I've been reading the last few pages and I'm probably parroting/reiterating some things which have already been posted, but…
I truly wish we could refer to tickets-sold (units) as opposed to box office revenue when it comes to, "Is this film a success?" I want to know: How many people are going to see this thing (and, therefore, is it worth the time to see it, myself) versus, "Is the studio going to see a profit on this?" The public isn't always right, but I think attendance is meaningful.
There are too many variables (which have already been mentioned) – inflation over time in regard to comparisons to other films, more showings in large format theaters with higher ticket prices, etc. "Profit," or what the movie-goer assumes is "profit," just isn't a good metric.
Yet, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, so here we are: Arguing about budgets and marketing costs, foreign vs. domestic box office, etc.
It's all really dumb. I don't mean to be insulting to the crews championing this film or that, but these types of discussions have become "sports fan mentality/console wars"-bullshit: My team is better than yours. Which, exactly, is your dog in the fight? Krypto, I guess? Maybe Zaslav…I might name my next dog Zaslav.
In general, WBD and James Gunn made a movie. Good or bad, WBD is not going to cancel anything planned in this "universe" in the immediate future, regardless of box office total or profit or whatever.
The DCEU (or Synderverse or whatever people call it, pejoratively), of which I was a fan, dissolved due to less-than-anticipated revenue over time and disparate creatives running the show – they never came together to create a plan or pivot when things didn't meet expectation. Lack of a unified vision ultimately ended it.
Brief aside: The entertainment industry, in most cases, isn't about fixing the problem – it's about fixing the blame...unless your top-level boss is Kevin Feige. Then, no one gets blamed and a cycle of shit product persists which probably shouldn't (irrelevant aside to the previous aside - sorry). Otherwise, it's: "That guy fucked up. Not me. I want to keep my job...even though I probably won't." So, WB is WB and Snyder's films are too dark, the peripheral films aren't popular, someone let The Rock open his mouth in regard to a roadmap which didn't exist, etc...and no one is willing (or has the audacity) to try to pull it all together, despite the disappointments.
Snyder's out – Whedon's in for JL. Then Whedon's out - Snyder's back in, but not really. We'll let him make a 4-hour cut of JL for pandemic streaming viewers, even though it overwrites theatrical continuity in some sense. We'll figure it out later - or someone will. Ok, let's get Cavil back…or: let's have The Rock get Cavil back. His agent is really excited about it and if I'm not the one to pull that trigger, my ass is covered. We've got a Flash movie and an Aquaman movie (maybe Blue Beetle, too – I don't recall) in the can, but, you know what: fuck it. Let's announce a course correction (DCU) before they're released. Those films were sent out to die - but, hey, not my problem. (I really don't envy the position Gunn was in – having to play pretend cheerleader for those films).
New management arrives (during/after the WB/Discovery merger) and attempts to clean-up – a lot of blame/not-up-to-expectation-performance to go around. Jettison the old stuff. Clean slate. From the top, the approach is: DC needs to get its shit together. Start anew. This was inevitable.
Which brings us to this film.
You can go see Superman…or not. We can argue about whether it's a failure…or not. Bottom line: It exists, it was released, and it's the starting point of a new direction (not one I'm necessarily fond of, admittedly – not that it matters).
Obviously, this is a discussion board: So, we discuss (I lurk, myself, but I've read a lot of great user-contributed stuff in this forum – thanks to all of you).
However, the whole box office numbers thing is just…really silly.
No one, here (myself included), has any idea what these films actually cost to produce. Budgets are quoted by various sources, yes. These numbers are mostly bullshit.
I'm sure some of you are aware of this (and maybe it's already been mentioned), but major studios function as such: There is a parent company (here, WBD) and each production is established as a separate, subsidiary company/entity. So, Superman (2025) is a "company," itself. Every other film WBD releases or has released this year (and every other year) is a separate entity, as well.
The parent company silos costs and revenues in a manner which is most advantageous in terms of corporate tax and share-price of the publicly-traded, parent company. The "budget" for a film – which is an estimate of cost (at least, at first) and not actual cost, mind you – is designed with this in mind.
It's essentially: "Allow myself to invoice…myself. The price is…whatever I want it to be."
Hypothetical: Superman needs studio time at the lot in Burbank – this is a cost included in the budget for the film. Sinners also needs studio time. Even if the actual cost to WB studios is the same for both productions, WB can "charge" different fees to each. So, the numbers get manipulated and it's in the best interest of WBD to reduce the estimated profit of each film – to the extent it can – and shift it to areas in which it might be losing money or which will result in shareholders reacting positively. I guarantee you, given the success of Sinners, WBD wishes it would have initially set a larger budget - it would have been more than 80M and, consequently, there would have been more breathing room to assign costs.
On a side note, In the case of Sinners, it's been reported (more on "reporting" in a bit) Ryan Coogler went over budget and put up 20M, "out of pocket," to finish the film. This is also, most likely, bullshit. I don't know what his deal with WBD is, but he probably gave up 20M of his fee (if that number is even accurate) against the backend of either revenue or profit (I would assume gross as this maneuver obviously decreased the "profit" of the film…and he has that kind of pull). So, now the supposed production cost is 100M – is this number "officially" being used in the mathematical magic the public is using to determine whether this film turned a profit? I would guess: no.
This type of thing does appear to be, "robbing Peter to pay Paul," in some sense, but financial wizards smarter than me work for these studios and move money around in an almost dizzying manner. With so many productions, ultimately, in many cases, it's better to reduce the "profit" on paper for a film/subsidiary while, in terms of championing successes, promote individual films to the extent of, "Oh my god, the 'box office' is billions of dollars!!!"
Add to this (not revelatory – everyone is aware of it and it's been mentioned numerous times in this thread): What the studio actually receives in revenue due to deals with exhibitors through distribution is substantially less than reported box office totals. The structures in these deals are overly complicated with week-to-week changes in split (exhibitor gets larger percentage of revenue as time goes on). Furthermore, domestic deals are much more favorable to studios than foreign in many cases, so foreign box office is almost a different animal. This scenario shouldn't be looked at as X+Y when attempting to figure total BO, pre-profit. So, this 50% of box office take I see floated around is highly inaccurate and there is no real general rule.
Marketing is an entirely other subject and almost more susceptible to manipulation. What does Disney pay ABC (its own network…in other words, itself) to air ads for Fantastic Four? 20M? 30M? Add it to the marketing/distribution "budget" and subtract it from "profit."
Lastly, don't believe everything you read in the Hollywood trades. Reporters for HR, Variety, etc. very much exist in a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" world, as far as their relationships with studios (and sources) are concerned. They publish puff pieces (and sometimes not) in exchange for exclusive details which may or may not be entirely true. My favorite of these, recently, is the idea the latest Cap. America movie ballooned in cost to something near 400M - due to troubled production, reshoots, and what not. I don't believe that number for one moment, despite the problems with the film. Even if it is true, why people are fascinated with the amount is beyond me. Even if it cost 800M, Disney isn't going to collapse and Sam Wilson will continue to be Captain America.
My point is (and I'm not at all pretending to be some kind of expert): The profit of a film (which seems to be used as some kind of potential harbinger of doom) is a lot more complicated than "reported budget, times some multiplier, less reported box office."
And, ultimately, who cares?
Apple produces a ton of amazing shows for streaming – theoretically at a loss – and continues to do so. No doom, there. Foundation hasn't been canceled (I have no real info on that one, but I can't imagine there are enough viewers to justify the money spent to produce it...even though I love it).
Long story short: I don't understand this "hope for failure" sentiment – and then the need to defend it with arbitrary box office totals. If you don't like this Superman, it's cool, man – just wait it out (until the next iteration) or go back to the earlier stuff in the meantime. If you do like, that's cool, too, obviously.
I'm not really a fan, one-movie-in, of the new DCU, but I'll see Supergirl. I'll see whatever comes after. Maybe I'll change my mind. If I don't like the future films, I'll criticize them just as you will – just not with bullshit numbers provided by mostly untrustworthy sources.
