I just realized how I should have just responded to the thread vs. nesting it under your initial message.
Sorry, didn't mean for that to seem like I was directing my comment at you. I agreed with your point.
Anyway, yes, everyone knows mathematics is a tool of the patriarchy. Haha.
Just thought to chime in on the 'almost made its money back' part:
A film that is made for 100M and grosses -- lets say, for ease of argument -- 100M domestic and international. Sweet, we broke even, right?? Nope. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, a 100M opening weekend would be a slam dunk, but there is a misunderstanding with a film's budget and its box office gross. That 100M film that earned 100M gross is actually 50M in the red. Theaters don't play films for free and give 100% of the profits to the film (I wish!). They keep half (or more).
So, sad to say, no... even if BoP recouped its budget in both international and domestic they're still 50M in the hole. And we're also assuming this 100M budget is INCLUDING marketing expenditures (which can get absurdly high on big IP and comic book fanfare).
From what I've read the film under-performed. Call it a bomb, call it a turkey, call it whatever you like. Numbers don't lie and there is no sexist secret agenda when people comment on said numbers.
Though I can agree with the statement of corporate Hollywood studios 'hedging their bets' and playing it 'safe' with producing known hits to massive IP's, I would bring up the fact that making a 150M+ film is NOT playing it safe. It's like saying "Well betting on black at the roulette wheel is a 50/50 shot! That's not bad odds! LET ME PUT 150M ON BLACK!"
There's an attitude that 'without these big pictures from Marvel how would the studios make money to produce smaller films.' Luckily, I got an answer: don't gamble 1B producing 6 films! Sure, splurge a few hundred million on some 'safe-bet' tentpoles. Take the remaining 700M and make 10x 50M dollar mid-range pics (original stories aplenty -- you may just create your own franchise by accident!), and finally, use the remaining 200M and make 20x low-budget 10M dollar films with rising young stars. Now you got:
32 Films diversified across the field that are likely going to bring back a fat payday (your 2x tentpole IP's), name-driven mid-level films, and a slew of low-budgets with a crop of rising talents you helped foster. Did I mention that's 32x films employing a full crew and actors? Seems like a healthier way to spend one's cash.
I would love to shrug off these lazy, poorly executed 'articles' as the work of corporate shills trying to mislead, misinform and degrade the artist/filmmaker hopefuls that comb through sites like NFS as they travel their long journey's to the silver screen... but it's much, much sadder than that. But for a moment, lets consider how funny it would be if Disney/Marvel MCU infiltrated the indie ranks, slowly feeding us the same old tired garbage that, "This is good cinema guys! Seriously! So drama! Much art!" All in the attempt to poison the minds of otherwise discerning, self-respecting, intelligent and unique voices clamoring to bring their vision to the world across cinemas the world over... so they can re-boot the next superhero we've paid, time and again, to see before.
No, the reality is that there is group of impassioned and vocal adults trying to convince us Martin Scorsese is the one that's wrong and out of touch with what 'cinema really is.'
A smarter man than myself pegged this whole situation very well. To paraphrase: "It's not the filmmakers / storytellers that are worse... it's the audience." And it's true. We've all heard the fast food vs. nutritious home-made meal analogy before and no amount of poorly expressed ideas to the contrary will convince serious, passionate and educated filmmakers that a McDonald's cheeseburger is fine dining (or good for you in large quantities).
To the men/women/them-children holding their adolescence in earnest, put away your happy meal and go eat some cine-getables before you get artistic diabetes.
Exactly -- it's not a big deal whatsoever. Actually, it's not 'a deal' at all. It's nothing. A non-issue.
If living in this day and age has taught me anything, it's that sharing a personal, dissenting opinion near a vocal minority will most certainly result in an overblown outcry of infantile proportions.
Why, just the other day someone made mention of their distaste for donair kebabs around me and my Donair Enthusiasts of Canada associates, local West Coast Chapter 231. Suffice it to say the man paid with his life for expressing his blasphemous views in our presence. But that's how the world works these days; conform or die.
**DEC, WCC231 for life**
Yikes... triggered editorial. The headline says it all.
A few alternative headlines:
"Master of cinema has measured critique of superhero blockbuster over-saturation."
"One of the best living directors calls for de-escalation of rampant fandom dominated box office."
"Martin Scorsese -- you know, the guy that made an indelible mark on the art form known as cinema -- calls out corporate Mickey Mouse Hollywood blockbusters for what they are: popcorn thrill rides. Fandom has collective aneurysm."
The funny thing is that Scorsese STILL gives respect to the immense talents involved in bringing such products to life and STILL attracts the wrath of countless MCU die-hard adults that can't reconcile the characters/worlds/stories they've grown up on as adolescents is actually, in fact, intended for adolescents. It's so damn sad. It's like those mates that can't let go of the fact pro-wrestling isn't actually wrestling, but highly monetized theatrics that BOOM and WOW a rampant audience that enjoys bombastic thrills with larger-than-life characters. There's absolutely no shame in that... as long as you can call it what it is without throwing an e-tantrum.
We've had enough cinematic pizza and burgers -- serve us up something else now, please.