Sucker Punch

I don't recall the others offhand, but Superman Returns barely broke even. TV and cable sales tipped it over into "slightly profitable" but the cost of advertising and cutting prints ate the $90 million profit it made in theatres.

We will fight dumbness on the beaches, in the trenches, against foaming squirrels and atop park benches!

Plus some of this was about District 9.

And Snyder, by his own admission. Either you can accept him at his word, which must lead to a critical comparison of Sucker Punch and Brazil, or you can shrug it off as a meaningless "hommage", one of numerous in the movie.
If Pan's Labyrinth (a very good film) is going to be introduced into this thread:
1) Please cite where Snyder has mentioned that movie as an inspiration for Sucker Punch (although he definitely likes Pan's Labyrinth);
2) Although one could argue that Pan's Labyrinth plays with the idea of fantasy escapism in the face of political authoritarianism like Brazil, Del Torro is pretty explicit that he was making a contemporary fairy tale, with influences ranging from Victorian horror to South American magical realism;
3) The ambiguous ending to Pan's Labyrinth, with Ofelia crowned princess of the underground realm even as her dead body is wept over in the mortal world, is cleared up by a fairy tale-style "happily ever after" voiceover narration, i.e. the film ultimately has not been Ofelia's lucid dreams. In that respect, Pan's Labyrinth's resembles Gilliam's Time Bandits much more strongly than Brazil (and Del Torro discusses Time Bandits a little more in that top ten you linked to).
When a director is given $82M to put his fantasies on screen - and no-one can accuse Snyder of not committing every dollar to do so - it's worth assessing the final product's success or failure. (Also, if nothing else, Sucker Punch is inspiring discussions among film geeks and nerds of all stripes across the 'net, even if that's not going to add anything to its bottom line.)
We're reasonably confident about where we stand on the distinction between an inspiration and a knock off (just as there's a difference between an influence on a film and the basis for it). Bringing other movies like V for Vendetta, Inception, and Pan's Labyrinth into the discussion for the sake of sarcasm hasn't clarified yours.

It made $200,081,192 in North America and $191 million internationally, earning $391,081,192 worldwide. It had a budget of US$209 million. I don't think anyone considers that breaking even.

I thought I was pretty clear that my argument has always been that "inspiration" does not mean "based on", "knock off", or "rip-off".

Beat me to it.

Now if the 209million budget doesn't include the 90million advertisement mentioned (I have no idea on this number myself), that's still over 90million in profit from it's theater release.

Clear to me, at least *shrug*.

It doesn't seem to mean anything substantial if it shrugs off the director's own admission, the shared themes, and appropriated imagery (i.e. giant armored samurai antagonists that spew light when hit). There's a potentially interesting discussion to be had comparing Sucker Punch and Brazil, but you've resisted even embarking on it and instead tried to change the comparisons to other films that have less in common with the one under discussion, which at this point has been exhausted.

In the meantime, James Gunn's Super opens on Friday, so I expect to be back to discuss it here.

Your info is incorrect. The official production budget was $270 million. The actual budget was $295 million. (Some costs were charged against other projects or written off to previous attempts at making the movie.) Many people in the know claim the REAL budget was closer to half a billion dollars, due to all the years of trying to get the thing off the ground. Tim Burton reportedly had a pay-or-play contract (meaning he was paid regardless of the film getting made) to the tune of $10 million, maybe more.

Striking a 35 mm print costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500. The film was shown in about 5,000 theatres. That's seven and half million dollars just to make the actual reels. Throw in things like shipping, dubbing and/or subtitles for overseas markets as well as advertising which increase your costs, minus the distribution fees in all those territories, which cuts deeply into your profits.

End result: barely breaking even with a global box office take of $391 million.

I'd be interested in that discussion if you had actually seen Sucker Punch, instead of knocking it as a "rip-off" from the get-go.

Put it this way: it cost $75 million for prints and advertising for Prince of Persia. That's at least $65 million in ads for that movie, and it had nowhere near the saturation Superman Returns had.

The studio put the buget at 209 million factoring tax breaks in Australia where the film was made. EW put their guess of a total cost of around 363 million, (still not breaking even) but that hasn't been substantiated.

Your interest in that discussion has been only an attempt to muddy it. Snyder's "inspiration" was obvious from the get-go and confirmed by people who have seen Sucker Punch and the director himself. Only once I learned about the ending and its blatant similarity to Brazil's - while missing its point - did I employ the term "rip-off" (I'm not the only one on a 'net forum to do so).

Although someone else can have the final word here, this is my summary: For Snyder's first original movie, Sucker Punch displays far too much debt to Brazil, from its visuals and themes to its finale, without showing he's fully understood his inspiration, a pattern in his career that has ripped off George Romero (and Dan O'Bannon) and knocked off Alan Moore.

Still don't see how you're qualified to make that statement without having actually seen the movie.

Ah, the perfect response for a jury candidate for the defense.

EDIT: In all seriousness, even though I've not sat through Mr. Snyder's latest opus, I've independently reached conclusions about it that are similar to moviegoers, here on these forums and elsewhere, and professional reviews. This is because, pace Innovator, it's obvious.

//Spoilers/// Not that it means anything at this point.










Your arguments on this has always been hearsay, and sided to unfounded opinion. Other than having giant Samurai in one dream sequence and having a theme of fantasy escapism it does not borrow heavily from Brazil, and the final was an act of defiance and self sacrifice...she did not beg for her life...she let it happen, nor was there any scene of her fighting it off to a bad end. The sequences even the samurai one is very different from those in Brazil. Sure Snyder admited he was inspired by Brazil, but that doesn't mean he ripped it off. And really he did not rip off Moore nor Romero, he was paid to make films based on that material which has never been denied by anyone.

Moore was incensed that Watchmen was bastardized for the movie version and stayed away on general principle (even though is, ironically, the most faithful adaptation of any of his works), and Romero was not involved in the remake of Dawn of the Dead (which he said had "nothing going on underneath", a common criticism). For all Snyder's professed admiration for them, he certainly doesn't mind when they dislike his remakes of their work.

As someone who HAS seen the movie I will vouch for everything TrueGentleman has said related to Sucker Punch as significant and germane to the conversation. Ironically enough TrueGentleman seems to understand the movie much better than others here who've actually seen it. Go figure...

It should be noted, however, that Alan Moore would hate any adaptation of his work, so it's not something that should be counted against Snyder.

Also, Romero isn't happy unless a zombie movie is beating the audience over the head with his commentary on society.

I could have gone more into the ending showing how it actually likens more to the ending of Pan's Labyrinth than Brazil, but I was trying to limit the spoiler damage.

And have you seen Diary of the Dead...ugh.
That movie hurt Romero's legacy more than Dawn of the Dead ever did.

Unfortunately I did.

I thought Land of the Dead was okay, which let me give Diary a chance, and it was just terrible. It was hard to believe the guy who's considered the father of the zombie movie genre made it.

Ultimately I think you've let yourself get too hung up on the words used to describe whether Snyder was "inspired" by Brazil and/or if he "ripped it off". None of that matters because we have the actual words of Snyder to go by.

The real key here is to accept the fact that Snyder, by his own admission, has told us that Sucker Punch is not a 100% original idea. He was "inspired" by something else - the degree of that inspiration is immaterial. The degree to which Sucker Punch is more like Brazil or Pan's Labyrinth is immaterial.

What is material is that in this case Snyder bears the responsibility of creating "something inspired by something else" that is not an IMPROVEMENT on that which came before him. In fact his derivative work it clearly something LESS impressive than what came before him. That's the core problem here.

It doesn't bother me that Snyder "ripped off", "borrowed", "was inspired by" or anything else.
What bothers me is that whatever he did he ended up doing BADLY.
Tossing up smoke and mirrors about who inspired what is not going to change that now.

Ya...I have both versions of Dawn of the Dead and I much prefer the remake, even though it has fast zombies rather than shamblers. Land of the Dead is...ok...and Diary has its moments, in particular the Amish guy, but overall, the social commentary is a bit over the top and not really conducive to making a good (read: enjoyable) movie. I thought there was another one after Diary, something about zombies on an island trying to form a society maybe? Dunno. Haven't seen it. I just don't like paying for someone to preach at me for two hours about his viewpoints on society.

Actually, I don't really disagree with you. I do disagree with the people (well mainly one person) you defended.