Current Events > Blue Beetle projected to earn between 27 to 55 million during its entire run

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/DCU_Direct/status/1683973547201372162?s=20

Wtf wow

Beetlin time

It looks decent, I may check it out

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Many of the last few were especially bad, though.

Is that good

Naysaspace posted...

Is that good

Well, Green Lantern grossed 4 to 8 times that much, and that was a flop, so...

I'm going to make a Mexican led superhero movie off a $5000 budget to make up for this. Viva la raza my friends

DC are doing the universe stuff way too early. Sorry to Blue Beetle fans, but absolutely no one is going to buy into an entire universe off a Blue Beetle movie.

This is a movie Marvel would've dropped halfway through Phase 2, not as a movie to put Marvel Studios on the map.

A DC movie universe can work, but not like this. Honestly they should just can anything that was planned earlier. Scrap it without a trace and launch with a fun, accessible Superman movie.

So it's not a hiper inflated budget like most recent films?

Ricemills posted...

So it's not a hiper inflated budget like most recent films?

It was originally supposed to just be a streaming only movie. Zaslav last minute decided on a theatrical release to "recoup costs" so the only question we really should be asking is how much did the theatrical release cost.

This isn't the flop people are making it out to be.

Imagine releasing a superhero movie in 2023 that makes less than A Man Called Otto and Jesus Revolution.

Certainly an argument that the superhero bubble is deflating.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It was originally supposed to just be a streaming only movie. Zaslav last minute decided on a theatrical release to "recoup costs" so the only question we really should be asking is how much did the theatrical release cost.

This isn't the flop people are making it out to be.

Isn't the budget reported to be $120 million? That's a huge flop, especially since now it's getting actual theatrical marketing on top of that.

I feel bad but everything with DC just seems doomed

Ricemills posted...

So it's not a hiper inflated budget like most recent films?

$120 mill budget plus whatever advertising.

General, rule of thumb is it needs to gross at least double the cost to become profitable. This one isn't even close.

And the studio/execs will just take it as no one wants newer superheroes or diversity and then continue to reboot Batman and Superman over and over without making improvements to writing or marketing

DD_Divine posted...

I feel bad but everything with DC just seems doomed

Tbh a lot of stuff from Hollywood seems doomed

Animated movies not based on a popular IP? Doomed.

Nostalgia based sequels in long running franchises? Doomed.

I think we're gonna see quite a lot of massive superhero movie flops over the next few years.

Hollywood needs to go back to the drawing board for their easy money makers.

I like James Gunn but it's not like The Suicide Squad made a lot of money either. I'm sure Superman will do fine but WB has probably missed the boat.

They really just need to take a break from DCEU-style continuity for a while. Maybe stick with The Patman for a while or reboot Batman entirely again.

The ridiculous failure of the DCEU has soiled the brand. Expecting new IPs like this and Black Adam to make money when people are reluctant to go to Superman and Batman movies is idiotic.

If they come back in like a decade with a legitimately great Superman or Batman movie, then they can think about making it into a CU.

StealThisSheen posted...

Isn't the budget reported to be $120 million? That's a huge flop, especially since now it's getting actual theatrical marketing on top of that.

The original projection was $0 in box office. It was budgeted for and made as a direct to max movie.

There are a number of factors that point to it not being a hit. Super hero fatigue and lack of faith in DC properties being the biggest two.

A lot of people just wait to stream it now as well.

Jiek_Fafn posted...

$120 mill budget plus whatever advertising.

General, rule of thumb is it needs to gross at least double the cost to become profitable. This one isn't even close.

Ouch.
So they're expecting a huge loss from it.
If heir intentions is to recoup some losses, then why don't they release Batwoman too since it's close to complete the production?

Ricemills posted...

Ouch.
So they're expecting a huge loss from it.
If heir intentions is to recoup some losses, then why don't they release Batwoman too since it's close to complete the production?

They already wrote Batwoman off for tax purposes. It's ironically probably the most finanancially successful recent DC movie because of it

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I mean the trailer looks good as is usually the case.

Most people dont even know who blue beetle is. I didnt even know until a couple years ago

Ricemills posted...

Ouch.
So they're expecting a huge loss from it.
If heir intentions is to recoup some losses, then why don't they release Batwoman too since it's close to complete the production?

Because when you account for marketing, a $100 million loss written off as a tax cut is a smaller loss than what it would have cost releasing it.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The original projection was $0 in box office. It was budgeted for and made as a direct to max movie.

...That's not how that works. Movies made directly for a streaming service are intended to drive people to subscribing to the service. They don't make them thinking "Gee, we're not going to make any money off of this whatsoever."

The push to theatrical means they saw potential in it making an actual decent amount of money against the budget, which, if these projections hold true, is NOT going to happen. What that means is they sunk additional money into making it a theatrical release and marketing it, so now they stand to lose potentially even more money than if it just got put on streaming and literally nobody watched it, if it hits the lower end of those projections.

how can they even make predictions before its even at theaters

Because DC movie projections are reliable.

AceMos posted...

how can they even make predictions before its even at theaters

Same way anything is predicted/projected: An educated guess.

In the case of movies, it can be based on pre-release ticket sales, number of theaters it'll be shown in, general reaction to marketing, potential viewer engagement, etc.

StealThisSheen posted...

...That's not how that works. Movies made directly for a streaming service are intended to drive people to subscribing to the service. They don't make them thinking "Gee, we're not going to make any money off of this whatsoever."

The push to theatrical means they saw potential in it making an actual decent amount of money against the budget, which, if these projections hold true, is NOT going to happen. What that means is they sunk additional money into making it a theatrical release and marketing it, so now they stand to lose potentially even more money than if it just got put on streaming and literally nobody watched it, if it hits the lower end of those projections.

I mean that's exactly how that works in the case of nobody watching it on streaming.

So you start with $120 million and toss it in the hole. You need this movie to be a contributing factor in getting $120 million worth of subs to be worth it.

120,000,000 Subscriptions (new or prevented cancellation) in order for this movie to be a success.

You think it will fall short, so you spend extra money sending out a theatrical release. Now the equation is more like:

Marketing + Distribution + 120,000,000 + Subscription Lost From People who were not previously subscribed but would just to watch this move but will no longer do so because they saw it in theaters Subscriptions + Box Office

Now that last variable on the left side is probably zero so the only thing here that really matters is did the movie make more money than it cost to put it in theaters and seeing as how there's basically no marketing for this movie at all there's a good chance I feel that putting it in theaters improved the finances.

The only time I heard of Blue Beetle is from Smallville and he's one of the most boring superheroes there.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Now that last variable on the left side is probably zero so the only thing here that really matters is did the movie make more money than it cost to put it in theaters and seeing as how there's basically no marketing for this movie at all there's a good chance I feel that putting it in theaters improved the finances.

The marketing is surely light, but not 0. If they even spent 10 million on marketing, which is very, very, very low, it'd mean that if it only hits the low end of the projection and makes in the 27 million range, it lost more money. And considering they announced the movie for theatrical release in 2021 when the DC outlook wasn't so bleak, we don't know what other costs they may have sunk into it beyond the original budget for the theatrical release. Probably not much, but again, not 0.

Basically, they reeeeally aren't going to like these projections.

Saw the trailer before Barbie. Through the whole thing my brain was just bouncing between "that's Iron Man" and "that's Spider-Man".

I want to have faith that James Gunn is going to make a difference, but whatever comes after this strike business is over has a lot of work to do.

Villain_S_Fiend posted...

Saw the trailer before Barbie. Through the whole thing my brain was just bouncing between "that's Iron Man" and "that's Spider-Man".

That's literally Star Kid bro, put some respect on his name.

Turbam posted...

It looks decent, I may check it out

Scarab powers compels u to watch

Mark my words it is going to dobmuch better than that. Itbis going to tap into the Latino market and do really well

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

The only time I heard of Blue Beetle is from Smallville and he's one of the most boring superheroes there.

the blue beetle is the greatest example of a legacy character ever

AceMos posted...

the blue beetle is the greatest example of a legacy character ever

Is it a new legacy character?

Poorly posted...

Is it a new legacy character?

the blue beetle dates back to the golden age

if any one wants to know the fascinating history of the blue beetle i recommend this retrospective yes its long i know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMu6bgLu8Ts&t=

still recommend it as the characters legacy is impressive

Tyranthraxus posted...

I mean that's exactly how that works in the case of nobody watching it on streaming.

So you start with $120 million and toss it in the hole. You need this movie to be a contributing factor in getting $120 million worth of subs to be worth it.

120,000,000 Subscriptions (new or prevented cancellation) in order for this movie to be a success.

You think it will fall short, so you spend extra money sending out a theatrical release. Now the equation is more like:

Marketing + Distribution + 120,000,000 + Subscription Lost From People who were not previously subscribed but would just to watch this move but will no longer do so because they saw it in theaters Subscriptions + Box Office

Now that last variable on the left side is probably zero so the only thing here that really matters is did the movie make more money than it cost to put it in theaters and seeing as how there's basically no marketing for this movie at all there's a good chance I feel that putting it in theaters improved the finances.

That really simplifies it quite a bit though?

When something is designed for a subscription service it isn't making money on its own or being evaluated that way. It's part of a larger catalogue where that entire pool of content is aiming to either grow subscriptions to sustainable levels or make a profit. It's a cog of a larger machine. They can see how much each individual cog is working but it can't be isolated on its own.

When new guy took over he scrapped all of those aggressive content plans. The aim is no longer to aggressively push HBO Max. Now the aim is to make a return at the box office. This isn't a last minute move they made either so chances are they invested more money into this to make it happen.

So now the individual performance of this does matter. It's not part of a catalogue pushing HBO Max. It has to make money on its own. A lot of that content that was supporting Blue Beetle got scrapped or pushed elsewhere.

Now of course new guy can say all of this was a money pit and he is trying his best with a shitty hand. But not even earning back half of the production budget is pretty disastrous no matter how you cut it. Especially in a year that also has Shazam 2 and The Flash.

Good luck to Aquaman 2 and thank goodness Warner Bros has Barbie. Although you have to question what Warner Bros is supposed to think when basically all of their superhero movies this year flopped hard while Barbie makes a killing.

Idk saying this Blue Beetle is a legacy character is like saying Wallace West is a legacy character

This seems like something that should have just released on Max