₦airaland Forum

Minemrys:
Who would want to see a sequel to Titanic? There's something you don't get, some stories are best left in the minds of audience to imagine or live with. Do you think Romeo and Juliet will have stood the test if Shakespeare had written a sequel?

Minemrys:
My issue with WB. They are so greedy. They really should think of making a brand with DC character study separate from the dceu instead of trying to milk from Joker.

Minemrys:
This should be a one off. It's obvious this is being made just for the money. They should go for another character study on someone else, say Luthor or Riddler. I keep saying this, an Eobard Thawne film will make real money and will be something new.

Minemrys:
Bro, I disagree. There loads of movies that don't need sequels and there are those that need one. A lot of films have been ruined by sequels that weren't necessary.

As I said before, there is no movie that doesn't need a sequel and there is no one that needs it. It's all about the film maker. Everything boils to creativity. It's an unrestricted sphere in the movie/ creativity industry.
As a writer, if you ask me to write a sequel for Titanic, I can. You may ask how? This is where creativity comes in, but the thing is I won't because I don't want to stress my brain except the Mula is bank breaking
Even matrix trilogy is getting a sequel trilogy, so?? ? ??
It all boils down to the film maker and creativity
The problem with sequels is all about one doing it well. That's just the problem. I hope Joker is done well.

#Xavier

abduleez1:
Idea sounds good. But problem is can they match or surpass the original movie?

If the sequel is greatly inferior to the original them it's useless and dampens Joker the movie significance.

abduleez1:
Nonsense!!! Some things are better left UN-fvvking-TOUCHED!!!!!!!!!

I heard the script pitch to Phillips a month ago. Didn't know it will reach this stage.
This kinda seem desperate to me.
Leave that masterpiece, Academy Winner, Cultural Upstaging, unique CBM and billion dollar record holder ALONE.

pu7pl3:
dude my issue started when he said Sony has nothing going for them .he also went further to say that they run the risk of getting gobbled up by Disney...I'm just here trying to debunk that..did you see me compare movie slates between the 2 companies?

1000WaysToLive:
I was already planning to put you and pu7pl3 on ignore but I still can see your posts when I log out and you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument here.


While I will no longer respond to either of you, I need to clarify that I never really made the argument that Sony wasn’t successful because of a lack of billion dollar movies.


The whole point of me mentioning Disney live-action and Pixar movies reaching a billion dollars was to illustrate how much more successful Disney is in comparison to Sony, as well as illustrate just how much Sony are intrinsically at a disadvantage when it comes to reliably big successful IP.


They really don’t have much on their plate in the arena. Why is Disney the most successful movie studio for so many years now? ==> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/lists/studio-by-studio-profitability-ranking-disney-surges-sony-sputters-977497

See the attached image or view the link itself.

The answer lies in them having the most biggest IP at their disposal that consistently deliver great results.

You are using my initial post to try and make a bigger point about profit vs box office like anybody here doesn’t have a basic understanding of how box office works.

SMH

Minemrys:
oga, if u no be tailor, e no get as e go be wey if u sew clothe error, mistakes no go dy. That was the criticisms fr0m the spiderman films that even andy garfield cheekily admitted to. Realistically u can't make s0mething u aren't a master of and expect it to be nice l0oking.

Minemrys:
that's why Allen is n0t a tech genius. Never was. He's just a forensic scientist good in bio chemical science n0t tech. He crafted the suit based on his idea of protecting his m0lecules and others while running by piecing together scrappy parts fr0m nasa. The suit isn't techn0logy just fabric. Spiderman who is a tech genius wasn't able to make a crafty suit and u expect Allen who isn't to make a nice suit? C0me on. It's realistic. No versi0n of Allen has ever been depicted as a tech whiz n0t even the cw versi0n.

Minemrys:
lol, try making one yourself to see how 'good' it looks. Or u would prefer him to wear rubber?

Minemrys:
that was the idea. U dnt expect barry to have a good lo0king suit when he's a jobless college student. N0w that he's met Bruce, it can be explained how he got a new suit. And fr0m what snyder said, flash was meant to be given a new suit in Jl.

pu7pl3:
Ive not even really thought deep into this news..I just want a good flash movie..I don't care about the retaining/rebooting

I didn't like that flash suit either

pu7pl3:
Thekingishere, Minemrys, Blackspider, Raalslghul,Xavier5,Hulk616,BankeGee


The news y'all have been waiting for

1000WaysToLive:
Context please. Again

I meant what I said in the sense that if you add the the percentage they take from box office revenues with the ancillary revenue sources derived from these films, it's definitely in the billions.


Yes I understand how the business of film works, but they still make more overall profit then other studios becuse of the IP brand of these films and the fact they make less films overall (spend less).

You said, "Disney had a loss in it's third quarter despite having a revenue of $9b+ from six movies (excluding frozen 2, maleficent 2, star wars 9), that's huge. Blaming fox properties and the acquisition of Fox which occurred in March 2019 is ridiculous. Revenues from those movies should have covered up that loss but no it didn't, why? because they didn't make high profits to do so."


They gave investors a reason (among others) why they fell below Wall St. esimates for the quarter...one of those films on the Fox slate was Dark Phoenix, which underperformed even the lowest expectations. They basically told everyone they were not in control of the development or production of those films to ease any negative market sentiment about the Fox purchase.


It was a factor among factors, I just don't get the reason to get up in arms about that statement when it was obvious that Iger was underscoring that point for the bigger picture of Fox moving forward. Anyway, it's all good.

Take for instance, Aquaman grossed $1.148b but had a net profit of $260.5M (only, fear catch me. This is almost the same with wonder woman which turned in a profit of $252.9M against a revenue of $821.8M, now you see, Wonder Woman didn't gross a billion yet it's profit is at the same range with the billion dollar grossing Aquaman), Star Wars: The Force Awakens grossed $2.068b but had a net profit of $780M (I know that's huge but when compared to $2.068b gross, that's not too good, so the profit was not even in billions, where did the rest of the money go to?). From those grosses people will be screaming WB and Disney, this this that that money money billions billions , but in true sense, they do not know that's not how it is.

Ok. I take back what I said about Sony selling Spider-Man, but outside Spider-Man, Sony really don’t have much going for them.
They’re pretty lacking overall of reliably successful IP.
Men In Black flopped, so did Ghostbusters(it’s a coin toss if the reboot this year will be successful) and they don’t have Bond anymore. Not to mention Charlie’s Angels was a massive failure.
Jumanji is really all that they have outside Spider-Man. Last year was a pretty good year for them since Brightburn and Once Upon In Hollywood, and of course Jumanji performed well, and thanks to Disney/Marvel’s help they managed to get a movie that to the billion dollar finish line with Far From Home but doesn’t escape the fact they don’t have much going for them in terms of major franchises at the moment.
Compare that to Disney which has had an embarrassment of riches when it comes to big IP that consistently delivers even outside the MCU. They have Star Wars & Pixar which you can make dozens of movies out of and literally made them billions of dollars, and even their live-action remakes like Lion King and Aladdin have been incredibly successful and also joined the billion dollar club.

1000WaysToLive:
Context please...


They missed estimates on their quarterly earnings and the performance of the Fox slate was one of the legitimate reasons they gave Wall St.


It was context for the business world, not intent to rile up insecure fanboys.


It certainly wasn't the best quarter, but they beat estimates the following one.


As I said in my post to dragonking, stock up 36% on the year and about 60 billion added to their market cap the last 12 months. The other media companies can only dream of that.



As for Sony, nothing against the company personally, I'm just not wrapped up in their slate.

Compare that to Disney which has had an embarrassment of riches when it comes to big IP that consistently delivers even outside the MCU. They have Star Wars & Pixar which you can make dozens of movies out of and literally made them billions of dollars, and even their live-action remakes like Lion King and Aladdin have been incredibly successful and also joined the billion dollar club.

Cottonmouth:
Wow. The trolling is real. Holy shit .

The day Sony sells Spider-Man will be the day they admit defeat as a studio. Its literally the only IP thats making them money. Jumanji is not a sustainable franchise. And Venom 2 will underperform compared to the 1st one and Morbius is going to straight up flop. Does sony pay you per post?

hulk616:
trash.
DC had to wait for marvel MCU before Creating useless DCEU

Marvel constantly rules