Articulated Thoughts General Movie News & Discussion

fac said:
I doubt it - the most recent Superman has a box office of $600 million. If they could make the films for free - and get all the box office revenue instead of a portion of it - they only need another 160 or so Superman films to break even.

Unlikely that in the entirety of time since Superman and Batman debuted (and all of DC really) that it has generated even $25 billion in revenue, let alone profit, even when adjusted for inflation. Total all-time (unadjusted) box office for all of DC is around $8 billion.
Click to expand...
While I don't know how the numbers shake out exactly, I think licensing Batman and Superman contributes quite a bit. Surely not $100 Billion, but as the great Yogurt once told us merchandising is where the real money in the movie is made.
 
I just think it is hard to wrap our heads about what $100 billion means - if every living human handed over $10 to me, I'd still be $20 billion short....

So I agree, DC is probably the WB's most evergreen property that they own outright, with Harry Potter close behind (but the characters are ultimately not owned by them), and maybe Looney Tunes if they could market that correctly.

I feel like this is going to be AOL/Time Warner levels of overspend. Disney is valued at just under $200 Billion based on market cap, but they own - their animated films and characters, Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Muppets, theme parks, cruise line, ESPN, ABC, 20th Century Fox, etc., and Disney's annual revenue is more than what Netflix and WB pull in combined.
 
Last edited:
I think what probably needs to be understood in all this is that all of these companies lie WILDLY about how much money they make, how much money they have, and how much money their properties generate. Because the rich love to make shareholders happy, but they also -REALLY- love to hide their wealth and not pay taxes.
 
Chooch555 said:
It also seems to be a byproduct of wealth amassing amongst the few - they have to spend it on something and when you have a Billion dollars a 500 million dollar cheeseburger seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
Yep.
Creative accounting just plays a bigger role than anyone realizes as well. I run a company. We bought a 1.6 million dollar building for our operations. We pay the mortgage on it every month and the company still takes home a profit every month as well. BUT, we can hold that milly-and-a-half over ourselves and say 'TECHNICALLY, we didn't make any money because we owe this much money and only made that much money.' The accounting paperwork ignores the reality that everyone involved in the company took home plenty of cash. On paper, we can act like the company is poor (because the company is technically in debt) even though the -ownership- of the company and everyone working at the company are all getting paid.


Netflix can be like "we technically didn't make any money this year" as every officer in the company walks away with literally millions and millions of dollars.
 
Chooch555 said:
While I don't know how the numbers shake out exactly, I think licensing Batman and Superman contributes quite a bit. Surely not $100 Billion, but as the great Yogurt once told us merchandising is where the real money in the movie is made.
Click to expand...
Correct. A decade ago, Batman brought in almost half a billion. Superman was more than a quarter billion. I imagine those figures have only grown since then.

The films are a big part of it, but merchandise and licensing are a cash cow of their own.
 
I believe those are total retail sales figures (what it looks like), nor the percentage that WB got - I think that $750 million is what the total retail was. 2012 saw the last of the Dark Knight trilogy and 2013 the Man of Steel film, so likely a lot of tie ins. I would be curious what any of the Marvel or DC characters generate in non-movie years.

Looking at the most recent financial report, Disney pulled in between $7 and $8 billion from all of their licensing and consumer products. That seems to be in keeping as a reasonable percentage of the reported total retails sales of $60 billion of their licensed product.

Once again, not disputing that DC generates a ton of money for them, but it is likely the $750 million in retail was about $75 million in actual revenue.
 
Sorry, couldn't resist.

Okay, so earlier this year the news broke that Steven Spielberg was returning to the Sci-Fi genre with his next film. That got a lot of people, including myself, very excited. It's apparently going to be a UFO film (Like Close Encounters was) and it was given a release date of May 15th, 2026.

We'd since learn that the mysterious movie would star Emily Blunt (A Quiet Place), Josh O'Connor (Challengers), Colin Firth (Kingsman: The Secret Service), Eve Hewson (The Luminaries), Colman Domingo (The Running Man) and Wyatt Russell (Thunderbolts*), but story details remain under wraps.

RUMOR has it that the the title of this upcoming movie is "Disclosure" and that it will tie into the Spielberg classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Sequel? Prequel? No one knows. The first trailer is RUMORED to screen ahead of Avatar: Fire and Ash, along with the Avengers: Doomsday trailer and a bunch of others. Disney apparently really, really wants you to go see Avatar. The billboards appeared in Times Square today. And it looks like the new release date for the film is June 12th, 2026.

Now you're up to date.
 
Is Avatar still a Thing? I know there was an obsession with it when the first one came out, but does it still have that same following?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top