DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Ternaugh]

It's almost as if the layoffs a few years ago at DC were a bad decision.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/arts/dc-comics-dc-universe-hit-by-major-layoffs-1306743/

[Scott Ruggels]

19 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Technically some of DC and Marvel books are selling better BUT they are not put out by DC or Marvel, they are licensed books by Scholastic for kids.  The top selling book for DC didn't break the top 50 last quarter.

 

I went looking for the guy on YouTube that was mentioned in the article above, and found him. He backs his facts up with receipts. He has a different take on the decline of Marvel and D.C. and it's numbers based:
 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah its kind of sad watching DC and Marvel trumpet comics sales when their content is not part of that in any remotest sense.  Its Manga stuff, primarily that has nothing at all to do with the "big 2.*"

 

And yeah, they have given up on kid reading.  Its bizarre because the scholastic comics licensed from DC and Marvel are doing really well with kids so obviously that's a market that is good and promising, but DC and Marvel are deliberately avoiding that market.

 

*He's right, they aren't big any more.  They're tiny boutique publishers.

[Ternaugh]

My parents liked to read comics, and we'd frequently go to a local newsstand to buy them when I was a little kid. It was also common for me to get a comic from the spinner rack at the local convenience store or supermarket. Comics seemed to be everywhere.

 

That changed, starting in the 80s, when the distribution model changed away from the rack jobbers, and into dedicated comic stores. Prices went up, and, in many cases for me, the appeal went down. I pretty much stopped picking up new comics in the mid- to late-80s, when special issues and variant covers all seemed to be the rage. A move toward more "adult" material also didn't keep my attention, and I'm pretty much burned out on the handful of stories that DC's movies seem to revolve around (I really don't need to see yet another version of Flashpoint). While I've picked up a few graphic novels and comic collections since then, I haven't really seen much to bring me back into the newer comics (with a few exceptions: I enjoyed the Wonder Woman '77 material, but it felt very much like a throwback to a vanished era).

 

So, it's not really surprising that the two majors have lost their way, nor is it surprising that Scholastic, flush with cash from the Harry Potter books, was able to take over so much of the market with material that was more kid-friendly. 

[Old Man]

As I see it, "floppies" are a dead medium.  Few people are willing to pay $5 for a book that takes five minutes to read, and you can't blame them.  GN and manga formats sell better since you get the entire story for less money.

 

I'm not worried about Marvel and DC in general since they still have strong IP and there are many ways to profit from them, such as licensing properties to Scholastic.  But physical comic books are dead.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think they can survive if they focus on putting stuff out for kids, and subsidize them with the films and merchandising so they don't cost so damned much.  You put out your serious stories and more mature work as graphic novels and put them on book shelves, but release the kiddy stuff in the old 22 page format.  That's what I'd do, at least. 

 

And do more than superhero stuff.  You can get manga about fishing or tennis, it doesn't all have to be guys in costumes beating on each other.

[Grailknight]

Nothing can be done until they get a new generation of writers and editors who understand the medium and the market though. Anyone who blames consumers for not buying their product should be "promoted" to a new industry with a rubberstamped exit interview.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think they can survive if they focus on putting stuff out for kids, and subsidize them with the films and merchandising so they don't cost so damned much. 

 

Is this practical?  Yes, it might've worked with the later-stage MCU, but that level of success is HARD to achieve.  That level of movie also comes along only a couple times a year.  

 

And, if the books have to be subsidized, they're eating up the HARD to obtain movie profits.  Movies are an extremely expensive gamble to begin with...so suggesting they'd have to subsidize a possible secondary revenue stream seems like the accounting side is just going to *cringe.*  And so will the stock market, if the profits aren't up to snuff.  

 

Secondary concern:  this feels like a long-term strategy...years, even decades to pay off.  THAT doesn't work;  these days you've 1 or 2 quarters.  I'd also say that DC *can't* try this...their debt load is simply too high.  They need to funnel a major portion of their revenue streams into debt service;  subsidizing is just not practical.

 

 

[assault]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

and subsidize them with the films and merchandising so they don't cost so damned much.

 

Obviously this part wouldn't happen.

 

Management and accounting would look at you like you had grown another head.

[BoloOfEarth]

8 hours ago, assault said:

Management and accounting would look at you like you had grown another head.

 

And then decide that's the way to go with the next Superman movie.  "Hey, he's an alien, right?  Why not two heads?"

[slikmar]

One could be the normal one and one could be a Bizarro head in a weird merging of the realms, the Bizarro one could face backwards.

[Bazza]

Why not produce films with a smaller budget, eg $100 mil, like Batgirl, and have them play for longer in the cinema, eg 2 - 3 months. Let the films grow an audience by word of mouth, like films used to do. DO a couple of these at the same time, eg teen titans (have the films cinema time overlap so the non-comics audience can anticipate what's coming next. And still have the 200 million budget for the blockbusters. 

[unclevlad]

27 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Why not produce films with a smaller budget, eg $100 mil, like Batgirl, and have them play for longer in the cinema, eg 2 - 3 months. Let the films grow an audience by word of mouth, like films used to do. DO a couple of these at the same time, eg teen titans (have the films cinema time overlap so the non-comics audience can anticipate what's coming next. And still have the 200 million budget for the blockbusters. 

 

Because for whatever combination of factors, I don't think it works that way.  Assuming a Thursday or Friday intro, I'm pretty sure the first weekend is the largest weekend most of the time...and if not the first, then the 2nd.  After that, I believe the drop-off is typically steady, perhaps even sharp.

 

Here's one movie:  Knives Out!  Last theatrical I saw.  Good fun, altho Daniel Craig's accent was less than convincing.

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3204875777/

 

Note that about 25% of its box office was in the first 5 days.  And while it lasted...note the decline in the # of theaters, as it likely moved from a prime spot, to secondary in the first-run theaters, and down to the budget theaters.  Also note that it had a Thanksgiving release, got its good pub, then did another about $35M over Christmas.  But also note:  this was also the type of film...high-level ensemble cast, appealing to a broad audience as a mix of comedy, drama, and mystery.  A superhero movie has a LOT harder time doing this.  For a comparison, The Batman:

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl67732993/

 

First weekend (Fri-Sun):  $134M.  Second weekend:  $66M.  Third weekend:  $37M.  Fourth weekend:  $20M.  Fifth weekend:  $10M.  I believe, by and large, this is the pattern for supers movies...typically to a rather smaller degree of course.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Bazza said:

Why not produce films with a smaller budget, eg $100 mil, like Batgirl, and have them play for longer in the cinema, eg 2 - 3 months. Let the films grow an audience by word of mouth, like films used to do. DO a couple of these at the same time, eg teen titans (have the films cinema time overlap so the non-comics audience can anticipate what's coming next. And still have the 200 million budget for the blockbusters. 

 

Don't be ridiculous, after the first couple of weeks the theaters actually get to keep some of the ticket proceeds.  We can't have that!

[Bazza]

Write new contracts.  That is if the WBD CEO was serious about his strategy of leaning on cinema releases as opposed of a streaming service to make money. Basically: lower budgeted films and longer release durations. 

[Ternaugh]

Just now, Bazza said:

Write new contracts.  

 

The distributors seem to like the current model, and the theater owners are afraid to speak up, or else they won't get any product.

 

It's basically eliminated most lower budget films that aren't rom-coms or horror from being distributed to theaters, though, which is probably why I don't go to the movies nearly as often as I used to.

[slikmar]

I think one way streaming is hurting ticket sales and especially the 1st weekend vs later numbers are that you aren't getting repeat viewing of movies anymore. Not sure there ever was, but most people, if don't see in first 2 weeks (for whatever reason, for instance, I go to movies a lot, but during tax season I am working 6 days a week so miss a lot of movies) they figure will just wait for streaming or coming to one of the movie channels.

[Bazza]

This is why I was thinking having longer timeframes in the cinema. Give people 1) opportunity to rewatch it, and 2) not be as dependant on opening week or bust, or 3) wait for streaming (as WBD CEO prefers cinema to streaming). 
 

Flip the current model, to a degree, and have the cinema be the first run HBOMax. 3 months or 6 months timeframes. Scratch their backs and they might help scratch yours back.  

[unclevlad]

Look at The Batman.  Started in 4400 theaters.  4th week, still over 4000.  2nd Friday, $4200 per location.  3rd Friday, $2500.  4th Friday, $1400.  5th Friday, 3700 locations, $825 per.  6th Friday, still at 3250 locations, but now it's down to $550 per.

 

Those who wanted to see it...have seen it.  And this roll-off is for the 4th highest grossing (domestic only) movie this year.  Domestic take total:  $370M.  Of that, $300M came in the first 17 days...the 3rd weekend.  That's 80% of the revenue in that period, and therefore...I'd guess, 65-70% of tickets.  The initial part of the run is when the fewest discounts are given.  

 

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Bazza said:

This is why I was thinking having longer timeframes in the cinema. Give people 1) opportunity to rewatch it, and 2) not be as dependant on opening week or bust, or 3) wait for streaming (as WBD CEO prefers cinema to streaming). 
 

Flip the current model, to a degree, and have the cinema be the first run HBOMax. 3 months or 6 months timeframes. Scratch their backs and they might help scratch yours back.  

Fwiw this does seem to be Zaslav’s intention. It’s a bold strategy, we’ll see if it works out for them. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

At this point, WB is in kind of dire straits, its gamble it all or get eaten up by another, bigger firm.  I would like to see them pull it together and make good movies again, I mean half the classics I love came from Warner Brothers.  DC has some of the best superhero properties in the world.  I want them to succeed, and where they are now it takes a guy willing to cut deep and rebuild or they have no future.

[dmjalund]

The reason there is a high front-end viewership is due to the fact we live in the spoiler-alert age. The longer a person waits, the more likely they are to get spoiled any surprises 

[Ternaugh]

8 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

The reason there is a high front-end viewership is due to the fact we live in the spoiler-alert age. The longer a person waits, the more likely they are to get spoiled any surprises 

 

E.T. was released in June 1982, and essentially stayed in theaters for a year and a half. It then came back for a re-release in 1985. I'm guessing that most of the folks who saw it after the first few weeks had already seen it before and were seeing it again. A main difference between then and now is that a home video release didn't happen until October 1988, over six years from the original theatrical release.

 

There's no way that a studio now would even consider delaying revenue from rentals and home video, and so the window has shrunk to about 45 days for most releases now. I wish Warner/DC luck in stretching that window, but I doubt that it would make much difference to the box office.

 

[Jhamin]

On 8/25/2022 at 2:05 PM, Scott Ruggels said:

 

I went looking for the guy on YouTube that was mentioned in the article above, and found him. He backs his facts up with receipts. He has a different take on the decline of Marvel and D.C. and it's numbers based:
 

 

He takes a lot of time to say what he has to say, but his content is very interesting.

 

My understanding of this video basically boils down to: Kids are buying comics made for kids in numbers far, far larger than adults are buying comics at all.  Too bad Marvel and DC decided they don't care about kids.  A scholastic reader Miles Morales comic has 10x the sales of any of the Marvel Spiderman titles, which shows that they may well buy superhero comics but they aren't being given many reasons too.

 

The YouTuber pitches the theory that both Marvel and DC decided to "age up" with their readers starting in the 90s and abandoned the traditional kid market.  That worked for a while but now we are at a point where 30 years of kids have grown up on Manga (which has tons of adult stuff but *also* has tons of stuff for 8 year olds).  Scholastic has pulled way ahead of both DC and Marvel.  The "big two" traditional publishers don't appear in the top 5 comic book sellers in the big bookstores (which according to this video is where all the growth in comic sales is)

 

So it sounds like third party takes (Like from Scholastic) on traditional comics are the only places these characters are still showing up for actual children.  Kids in 2022 appear to be reading a lot more manga & not a lot of Spiderman.  I know my life-long comic book addiction started when I was 7 years old & if its true that kids haven't been getting into stuff like that for 20 years.. no wonder comic sales are down.  I've seen enough Manga that was pretty cool that I can easily understand how if you got into that when you were in 1st or 2nd grade you might not feel a deep need to keep up on Spiderman anymore.  My Hero Academia, Naruto, and Dragonball seem way more popular than Batman among middleschool kids I run into.

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

At this point, WB is in kind of dire straits, its gamble it all or get eaten up by another, bigger firm.  I would like to see them pull it together and make good movies again, I mean half the classics I love came from Warner Brothers.  DC has some of the best superhero properties in the world.  I want them to succeed, and where they are now it takes a guy willing to cut deep and rebuild or they have no future.

 

Who's bigger?  Warner's owned by AT&T.  They're the biggest on the block.  There were anti-trust issues before this, and trying to combine with someone else would clearly draw regulators' eyes.  Whether they could stop it might be a different question, of course.  But half their problem is the massive debt load taken on to manage this merger...Disney has the same problem to, IIRC, a somewhat lesser degree.

 

https://www.zippia.com/advice/largest-media-conglomerates/

 

I'm not pushing for Warner or DC to fail, but I'm also not in favor of keeping them on life support if they've so badly mangled their business affairs.  It's plausible to me that the only way they survive is to be spun off, to re-think their entire product strategy assuming the numbers the guy cited were even vaguely correct, and to start over with material people want to read and see.

4 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

E.T. was released in June 1982, and essentially stayed in theaters for a year and a half. It then came back for a re-release in 1985. I'm guessing that most of the folks who saw it after the first few weeks had already seen it before and were seeing it again. A main difference between then and now is that a home video release didn't happen until October 1988, over six years from the original theatrical release.

 

There's no way that a studio now would even consider delaying revenue from rentals and home video, and so the window has shrunk to about 45 days for most releases now. I wish Warner/DC luck in stretching that window, but I doubt that it would make much difference to the box office.

 

 

And going back just a bit further, how many times did people go to see the first 3 Star Wars?

But I think Ternaugh's right;  delaying the streaming and video releases won't work consistently.  There might be times when you can, but those windows are likely narrow...during summer, there's multiple blockbusters coming out, for example.  

 

As a side thought:  people may not go as often because ticket prices are higher.  To a point, it's partly the theaters...the 2 first-run ones here have gone to larger seats, but fewer, and often have high-end sound.  Those seats run, IIRC, $11, which is about 50% more, after adjusting for inflation, than ET tickets.  And the practice of no discounts is firmer, at least for the first couple weeks.  I saw the 3 LOTRs mid-week, mid-afternoon...Christmas season, so it was pretty crowded still..and got discounts.  The biggest ones now, don't do that.  YMMV on that;  Allen Theaters pretty much has a monopoly locally.