Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion

[Takeru]

I don't think many people seriously considered it a flop--it would have had to do much less business for that to have been the case--but it does appear to be a disappointment, yes.

The definition of flop is to fail completely so it is accurate to call BvS a flop, the majority of critics disliked it and so did the majority of the audiences (and Jeremy Irons), it did not make a profit at the box office, it will when they add merchandise and home video but a movie like this shouldn't crawl to making a profit with the help of a bunch of BDs.

Script -> fail
Direction -> fail
Editing -> fail
Box Office -> fail
Reception -> fail

That it could have been worse doesn't mean it didn't flop. WB wouldn't restructure, switch executives and put Snyder on a leash if it was just financially disappointing. The movie was a disaster considering it was supposed to set the tone for the entire DCEU, it wasn't just a one time thing that can be written of, this was the start of what was supposed to be their biggest franchise for the next few years.

If the Fantastic Beasts movie is a success I expect them to throw money at Joanne Rowling to expand the Potter Universe while a few planned DC movies will be quietly put to rest (who asked for Aquaman and Cyborg for example? And they have a better Flash on tv than Ezra Miller can ever hope to be, so what's the point?)

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Words from Mark Millar. We have crossed a threshold.

https://twitter.com/mrmarkmillar/status/737189733302931456?s=08

I think BvS is better than people have made out but that is funny.

 

[LJones41]

I would grade "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN" at A-. I'm taking points off for a plot point regarding Lex Luthor and Batman.

 

[kirk55555]

Words from Mark Millar. We have crossed a threshold.

https://twitter.com/mrmarkmillar/status/737189733302931456?s=08

That's funny, but the guy who wrote stuff like Old Man Logan and Nemesis really doesn't have much room to make fun of people who made a movie like BvS. Tonally they're not far off from a lot of his creator owned work, except they were limited by the movie's rating. Millar, while he's written some decent stuff like the Civil War comic, is super grimdark at times, so its a bit ridiculous to see him take a shot at the BvS people.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

The definition of flop is to fail completely so it is accurate to call BvS a flop, the majority of critics disliked it and so did the majority of the audiences (and Jeremy Irons), it did not make a profit at the box office, it will when they add merchandise and home video but a movie like this shouldn't crawl to making a profit with the help of a bunch of BDs.

Script -> fail
Direction -> fail
Editing -> fail
Box Office -> fail
Reception -> fail

That it could have been worse doesn't mean it didn't flop. WB wouldn't restructure, switch executives and put Snyder on a leash if it was just financially disappointing. The movie was a disaster considering it was supposed to set the tone for the entire DCEU, it wasn't just a one time thing that can be written of, this was the start of what was supposed to be their biggest franchise for the next few years.

If the Fantastic Beasts movie is a success I expect them to throw money at Joanne Rowling to expand the Potter Universe while a few planned DC movies will be quietly put to rest (who asked for Aquaman and Cyborg for example? And they have a better Flash on tv than Ezra Miller can ever hope to be, so what's the point?)

If BvS is a flop, I wonder what you would call X-Men A and the Alice in Wonderland 2? The latter of which we haven't even made a discussion thread for on these boards. BvS came out in March, and managed to due the business of X-Men and Alice did in it's first 3 days. BvS is a disappointment, though. Snyder failed in executing the story, and the fact that he shot a 4 hour movie and cut it down to 2.5 hours certainly didn't help. BvS still made a lot of money to keep the franchise viable, but a billion dollar gross would've looked better going forward.

 

[Starbreaker]

Batman v Superman is not a flop. It's currently the 47th highest grossing film of all time. It's just a mediocre, long, confusing movie that is about 10 steps down from Man of Steel. I hope that Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman are way better, because people won't go to anything after that if they're bad.

 

[JD]

I wouldn't be surprised if the shifts and changes being made on the creative side of the DCEU have more to do with the critical and fan reaction than the box office numbers.
As for Mark Millar's comment, I do feel a little bad that he's using what happened to the gorilla for a joke, but it was still kind of funny. At least he was saying what happened to the gorilla was a bad thing.

 

[Noname Given]

The definition of flop is to fail completely so it is accurate to call BvS a flop, the majority of critics disliked it and so did the majority of the audiences (and Jeremy Irons), it did not make a profit at the box office, it will when they add merchandise and home video but a movie like this shouldn't crawl to making a profit with the help of a bunch of BDs.

Script -> fail
Direction -> fail
Editing -> fail
Box Office -> fail
Reception -> fail

That it could have been worse doesn't mean it didn't flop. WB wouldn't restructure, switch executives and put Snyder on a leash if it was just financially disappointing. The movie was a disaster considering it was supposed to set the tone for the entire DCEU, it wasn't just a one time thing that can be written of, this was the start of what was supposed to be their biggest franchise for the next few years.

If the Fantastic Beasts movie is a success I expect them to throw money at Joanne Rowling to expand the Potter Universe while a few planned DC movies will be quietly put to rest (who asked for Aquaman and Cyborg for example? And they have a better Flash on tv than Ezra Miller can ever hope to be, so what's the point?)

Look, I find the film mediocre in execution myself 9and my previous comments speak for themselves) - BUT - you can't call a film that grossed $871 million (with a reported $250 million production budget) a 'Box Office Flop'. If you do, Hollywood should just stop making films as a for profit business because if that's a 'flop' then nothing is really a financial success unless it's at the level of the most recent Star Wars film (at 4 billion.)

That said, the studio Execs might have hoped/expected it to gross more (and thus to them the results are disappointing); but you can't call it a Box Office Flop.

A REAL example of a Box Office Flop is: "John Carter of Mars"
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
Production Budget: $250 million
Worldwide Box Office Take: $284 million
^^^
THAT's a 'flop'.

 

[JD]

Yeah, it was a disappointment, but not a flop, there's a big difference.

 

[Thestral]

(who asked for Aquaman.. for example?

Me. It's all my fault.

 

[eyeresist]

I'm looking forward to Cyborg! I'm the one!

The definition of flop is to fail completely so it is accurate to call BvS a flop

The definition of a flop is a movie no-one goes to see.

If your definition includes movies that make their money back and which a significant number of people (even if it is a minority) like, then most of the classic Trek movies were flops.

Here is a list of recent movies that genuinely flopped: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/
Scroll to bottom of page for table "Biggest Money Losers, Based on Absolute Loss on Worldwide Earnings".

 

[ichab]

Look, I find the film mediocre in execution myself 9and my previous comments speak for themselves) - BUT - you can't call a film that grossed $871 million (with a reported $250 million production budget) a 'Box Office Flop'. If you do, Hollywood should just stop making films as a for profit business because if that's a 'flop' then nothing is really a financial success unless it's at the level of the most recent Star Wars film (at 4 billion.)

That said, the studio Execs might have hoped/expected it to gross more (and thus to them the results are disappointing); but you can't call it a Box Office Flop.

A REAL example of a Box Office Flop is: "John Carter of Mars"
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
Production Budget: $250 million
Worldwide Box Office Take: $284 million
^^^
THAT's a 'flop'.

It's good for Disney that they have Marvel and Star Wars because they have had some real flops over the years with John Carter, The Lone Ranger and possibly Through The Looking Glass.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

It's good for Disney that they have Marvel and Star Wars because they have had some real flops over the years with John Carter, The Lone Ranger and possibly Through The Looking Glass.

Yeah, Disney has had some clunkers for sure in recent years.

Mars Needs Moms
The Lone Ranger
Prince of Persia
Tomorrowland
Into The Woods
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Wreck It Ralph
The Good Dinosaur
Tron Legacy *** Disney expected it to be a $700 million movie, but it topped at $400 million.

So far, Disney has been doing good this year with Zootopia, Jungle Book and Captain America.

 

[theenglish]

Yeah, Disney has had some clunkers for sure in recent years.

Mars Needs Moms
The Lone Ranger
Prince of Persia
Tomorrowland
Into The Woods
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Wreck It Ralph
The Good Dinosaur
Tron Legacy *** Disney expected it to be a $700 million movie, but it topped at $400 million.

So far, Disney has been doing good this year with Zootopia, Jungle Book and Captain America.

Nice list. There are three movies there, at least, that were quite good for being considered flops.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Nice list. There are three movies there, at least, that were quite good for being considered flops.

With the Disney brand and advertisement they put into their movies, you can imagine even a financial success (like Tron Legacy) would still underperform by Disney standards. I quite like Into the Woods, but even with a $250 million worldwide gross on a $50 million dollar budget; Disney expected more.

 

[Skywalker]

I'm still sad that John Carter flopped, I actually really liked it.

 

[Thestral]

Wait, Wreck-It Ralph?

 

[The Lensman]

I'm still sad that John Carter flopped, I actually really liked it.

Same here, love that movie and wish we would've gotten more. I thought that, with the exception of the guy that played John Carter, everyone else was perfectly cast.

 

[eyeresist]

Wait, Wreck-It Ralph?

Yeah, I'm not sure that's right. Not a mega-hit, but I think it did okay.

Budget: $165 million
World-wide grosses: $471,222,889
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rebootralph.htm

Even if you theorise they spend same as the budget on advertising, that's still a decent profit. We may be talking about "disappointed expectations" again....


I also found this in an article called Investing in Disney: A comprehensive primer and analysis:

For fiscal 2013, revenues increased 3%, to $6.0 billion, and segment operating income decreased $61 million, to $661 million. Higher theatrical distribution revenues were driven by two Disney feature animation releases in the current year, Wreck-It Ralph and Planes, compared to none in the prior year.

ALTHOUGH

The decrease in operating income was primarily due to a decrease in home entertainment results, partially offset by an increase in SVOD sales of library titles and lower film impairments. Lower home entertainment results were driven by decreased unit sales reflecting the performance of Brave, Iron Man 3, Wreck-It Ralph, and Cinderella Diamond Release

 

[M.A.C.O.]

My apologies. I hadn't checked the Wreck-It-Ralph numbers since it came out a few years ago. I just remember the film under performing int the US, and I did not recall it's overseas take. Yeah, Wreck-IT-Ralph was a success then.