Darn, I was hoping the R-rated version would mean more of Amy/Lois in the bathtub.

Apparently, the North Africa deleted scenes confirm that the photographer is

It was confirmed days ago in the movie thread page.

BvS had a Superbowl pregame spot. That is independent of any other television buys they did. If you think they only spent $150 million on marketing, I'd say you're naive.

Doesn't mean they spent 150+million or more on marketing. Not even close - tv spots, superbowl, etc., or not.

Estimates are they spent $28 million on TV spots in the US alone. The film had a simultaneous worldwide release. That's not including print, radio, trailers, billboards, promo giveaways, electronic banners, ads on Snapchat/Instagram/Facebook, what have you. That's $28 million just on TV in one country. Now expand that to cover TV, print, radio, billboards, trailers, social media etc. in multiple countries around the world. $150 is the lowball number.

You honestly don't know what you're talking about on this one. WB doesn't want people to know how much they actually spent, because it's more than $150 million, not less.

I'm looking forward to seeing the extended cut, hopefully it's not more clumsy dream sequences.

That's fine.

We'll leave it at that. I'm not gonna get into a pissing match over bullshit overinflated marketing numbers with you.

Ha, you silly buggers. But yeah, saying they didn't spend $150 million alone in advertising on this kind of movie is just not realistic. And according to this, $150-$160 million was spent on advertising alone. I wish they spent less. Just too much of this shit before the movie even came out. But funny as hell the shelled out that kind of $ just to advertise.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-warner-878208

"It's not unheard of for a Hollywood studio to allocate $175 million to $200 million on a worldwide marketing campaign for a mega-tentpole such as BvS, although Warner Bros. sources say the spend was in the $150 million-$160 million range, since digital marketing, an increasing percentage of any marketing budget, has brought down costs over the past two years."

Hollywood accounting really isn't like ordinary accounting. They play fast and loose with all their numbers. The box office grosses are about the only thing on the up and up, since one studio doesn't want another studio gaining an upper hand.

Though WB definitely spent a boat-load of advertising and promotion for B v S. All those free promo tickets sold with associated DVDs and on VUDU are counted in the ad budget, among other things.

Hollywood studios obviously have what they publicly quote as budgets vs. what goes on being-the-scenes. I'm sure there's all kinds of stuff we'll never be privy to

I actually thought I might've inadvertently consumed drugs of some kind during the "Parademons in the Middle East" sequence. That was bizarre. Then the Flash comes back through time for like 30 seconds.

Well, it's already made almost half a billion worldwide so even if they did spend $150 million on advertising in addition to the $250 million budget, Warners is already in the black.

Spoilers, dude.

There's already a thread for that.

No they're not. The box office number are gross, not net. A good portion of the box office grosses go to the theaters.

Usually movies need to make 2x domestically or 3x globally to actually turn a net profit. Theatres take their share and usually international distribution deals do not favor the producers.

Saw the move twice, first time was OK...so much going on.

2nd time was awesome, really enjoyed it and understood lots more of the dialog (Lex speaks fast) and plots on the second viewing.

BR will be awesome.

Not the first couple of weekends...studios get anywhere from 80 to a whopping 95 percent of the first two weeks' gross from theaters. Theaters don't start to make some cash until a good month after the movie has played.

Depends on the deal struck with the studio as well. Look at Star Wars, which Disney probably has more stroke with than other studio projects.

BvS dropping like a rock is worse for the theaters than it is for WB IMO. Batman merchandising alone for the year probably covers most of the promotional costs.

Correct. Theaters make the majority of their $$$ selling overpriced concessions.

I'll probably at least rent this to check out the extended cut and to see the bonus features. Not sure if I'll buy it though.

That's what I was alluding to but folks insist otherwise. Weren't we just talking about how producers of Fellowship of the Ring still say they made no money off of that thing due to "costs" or some shit? I vaguely remember there being a brief mention of that somewhere on here.

Most of the estimates I've seen say this movie needs to gross $800 million for WB to start turning a serious profit.

This movie will NEVER make a "profit"...I mean, according to Warners, 1989's BATMAN still hasn't turned one.

Best Buy steelbook

I'll buy it. Hoping there's an exclusive disc of extras clocking in around 4 hours or more total.