Well, most people I've heard from state that Batman v Superman is a mess. I've seen a few others state it is "Okay". Not seen it myself and don't intend to until it comes out on DVD!
But before we get onto how the movie fared I'd like to discuss something I've noticed recently and that is people who are buying comics making blog and video posts on "Comics to Invest in in 2016".
Okay, from what I've seen and read these people do not -do not- know much about comics. They ain't that bright either. One suggests buying a comic because "There's an AMC series that seems kinda popular and this comic is based on on that so worth investing in". Right. The AMC series is based on the comic and the comic is not based on the series. Dumb-ass.
Also, "It's investable" ....sigh. Thousands of copies printed off. You are in your thirties.
(1) all the other copies would have to be somehow destroyed or there be only about 50 left to make the comic worth anything (unless you are dumb enough to buy into all that dealer crap). Golden Age US comics are worth money because a lot -not all- but a lot were destroyed during that whole American insanity sparked by Frederick Wertham. Fewer copies -see? Also, they had to wait 30-40 years before dealers hooked into them and asking, and getting big bucks.
(2) The fact that you are going to have to wait for all those other copies to be destroyed is against you. But even if they did become an investment you will be in your late 60s to 70s -IF you live that long.
Ignore people who are, I assume, just hoping to "get a name" as someone to listen to. Yes, you can read only the articles telling you how big an investment all these comics are -ignore that they are sponsored by dealers and companies and written by people who are such double-dumb asses that they still think it cool to use headers like "Bam! Pow! Sock!" Yeah, it was cool. Forty years ago.
You need to read the honest articles out there. The ones that tell you to buy and read comics because you enjoy them because, other than that, they are not worth the price you paid for them. Otherwise you are in for a big bad surprise.
Now, that Batman V Superman movie. How bad did it fare at the box office? Read for yourself: NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/batman-v-superman-shatters-records-170-1-million-debut-n546256
But before we get onto how the movie fared I'd like to discuss something I've noticed recently and that is people who are buying comics making blog and video posts on "Comics to Invest in in 2016".
Okay, from what I've seen and read these people do not -do not- know much about comics. They ain't that bright either. One suggests buying a comic because "There's an AMC series that seems kinda popular and this comic is based on on that so worth investing in". Right. The AMC series is based on the comic and the comic is not based on the series. Dumb-ass.
Also, "It's investable" ....sigh. Thousands of copies printed off. You are in your thirties.
(1) all the other copies would have to be somehow destroyed or there be only about 50 left to make the comic worth anything (unless you are dumb enough to buy into all that dealer crap). Golden Age US comics are worth money because a lot -not all- but a lot were destroyed during that whole American insanity sparked by Frederick Wertham. Fewer copies -see? Also, they had to wait 30-40 years before dealers hooked into them and asking, and getting big bucks.
(2) The fact that you are going to have to wait for all those other copies to be destroyed is against you. But even if they did become an investment you will be in your late 60s to 70s -IF you live that long.
Ignore people who are, I assume, just hoping to "get a name" as someone to listen to. Yes, you can read only the articles telling you how big an investment all these comics are -ignore that they are sponsored by dealers and companies and written by people who are such double-dumb asses that they still think it cool to use headers like "Bam! Pow! Sock!" Yeah, it was cool. Forty years ago.
You need to read the honest articles out there. The ones that tell you to buy and read comics because you enjoy them because, other than that, they are not worth the price you paid for them. Otherwise you are in for a big bad surprise.
Now, that Batman V Superman movie. How bad did it fare at the box office? Read for yourself: NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/batman-v-superman-shatters-records-170-1-million-debut-n546256
'Batman v Superman' Shatters Records With $170.1 Million Debut
"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" steamrolled
past records, debuting to a gargantuan $170.1 million over Easter
weekend despite being pilloried by critics. That ranks as the top
opening weekend for a DC Comics film, the best March launch ever, and
the sixth biggest domestic opening weekend of all-time.
The earnings are a shot in the arm for Warner Bros., which has been reeling from a series of costly bombs such as "Jupiter Ascending" and "Pan," and is looking to the Dark Knight and Man of Steel throw down to kick off a series of inter-connected comic book franchises.
Warner Bros. has already announced release dates for sequels and spin-offs for the next five years, with the first of these superhero adventures, "Suicide Squad," coming out in August.
"This sets us up well," said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros. distribution executive vice president. "We're very proud of what we've made before in the DC world and what's coming in front of us is really exciting."
The studio spared no expense, tapping Ben Affleck to assume Batman's cape and cowl, bringing back "Man of Steel" director Zack Snyder and Superman star Henry Cavill, and shelling out $250 million in production expenses, as well as millions more in promotional razzle dazzle.
The bet appears to have paid off, positioning DC and Warners to have the kind of cinematic universe of costumed heroes and villains that rival Marvel has leveraged to enormous profits.
It also undercuts the influence of top critics. Reviews for "Batman v Superman" were withering — the New York Times' A.O. Scott said seeing the film is "… about as diverting as having a porcelain sink broken over your head" — but audiences didn't care. They were kinder to the picture too, giving the film a B CinemaScore grade.
"It's the fans that speak the loudest," said Jeff Bock, a box office analyst for Exhibitor Relations. "It proves how strong these characters are."
The film's audience was largely male (66 percent) and crowds tended to be younger, with 63 percent of ticket buyers ranging between the ages of 18 and 34. Imax showings contributed $18 million to the gross, premium large format screens added an estimated $17 million to the earnings, 3D screens were responsible for 40 percent of the opening weekend results, and RealD 3D accounted for an estimated $47 million of the total.
"The filmmakers delivered experientially on something that can best be seen in movie theaters," said Greg Foster, CEO of Imax Entertainment. "This is not a movie that any one wants to see in a small venue."
Last weekend's champ, "Zootopia," slid to second place, racking up $23.1 million to push the family film's domestic total to $240.5 million. Globally, the Disney Animation blockbuster has earned $696.7 million, pushing it past the likes of "Tangled," "Big Hero 6," and "Ratatouille."
In third place, Universal scored a counter-programming success with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2." The romantic comedy pulled in female crowds not interested in watching the superhero beatdown, earning a solid $18.1 million from 3,133 locations.
"It's not so much to do with strategy and positioning as it is just a fun film," said Nick Carpou, Universal's distribution chief. "It's about family and everyone has that experience and can relate to a lot of what's in the film and the way people care for each other in the story."
"My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2" is a follow-up to the 2002 box office phenomenon, which grossed $368 million at the global box office. Gold Circle Entertainment, HBO and Playtone produced the sequel for $18 million and brought back original stars Nia Vardalos and John Corbett.
The weekend was a grim one for Lionsgate, which saw "The Divergent Series: Allegiant" plunge 67 percent in its second weekend, eking out $9.5 million. The film has earned $46.6 million, a disappointing result that puts the studio in an uncomfortable position given that another sequel, "Ascendant," is currently scheduled to debut in June 2017, when it will face off against heavy hitters such as "World War Z 2" and a reboot of "The Mummy."
Sony's "Miracles from Heaven" tied for fourth, earning $9.5 million, and pushing the faith-based drama's domestic haul to $34.1 million after two weeks.
In limited release, Sony Pictures Classics debuted the Hank Williams drama "I Saw the Light" to $50,464 on five screens, for a per screen average of $10,093, while Bleecker Street's drone thriller "Eye in the Sky" expanded from 35 theaters to 123 in its third week, earning $1 million and pushing its domestic total to $1.7 million.
The earnings are a shot in the arm for Warner Bros., which has been reeling from a series of costly bombs such as "Jupiter Ascending" and "Pan," and is looking to the Dark Knight and Man of Steel throw down to kick off a series of inter-connected comic book franchises.
Warner Bros. has already announced release dates for sequels and spin-offs for the next five years, with the first of these superhero adventures, "Suicide Squad," coming out in August.
"This sets us up well," said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros. distribution executive vice president. "We're very proud of what we've made before in the DC world and what's coming in front of us is really exciting."
The studio spared no expense, tapping Ben Affleck to assume Batman's cape and cowl, bringing back "Man of Steel" director Zack Snyder and Superman star Henry Cavill, and shelling out $250 million in production expenses, as well as millions more in promotional razzle dazzle.
The bet appears to have paid off, positioning DC and Warners to have the kind of cinematic universe of costumed heroes and villains that rival Marvel has leveraged to enormous profits.
It also undercuts the influence of top critics. Reviews for "Batman v Superman" were withering — the New York Times' A.O. Scott said seeing the film is "… about as diverting as having a porcelain sink broken over your head" — but audiences didn't care. They were kinder to the picture too, giving the film a B CinemaScore grade.
"It's the fans that speak the loudest," said Jeff Bock, a box office analyst for Exhibitor Relations. "It proves how strong these characters are."
The film's audience was largely male (66 percent) and crowds tended to be younger, with 63 percent of ticket buyers ranging between the ages of 18 and 34. Imax showings contributed $18 million to the gross, premium large format screens added an estimated $17 million to the earnings, 3D screens were responsible for 40 percent of the opening weekend results, and RealD 3D accounted for an estimated $47 million of the total.
"The filmmakers delivered experientially on something that can best be seen in movie theaters," said Greg Foster, CEO of Imax Entertainment. "This is not a movie that any one wants to see in a small venue."
Last weekend's champ, "Zootopia," slid to second place, racking up $23.1 million to push the family film's domestic total to $240.5 million. Globally, the Disney Animation blockbuster has earned $696.7 million, pushing it past the likes of "Tangled," "Big Hero 6," and "Ratatouille."
In third place, Universal scored a counter-programming success with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2." The romantic comedy pulled in female crowds not interested in watching the superhero beatdown, earning a solid $18.1 million from 3,133 locations.
"It's not so much to do with strategy and positioning as it is just a fun film," said Nick Carpou, Universal's distribution chief. "It's about family and everyone has that experience and can relate to a lot of what's in the film and the way people care for each other in the story."
"My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2" is a follow-up to the 2002 box office phenomenon, which grossed $368 million at the global box office. Gold Circle Entertainment, HBO and Playtone produced the sequel for $18 million and brought back original stars Nia Vardalos and John Corbett.
The weekend was a grim one for Lionsgate, which saw "The Divergent Series: Allegiant" plunge 67 percent in its second weekend, eking out $9.5 million. The film has earned $46.6 million, a disappointing result that puts the studio in an uncomfortable position given that another sequel, "Ascendant," is currently scheduled to debut in June 2017, when it will face off against heavy hitters such as "World War Z 2" and a reboot of "The Mummy."
Sony's "Miracles from Heaven" tied for fourth, earning $9.5 million, and pushing the faith-based drama's domestic haul to $34.1 million after two weeks.
In limited release, Sony Pictures Classics debuted the Hank Williams drama "I Saw the Light" to $50,464 on five screens, for a per screen average of $10,093, while Bleecker Street's drone thriller "Eye in the Sky" expanded from 35 theaters to 123 in its third week, earning $1 million and pushing its domestic total to $1.7 million.
I’m glad that the film has at least has been a success at the box office as I have a soft spot for DC and would like to see more movies in the vein of Avengers etc and maybe , just maybe this will give DC comics a hard kick in the ass and get them to produce better comics and stop messing about with these characters so much. I have not seen the film yet (plan to see it this weekend) but so far folk I have spoken to liked it but it want great – as long as it’s not as bad as Green Lantern (I was so looking forward to that at the time).
ReplyDeleteI always ignore folk that tell me how to invest in comics since when has that worked (unless its investing in a classic comic). Comics today are almost worthless (few folk are interested in reading them let alone collecting them) its just folk yakking their gums that need to get out of their house a bit more often and stop fixating on trying to make money out of collecting comics (gits the lot of em)
Sadly, I think there is another reboot coming up....I know Marvel has one...I think DC were planning something, too. BUT they'll alter things in the comics "That movie made a lot of money -if we make the comics like the movie we'll be rolling in it!" NBot really but they aren't that interested in the comics now. Be interesting to hear what YOU make of the movie. And, we NEVER mention the Green Lantern nor the Green Hornet movies here! ;-)
ReplyDeleteWhen I see those kids burning their comics, I just wonder as to whether they believed the crumb that Wertham fed their parents or that they had been given an alternative of winter in Alaska.
ReplyDelete