Wrong. FNAF made US$ 150 million in five days. Mario made money. Oppenheimer. Barbie. Sound of Freedom. Talk to Me.
Capeshitters specifically (the mouthbreathing manchildren consooming demographic that Hollywood milked in the past decade and a half) is losing momentum and appeal.
ALL 2023 capeshit releases have either outright flopped or underperformed-- even Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ended up below expectations.
>It surpassed expectations.
Absolutely not. It failed to reach a billion by US$150 million and opened far behind GotG 2 and (appallingly) Thor Love and Thunder >That film could probably be deemed a box office failure. It’s certainly a disappointment for a studio and industry that constantly demands growth for each subsequent franchise installment in the 21st century. For these reasons, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is unlikely to escape the label of “disappointment” to the Mouse House’s accountants when it appears unlikely to get near the same ballpark of Vol. 2’s $864 million total from over half a decade ago.
This. Seriously, only the most moronic guy still cares for Marvel. SPECIALLY since phase 2 started( it was bad since phase 1, but since they went full woke shit the franchise is dead )
>the mouthbreathing manchildren consooming demographic that Hollywood milked in the past decade and a half
Which is totally unlike elevated classics like FNAF, Mario, Oppenheimer and.. Barbie. The lack of self awareness is off the charts bucko.
It is because capeshitters are a type of cringe stereotype which boomers, genXers, average millennials and zoomers distance themselves from.
Capeshitters used to have an overinvested reddlt neuroticism that the movie industry encouraged but that cycle has run its course. They're getting older and the hype around superheroes is increasingly deflated because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
>because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
The FNAF audience find someone cringe and out of touch? Damn, that must sting.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>that must sting.
Well, you did react to it.
Keep in mind that it's not just zoomers: most people never related to the rabid superhero fanbase. It's not normal for post-puberty individuals to take men in tights and capes as life and death subjects.
Capeshit is made for literal/mental 12 yos and it unsurprisingly lost its shine as balding men with Black Panther t-shirts spending hundreds on plastic toys are not exactly role models
7 months ago
Anonymous
most people don't pay attention to the superfans, they just wanted to see pew pew and shield throw but got laquisha and wine aunt and they checked out.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>most people don't pay attention to the superfans
Studios have marketed these universes as almost a type of servitude: too many references to other movies/series etc made capeshit a chore to casual viewers. >but got laquisha and wine aunt and they checked out.
Agreed. Woke insertions were disastrous and directly linked to the downfall of superhero movies.
"Good day" is a reaction too, don't get ahead of yourself. > It's not normal for post-puberty individuals to take men in tights and capes as life and death subjects
Neither is it normal for them to take FNAF and Mario as life and death subjects. >Capeshit is made for literal/mental 12 yos
Yes, and the majority of your examples are intended for younger people than that.
That's what I'm saying, all of this applies to the movies you brought up, save maybe Oppenheimer, but Nolan's midwit cinema is another debate in itself.
I just find the comparisons genuinely funny, thinking there's a difference with capeshit.
If your favorite movie is "Barbie" you don't exactly come across as a role model either.
>Neither is it normal for them to take FNAF and Mario as life and death subjects.
They don't. There's a casual attitude towards these movies, which are, despite the lore, self-contained. >Yes, and the majority of your examples are intended for younger people than that.
Deliberately so: FNAF and Mario presented themselves as all-ages entertained whereas capeshit was often absurdly marketed as "spy movies", "war movies" or some such nonsense. Their attempt to be "serious" is why they seem ridiculous.
OTOH, FNAF is simple on the surface but layered with serious subjects.
Trying too hard to be le serious or le funny/quippy were both factors that led to superhero fatigue >If your favorite movie is "Barbie" you don't exactly come across as a role model either.
Haven't even bothered seeing it. Its success has to do with multiple factors (some of them marketing-related) but it shows an audience that wants a different aesthetic and worldbuiling. I assume that Barbie isn't more woke than Black Panther btw
7 months ago
Anonymous
I just don't see the major difference between the two types of blockbusters you're comparing, nor do I view it as any kind of cinematic W, but if you've been tired of the cape genre I guess this might relieve some of that frustration.
I have yet to see cinema actually become as good as it once was.
7 months ago
Anonymous
See
>Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit.
Not at all. These are all very inexpensive movies compared to the budgets that studios announce for superhero movies. FNAF cost USD 20 mil, Insidious Red Door cost USD 16 mil, M3gan cost USD 12 mil and TtT cost only USD 4,5 mil; all of them have made 10x their budget or more (TtM made 20x its budget).
Meanwhile, Quantumania was very unprofitable: USD 200 mil budget, USD 479 mil box office (USD 125 mil short of its break-even point).Blue Beetle cost USD 100 mil and made only USD 129 mil. Those 2 were blockbusters and both flopped.
This is yet another reason why capeshit is fizziling out: their alleged costs are too high for what they actually deliver.
Also take into account that these movies escape the constraints set by the capeshit and don't require the viewer to cling to them.
7 months ago
Anonymous
"Good day" is a reaction too, don't get ahead of yourself. > It's not normal for post-puberty individuals to take men in tights and capes as life and death subjects
Neither is it normal for them to take FNAF and Mario as life and death subjects. >Capeshit is made for literal/mental 12 yos
Yes, and the majority of your examples are intended for younger people than that.
That's what I'm saying, all of this applies to the movies you brought up, save maybe Oppenheimer, but Nolan's midwit cinema is another debate in itself.
I just find the comparisons genuinely funny, thinking there's a difference with capeshit.
If your favorite movie is "Barbie" you don't exactly come across as a role model either.
It would've been halfway effective if the alternative was more mature cinema. You're not really "owning" capeshitters by watching Five Nights at Freddy and Mario, anon.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I have no interest in "owning" capeshitters: in fact, this type of silly drama seems cringe and unbecoming.
As for "mature" cinema, capeshit desexualized plots were absurdly out of touch with the realities of growing up, so even a movie such as Barbie (which I did not see) seem more adult by comparison.
As for other box office hits this year, FNAF, Talk to Me, Insidious Red Door and ofc Oppenheimer are all much more mature than, say, Blue Beetle.
Even minor hits such as No Hard Feelings show that there's an audience for mature movies and the blockbuster anxiety to make 1 billion movies is far from the only option for studios.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit. That isn't to say good recent blockbusters like, say, Maverick don't exist. But it's not high brow cinema.
And FNAF and Barbie sure as shit aren't. What you're seeing now is one genre slop making way for another kind of genre slop, that's it.
At least capeshit's source material is more mature than something like the Sonic movie even if they don't really depict it in film form. So I very much doubt your thesis that the "cringe manchild" stereotype has changed. The focus just shifted.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit.
Not at all. These are all very inexpensive movies compared to the budgets that studios announce for superhero movies. FNAF cost USD 20 mil, Insidious Red Door cost USD 16 mil, M3gan cost USD 12 mil and TtT cost only USD 4,5 mil; all of them have made 10x their budget or more (TtM made 20x its budget).
Meanwhile, Quantumania was very unprofitable: USD 200 mil budget, USD 479 mil box office (USD 125 mil short of its break-even point).Blue Beetle cost USD 100 mil and made only USD 129 mil. Those 2 were blockbusters and both flopped.
This is yet another reason why capeshit is fizziling out: their alleged costs are too high for what they actually deliver.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Mario and Barbie were expensive.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, but unlike capeshit they delivered. That's the point: it's either realistically-budgeted movies or non-capeshit blockbusters which have succeeded this year.
Anon, one of the most profitable movies of all time is capeshit.
The audiences didn't distance themselves from the audience. They distances themselves from the movies and are now flocking to different flavors of low brow cinema.
>Anon, one of the most profitable movies of all time is capeshit.
As were musicals in the not too distant past. We're talking about current trends, which clearly show that capeshit is less and less popular.
7 months ago
Anonymous
They delivered in terms of box office, yes. Whether they delivered in terms of quality is debatable, although they probably did, as profitable movies need to have SOME common appeal.
The reason for capeshits' success in the first place is that they were blockbusters a step or two above the blockbusters at the time. Now the formula has ran its course and is being replaced by other formulas, in this case films based on video games and toys.
Live action anime is another gimmick that is bound to flood Hollywood soon as well.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>unbecoming
Stop reading right there.
You, sir, are King homosexual of the homosexual Parade
7 months ago
Anonymous
It means "not appropriate". Next time just look the word up
7 months ago
Anonymous
I am calling you a homosexual for using a homosexual word, not because I don't know what it means, you dumbass.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Well you do sound quite flustered/triggered. Are you a woman or a transsexual? Simmer down
7 months ago
Anonymous
No. I can just tell by the way you type that you are annoying homosexual in real life. So, I am taking the opportunity to point that out to you for the sake of the poor souls that are in your vicinity at all times. b***h.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Are you openly gay or are you still in the closet? Do you usually get that nervous when you can't think of a counterargument?
7 months ago
Anonymous
7 months ago
Anonymous
Reminder: I have nothing against the fact that you suck dicks or whatever. You just have to present arguments instead of getting triggered by words such as "unbecoming"
Anon, one of the most profitable movies of all time is capeshit.
The audiences didn't distance themselves from the audience. They distances themselves from the movies and are now flocking to different flavors of low brow cinema.
>It is because capeshitters are a type of cringe stereotype which boomers, genXers, average millennials and zoomers distance themselves from. >Capeshitters used to have an overinvested reddlt neuroticism that the movie industry encouraged but that cycle has run its course. They're getting older and the hype around superheroes is increasingly deflated because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
here we have an example of someone who doesn't like something and feels alone, so he must convince others that they should hate the thing he doesn't like so that he no longer feels alone in his beliefs!!!FACT!!!
It connected to teens eager to go back to the theater for some mindless fun after the lockdown. 2021 was ages ago though, the market landscape has since changed a lot
Disney Spent Over $270 Million To Make 'The Marvels', the general calculation sees studios receiving half of a film's box office taking, meaning that The Marvels will break even at $439.6 million.
I doubt that's the case, but if it is, none of these blockbuster movies are actually all that profitable. In fact, it seems like pissing money away to make one.
Your math is wrong, it would need 2.2 billion to break even
The fact that MCU and Disney animated movies are struggling to fricking break even (which is ofc a type of loss since movies are investments) goes to show how they are ceasing to be relevant for an increasing number of viewers worldwide
Disney animated movies are generally a lot less profitable than the MCU. But the MCU has slowly been turning into an animated Disney movie franchise, if that makes sense.
They're not the same thing they used to be under, say, Paramount.
They're getting smaller and smaller and their niche, often nitpicky audience have a negative effect in how these movies are perceived by the casual audience, which is simply choosing other movies to watch
Yes.
The studio doesn't see a lot of the money back.
Theaters take about 50% of everything I believe and in China it's like 70% for example.
~~*Hollywood accounting*~~ is notoriously shady as frick as well.
Half is still somewhat acceptable for making a profit. I doubt it's 2.5 though. Hollywood simply wouldn't be spending so much money on budgets if that was the case.
>Hollywood simply wouldn't be spending so much money on budgets if that was the case.
See
>Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit.
Not at all. These are all very inexpensive movies compared to the budgets that studios announce for superhero movies. FNAF cost USD 20 mil, Insidious Red Door cost USD 16 mil, M3gan cost USD 12 mil and TtT cost only USD 4,5 mil; all of them have made 10x their budget or more (TtM made 20x its budget).
Meanwhile, Quantumania was very unprofitable: USD 200 mil budget, USD 479 mil box office (USD 125 mil short of its break-even point).Blue Beetle cost USD 100 mil and made only USD 129 mil. Those 2 were blockbusters and both flopped.
This is yet another reason why capeshit is fizziling out: their alleged costs are too high for what they actually deliver.
. Superhero flicks, and Disney movies in general, seems to just have very bloated budget. Flash's production cost is 300M+ somehow.
No, it cost $270 Million to shoot, they got a $50M tax credit from the UK, so the production budget was $220M. I don't know how much it cost to market but the breakeven point for a film like this is estimated to be 2.5 times the production budget so $550M.
>They show that over the two-year period from the incorporation of the company to September 30, 2022, it spent $274.8 million (£221.8 million) and banked a $55 million (£44.4 million) subsidy from the government of the United Kingdom where the movie was made >September 30, 2022 >2022
Oh no no no. Disney fricking wishes it was just 270M
Does that include the advertising budget? That’s not usually included in the production budget and is typically half the cost of the production budget. So 270+135 = $405 mil overall cost. Then theaters take half so for the movie to break even it needs to make $800~ million. It might make it back in blu ray/ on demand/ Disney plus subscriptions even if it’s tens of millions short but that’s just a guess
I guess since the villain is a nobody and the plot sucks they're trying to market this as a team up movie. "Finally, all three Marvels in the same film!" The problem is that only one of them has even been in a movie, one was a side character in a streaming show from almost 4 years ago, and one was the lead in a much less popular series.
I don't really care about the money corporations do do do not make...the real question is "will it suck" and all signs point to YES. It will suck because most marvel fans walked after endgame and the the Disney shows sucked.
I think this movie will be the first official confirmed failure of the MCU. They have already had lackluster movies this year, but this one is going to be so obvious. How appropriate too.
Confirmed even by the shills I mean. They can't admit that with Quantumania because of MUH KANG. But so far this one is projected to do something like 75% worse than Quantumania too. Gonna be some good shit posting boys!
it better, or we won't get anymore black women directors for our kino
Dont worry, they'll blame us anyway
No. There's no major interest/selling point and capeshitters are an aging demographic
All film demographics are aging, zoomers don't watch movies
they'll watch movies that are bussin like Fnaf
Facts
Wrong. FNAF made US$ 150 million in five days. Mario made money. Oppenheimer. Barbie. Sound of Freedom. Talk to Me.
Capeshitters specifically (the mouthbreathing manchildren consooming demographic that Hollywood milked in the past decade and a half) is losing momentum and appeal.
ALL 2023 capeshit releases have either outright flopped or underperformed-- even Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ended up below expectations.
>even Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ended up below expectations.
It surpassed expectations.
Quantumania was the one that underperformed, plus all of DC's stuff.
>It surpassed expectations.
Absolutely not. It failed to reach a billion by US$150 million and opened far behind GotG 2 and (appallingly) Thor Love and Thunder
>That film could probably be deemed a box office failure. It’s certainly a disappointment for a studio and industry that constantly demands growth for each subsequent franchise installment in the 21st century. For these reasons, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is unlikely to escape the label of “disappointment” to the Mouse House’s accountants when it appears unlikely to get near the same ballpark of Vol. 2’s $864 million total from over half a decade ago.
>Absolutely not. It failed to reach a billion by US$150 million and opened far behind GotG 2 and (appallingly) Thor Love and Thunder
No one was expecting GOTG 3 to make a billion!!!FACT!!!
LET HIM COOK!!!!
This. Seriously, only the most moronic guy still cares for Marvel. SPECIALLY since phase 2 started( it was bad since phase 1, but since they went full woke shit the franchise is dead )
>the mouthbreathing manchildren consooming demographic that Hollywood milked in the past decade and a half
Which is totally unlike elevated classics like FNAF, Mario, Oppenheimer and.. Barbie. The lack of self awareness is off the charts bucko.
It is because capeshitters are a type of cringe stereotype which boomers, genXers, average millennials and zoomers distance themselves from.
Capeshitters used to have an overinvested reddlt neuroticism that the movie industry encouraged but that cycle has run its course. They're getting older and the hype around superheroes is increasingly deflated because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
>because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
The FNAF audience find someone cringe and out of touch? Damn, that must sting.
>that must sting.
Well, you did react to it.
Keep in mind that it's not just zoomers: most people never related to the rabid superhero fanbase. It's not normal for post-puberty individuals to take men in tights and capes as life and death subjects.
Capeshit is made for literal/mental 12 yos and it unsurprisingly lost its shine as balding men with Black Panther t-shirts spending hundreds on plastic toys are not exactly role models
most people don't pay attention to the superfans, they just wanted to see pew pew and shield throw but got laquisha and wine aunt and they checked out.
>most people don't pay attention to the superfans
Studios have marketed these universes as almost a type of servitude: too many references to other movies/series etc made capeshit a chore to casual viewers.
>but got laquisha and wine aunt and they checked out.
Agreed. Woke insertions were disastrous and directly linked to the downfall of superhero movies.
>Neither is it normal for them to take FNAF and Mario as life and death subjects.
They don't. There's a casual attitude towards these movies, which are, despite the lore, self-contained.
>Yes, and the majority of your examples are intended for younger people than that.
Deliberately so: FNAF and Mario presented themselves as all-ages entertained whereas capeshit was often absurdly marketed as "spy movies", "war movies" or some such nonsense. Their attempt to be "serious" is why they seem ridiculous.
OTOH, FNAF is simple on the surface but layered with serious subjects.
Trying too hard to be le serious or le funny/quippy were both factors that led to superhero fatigue
>If your favorite movie is "Barbie" you don't exactly come across as a role model either.
Haven't even bothered seeing it. Its success has to do with multiple factors (some of them marketing-related) but it shows an audience that wants a different aesthetic and worldbuiling. I assume that Barbie isn't more woke than Black Panther btw
I just don't see the major difference between the two types of blockbusters you're comparing, nor do I view it as any kind of cinematic W, but if you've been tired of the cape genre I guess this might relieve some of that frustration.
I have yet to see cinema actually become as good as it once was.
See
Also take into account that these movies escape the constraints set by the capeshit and don't require the viewer to cling to them.
"Good day" is a reaction too, don't get ahead of yourself.
> It's not normal for post-puberty individuals to take men in tights and capes as life and death subjects
Neither is it normal for them to take FNAF and Mario as life and death subjects.
>Capeshit is made for literal/mental 12 yos
Yes, and the majority of your examples are intended for younger people than that.
That's what I'm saying, all of this applies to the movies you brought up, save maybe Oppenheimer, but Nolan's midwit cinema is another debate in itself.
I just find the comparisons genuinely funny, thinking there's a difference with capeshit.
If your favorite movie is "Barbie" you don't exactly come across as a role model either.
It would've been halfway effective if the alternative was more mature cinema. You're not really "owning" capeshitters by watching Five Nights at Freddy and Mario, anon.
I have no interest in "owning" capeshitters: in fact, this type of silly drama seems cringe and unbecoming.
As for "mature" cinema, capeshit desexualized plots were absurdly out of touch with the realities of growing up, so even a movie such as Barbie (which I did not see) seem more adult by comparison.
As for other box office hits this year, FNAF, Talk to Me, Insidious Red Door and ofc Oppenheimer are all much more mature than, say, Blue Beetle.
Even minor hits such as No Hard Feelings show that there's an audience for mature movies and the blockbuster anxiety to make 1 billion movies is far from the only option for studios.
Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit. That isn't to say good recent blockbusters like, say, Maverick don't exist. But it's not high brow cinema.
And FNAF and Barbie sure as shit aren't. What you're seeing now is one genre slop making way for another kind of genre slop, that's it.
At least capeshit's source material is more mature than something like the Sonic movie even if they don't really depict it in film form. So I very much doubt your thesis that the "cringe manchild" stereotype has changed. The focus just shifted.
>Most of the examples you've given are blockbusters that fall into the same category as capeshit.
Not at all. These are all very inexpensive movies compared to the budgets that studios announce for superhero movies. FNAF cost USD 20 mil, Insidious Red Door cost USD 16 mil, M3gan cost USD 12 mil and TtT cost only USD 4,5 mil; all of them have made 10x their budget or more (TtM made 20x its budget).
Meanwhile, Quantumania was very unprofitable: USD 200 mil budget, USD 479 mil box office (USD 125 mil short of its break-even point).Blue Beetle cost USD 100 mil and made only USD 129 mil. Those 2 were blockbusters and both flopped.
This is yet another reason why capeshit is fizziling out: their alleged costs are too high for what they actually deliver.
Mario and Barbie were expensive.
Yes, but unlike capeshit they delivered. That's the point: it's either realistically-budgeted movies or non-capeshit blockbusters which have succeeded this year.
>Anon, one of the most profitable movies of all time is capeshit.
As were musicals in the not too distant past. We're talking about current trends, which clearly show that capeshit is less and less popular.
They delivered in terms of box office, yes. Whether they delivered in terms of quality is debatable, although they probably did, as profitable movies need to have SOME common appeal.
The reason for capeshits' success in the first place is that they were blockbusters a step or two above the blockbusters at the time. Now the formula has ran its course and is being replaced by other formulas, in this case films based on video games and toys.
Live action anime is another gimmick that is bound to flood Hollywood soon as well.
>unbecoming
Stop reading right there.
You, sir, are King homosexual of the homosexual Parade
It means "not appropriate". Next time just look the word up
I am calling you a homosexual for using a homosexual word, not because I don't know what it means, you dumbass.
Well you do sound quite flustered/triggered. Are you a woman or a transsexual? Simmer down
No. I can just tell by the way you type that you are annoying homosexual in real life. So, I am taking the opportunity to point that out to you for the sake of the poor souls that are in your vicinity at all times. b***h.
Are you openly gay or are you still in the closet? Do you usually get that nervous when you can't think of a counterargument?
Reminder: I have nothing against the fact that you suck dicks or whatever. You just have to present arguments instead of getting triggered by words such as "unbecoming"
Anon, one of the most profitable movies of all time is capeshit.
The audiences didn't distance themselves from the audience. They distances themselves from the movies and are now flocking to different flavors of low brow cinema.
>It is because capeshitters are a type of cringe stereotype which boomers, genXers, average millennials and zoomers distance themselves from.
>Capeshitters used to have an overinvested reddlt neuroticism that the movie industry encouraged but that cycle has run its course. They're getting older and the hype around superheroes is increasingly deflated because the current core audience finds that type of viewer cringe and out of touch
here we have an example of someone who doesn't like something and feels alone, so he must convince others that they should hate the thing he doesn't like so that he no longer feels alone in his beliefs!!!FACT!!!
I don't even think zoomers care about FNAF. It's mostly millenial man children like game theory guy and markiplier that enjoy it.
Millenial youtubers popularize it, but zoomers are the main consumers of it. It's the same with Minecraft and everything else.
81% of the opening weekend audience for FNAF was between 13 and 24
Skibidi Toilet and The Amazing Digital Circus are cultural touchstones for Zoomers and Gen A.
Zoomers love Spider-Man
Funny, since most don't even know the real Spider-Man
His movies are some of the most successful things in the MCU, wdym?
Yeah but he's nuSpider-Man.
#notmyspiderman
Nonwhite zoomers like the Spiderverse but after the Gwen is trans thing even that specific franchise is likely to become less and less profitable
Can you explain why No Way Home and Venom did so well?
It connected to teens eager to go back to the theater for some mindless fun after the lockdown. 2021 was ages ago though, the market landscape has since changed a lot
no way home farmed nostalgia and venom is just a cool character
Disney Spent Over $270 Million To Make 'The Marvels', the general calculation sees studios receiving half of a film's box office taking, meaning that The Marvels will break even at $439.6 million.
The general rule is 2.5x. It would need 500 million to break even.
You're right, but your math is wrong. It needs to make $675 million just to break even.
Your math is wrong, it would need 2.2 billion to break even
I doubt that's the case, but if it is, none of these blockbuster movies are actually all that profitable. In fact, it seems like pissing money away to make one.
The fact that MCU and Disney animated movies are struggling to fricking break even (which is ofc a type of loss since movies are investments) goes to show how they are ceasing to be relevant for an increasing number of viewers worldwide
Disney animated movies are generally a lot less profitable than the MCU. But the MCU has slowly been turning into an animated Disney movie franchise, if that makes sense.
They're not the same thing they used to be under, say, Paramount.
They're getting smaller and smaller and their niche, often nitpicky audience have a negative effect in how these movies are perceived by the casual audience, which is simply choosing other movies to watch
>The general rule is 2.5x
it is?
Yes.
The studio doesn't see a lot of the money back.
Theaters take about 50% of everything I believe and in China it's like 70% for example.
~~*Hollywood accounting*~~ is notoriously shady as frick as well.
Half is still somewhat acceptable for making a profit. I doubt it's 2.5 though. Hollywood simply wouldn't be spending so much money on budgets if that was the case.
>Hollywood simply wouldn't be spending so much money on budgets if that was the case.
See
. Superhero flicks, and Disney movies in general, seems to just have very bloated budget. Flash's production cost is 300M+ somehow.
No, poltards up it everytime the see a brown person on screen.
ads aren't cheap
So like $100 million to film and design and $170 million to market?
No, it cost $270 Million to shoot, they got a $50M tax credit from the UK, so the production budget was $220M. I don't know how much it cost to market but the breakeven point for a film like this is estimated to be 2.5 times the production budget so $550M.
>$439.6 million
Where do you get this number from?
The movie's budget was $270 million × 2.5= $675 million it needs to start turning a profit.
it's 270 gross, but they shot in the UK and got 50 mil in tax rebates so 220 net
$220 × 2.5 = $550 million then, not $439.6 million.
probably gonna make like 350 mil max, so bomb either way
Hopefully
>They show that over the two-year period from the incorporation of the company to September 30, 2022, it spent $274.8 million (£221.8 million) and banked a $55 million (£44.4 million) subsidy from the government of the United Kingdom where the movie was made
>September 30, 2022
>2022
Oh no no no. Disney fricking wishes it was just 270M
Does that include the advertising budget? That’s not usually included in the production budget and is typically half the cost of the production budget. So 270+135 = $405 mil overall cost. Then theaters take half so for the movie to break even it needs to make $800~ million. It might make it back in blu ray/ on demand/ Disney plus subscriptions even if it’s tens of millions short but that’s just a guess
Don't worry. Disney will buy their own tickets just like they did with Captain Marvel.
They don't have that kind of money anymore. They'll take the hit, blame Brie and dump her
Disney is not making Infinity War/Endgame hype money anymore.
They will break even and make like $4000 profit
>even and make like $4000 profit
Disney sisters, we’ve done it!
Unless there's a hard core gay sex scene between Ms. Marvel and Captain Marvel ala Blue is the warmest color then no
No. Brie Larson is not a movie star and has no draw.
She's a movie star in your head since she lives there rent free
>She's a movie star in your head since she lives there rent free
While he lives in your head rent free as you thought about him and felt the need to defend Cheese Larva!!!FACT!!!
I guess since the villain is a nobody and the plot sucks they're trying to market this as a team up movie. "Finally, all three Marvels in the same film!" The problem is that only one of them has even been in a movie, one was a side character in a streaming show from almost 4 years ago, and one was the lead in a much less popular series.
It will make a billion because Cinemaphile is always wrong like Barbie
>money printing
>tax fiddling
>subscription milking
>will it make a profit
they dont need too.
People underestimate Brie
People either underestimate or overestimate her. In reality she's just an autist, that's it.
No she isn't.
I don't really care about the money corporations do do do not make...the real question is "will it suck" and all signs point to YES. It will suck because most marvel fans walked after endgame and the the Disney shows sucked.
Except for moonknight, that was good.
Moonknight was generic as hell man
No, it will lose hundreds of millions a la The Flash
I think this movie will be the first official confirmed failure of the MCU. They have already had lackluster movies this year, but this one is going to be so obvious. How appropriate too.
>official confirmed failure of the MCU
Wasn't that Quantumania?
Confirmed even by the shills I mean. They can't admit that with Quantumania because of MUH KANG. But so far this one is projected to do something like 75% worse than Quantumania too. Gonna be some good shit posting boys!
>This will sell our movie
She literally has a blockhead.
She seems friendly, engaging and charismatic. Definitely someone I want to be the face of our new Marvel franchise and phase.
this but unironically
Is that Heath Ledger?
Is this Marvel's biggest miscast? What made them think this miserable b***h face could be their main female superhero?
peaked with endgame because most are familiar with iron man, spider man, Captain America, Hulk. They are gone and no one cares about the new heroes.
marvel hasnt broken even in years. but this might be the first time they'll fail so bad they cant even cover it up with hollywood accounting
They already did fail. This is just continuing a trend. But DC's latest projects have also failed. The genre is simply dying.