatrical numbers. The only good thing is that it didn't flop and made back it's budget. Profitability is a huge question mark.

Hollywood box office calculations is not just as simple as that.

As for DUNE PART TWO, it's wait and see as those bigger movies usually have complex financials. I would have straight up said Dune 2 was slightly profitable with it theatrical run but because of it being postponed from last year and marketing paused and restarted (which means more spending) and also gaining interest for insurance for not releasing.

But what I'm sure of.... DUNE PART TWO is definitely making sweet profit in the secondary market (in streams and physical media). In fact that money is easily tripling if not quadruple anything that Poor Things or Monkey Man can hope to make.
And this is one of the reasons Hollywood studios would keep giving us sequels, prequels and more IP films.

Looking at the BARBIE financials, that movie made $150mn and $200mn for physical media and streaming & network television deals respectively. That's $350mn alone which easily covers both production budget and marketing. We're even yet to calculate theatrical box office. That is what a big movie like DUNE PART TWO can do. DUNE part two is still in theatres sef despite its digital release.

Exactly my point, most movies don't even think about how much they'll get back in theatres. Monkey man will definitely be successful in theatres, so far the cinemas and all involved get their money back in theatres it is a win win for Patel and could ensure he is trusted enough with a bigger budget. Lanthimos was not even thinking his movie would make up to 50 mil even profitable at all, that movie didn't stay in wide release for up to 2 weeks and still made that amount, what I meant by poor things didn't have a marketing budget means they didnt spend even up to marketing the movie in theatres - check up on that, their popularity came from the Oscars that's why it even had a wide release

Bongadu:


How do you respond to this ??




Me unzips pants asap

I won't think twice
Unzips pants furiously

oyaskii:
RE: The Dark Knight (2008).


"some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

My yearly revisit of this gem and it just seems to get better with each passing rewatch. It has become such an easy watch now, so much so that I have started to pick on some fleeting funny moments, like this one scene, where a goon saw the Bat signal, and he was like "naaah, i ain't gonna catch no Baty smoke tonight" and bro just dipped 😅.

A total risk for Christopher Nolan taking on this project as it differs marginally from the type of movies he usually makes prior, but he totally cooked, makes me genuinely wonder if DCEU albiet now defunct, even made a better flick, post this?

A torchbearer for the flicks in this genre. Kinda poetic that the shining light for CBM for such a long time now, is The Dark Knight.

Proper..Proper.... Proper Film 👏🏿✨


9/10.

It's got to be closer to a 9.8. That movie has no flaws.

Illusioneffect:

Exactly my point, most movies don't even think about how much they'll get back in theatres. Monkey man will definitely be successful in theatres, so far the cinemas and all involved get their money back in theatres it is a win win for Patel and could ensure he is trusted enough with a bigger budget. Lanthimos was not even thinking his movie would make up to 50 mil even profitable at all, that movie didn't stay in wide release for up to 2 weeks and still made that amount, what I meant by poor things didn't have a marketing budget means they didnt spend even up to marketing the movie in theatres - check up on that, their popularity came from the Oscars that's why it even had a wide release

Actually these award movies releasing in awards season, it's their actual plan to use Oscars and other awards buzz to promote their movie before going wide.
Awards campaign is kinda costly for the different individual bodies that's why studios push focus for a few movies they think have the best shot.

Poor Things released limited in December 8 and wide Dec 22 in the US. Then on January 12 moved to the UK & Ireland. VOD release was in February 27. So that movie was in wide release for over a month.
Besides, whether they were hoping to use Oscar to propel their popularity doesn't mean they don't have a plan for a traditional marketing strategy. Cos as long as I can remember I've hearing about Poor Things since a few weeks after Killers of The Flower Moon. Poor Things have been the talk of town for a long time before proper Oscars campaign around late December. That's the work of marketing. That's even long before Oscar's nominations in February.

I know how long I waited to see the film hearing good reviews about it almost every day for that period.

British mfs this is for y'all mate


Top forking shit