MCU Phase 2 Box Office/Budget Prediction Thread

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

I agree with that. I see it doing 450-600 M foreign. Domestic? I think 400 is going to be tough for it.

Agreed. It's more likely to do 1B worldwide than 400M domestic. 400M is tough for any film to crack.

[Edguy]

I think you are being a little optimistic about TA2's gross, the first one doing as well as it did was kind of a stroke of luck..

Just look at Avatar and John Carter; both are kind of similar films, with huge budgets, but JC, with just a little lower quality, failed completely.

As for budgets, I guess IM3 lies between $200M-$225M, CA2 between $150M-$180M, TDW between $175M-$200M and The Avengers 2 will probably be reported as a $250M production, though costing more.

Not so sure about Ant-Man, have a little trouble seeing how they're going to sell him to the GA.. I guess there's a reason his film is coming out after TA2, so that the GA get to know him! I guess a standard $140M-$150M budget.

GotG is a total wildcard, that will be needing some clever marketing.. With the amount of CGi I imagine it will have, it would probably need a $200M budget, though..

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

Some associated Marvel literature (I believe it was a trading card series) admitted that Avengers 1 had a budget of $300 M. Forbes also reported a total budget of $475 M for production and marketing (Likely $300 M for the film and rest for marketing.)

But yes, I imagine Marvel will only admit to a quarter billion budget.

I strongly suspect that both those reports were mixing up two separate errors: the reason the production budget and the "actual" budget are somewhat different, is because the production budget doesn't include marketing costs. However, there's actually a good reason for this: a *lot* of marketing costs are more virtual than real. For example, when a fast food chain makes a deal with you to include movie tie-in promotions, its very likely that no actual *money* changes hands. Instead, the movie studio "pays" the fast food company in "license to use our trademark imagery" ( which has a theoretical monetary value ), and the fast food company "pays" the movie studio in "advertising".

So, long story short: I don't believe for a minute that Disney actually paid almost 500M to make and sell Avengers. 300M, I'd believe easily, if you figure actual marketing costs rather than de jure marketing costs ( ie, marketing that actually costs real dollars, paid to an independent entity and not another Disney division ).

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

I strongly suspect that both those reports were mixing up two separate errors: the reason the production budget and the "actual" budget are somewhat different, is because the production budget doesn't include marketing costs. However, there's actually a good reason for this: a *lot* of marketing costs are more virtual than real. For example, when a fast food chain makes a deal with you to include movie tie-in promotions, its very likely that no actual *money* changes hands. Instead, the movie studio "pays" the fast food company in "license to use our trademark imagery" ( which has a theoretical monetary value ), and the fast food company "pays" the movie studio in "advertising".

So, long story short: I don't believe for a minute that Disney actually paid almost 500M to make and sell Avengers. 300M, I'd believe easily, if you figure actual marketing costs rather than de jure marketing costs ( ie, marketing that actually costs real dollars, paid to an independent entity and not another Disney division ).

This is exactly right. In March Disney announced a huge, $100 million marketing push that involved deals with merchandising partners for The Avengers. Companies with tie-in deals ran Avengers-centric ads, which of course helped promote the film to the public. All those commercials for Red Baron Pizza, Acura and Target, etc. were free advertising for Marvel.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052078?refCatId=13

[Ricky_Tan]

budgets should go down with the acquisition of ILM.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by Ricky_Tan

budgets should go down with the acquisition of ILM.

This didn't even cross my mind when I found out Disney acquired Lucasfilm.

Marvel Studios and ILM in the same house...my mind is blown with possibilities...

[metaphysician]

I don't know if the budget will actually go down because of that. ILM still needs money to operate, even if they are owned by the people paying the bills. I suspect that Marvel Studios will get the advantage of priority in their work, however.

[psylockolussus]

Domestic estimates only:
Iron Man 3 - $300M to $350M
Thor 2 - $170M to $190M
Captain America - $150M to $170M
Guardians of the Galaxy - $100M to $130M
The Avengers 2 - $350M to $450M
Ant Man - $75M to $125M

[Moridin]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Domestic estimates only:
Iron Man 3 - $300M to $350M
Thor 2 - $170M to $190M
Captain America - $150M to $170M
The Avengers 2 - $350M to $450M

You really think they'll all do worse than their previous films? That's some serious lowballing.

IM3 doing $350m would be less than IM2 ($312) when you consider the 3D bump, that should push it to about $360m at least. I say $380-400m, pending it's better than IM2.

Thor 1 did $181m, CA:TFA did $176m both sequels are crossing $200m easily, I'll say $220-250m for both.

I can't see TA2 dropping from $623m to $450m, I'll say $550m low end.

I have no idea how to call GotG or Ant Man, so two shots in the dark -
GotG - $180m.
AM - 150m.

[Mr. Dent]

Okay, we're now a couple months and more casting rumors into GotG and this movie also seems ubiquitous. All of Hollywood is auditioning for it and every new rumor about is taking up the psyche of the internet and media. Assuming it turns out to be even just pretty good, never mind a knock hit, I'm going to adjust my gross predictions upward:

Domestic: 250m
Overseas: 400m
Total: 650m

And I feel that's being conservative. If it gets rave reviews I might even go so far as 300m domestically.

[kedrell]

I'll not speculate on the individual films themselves but phase 1 of the MCU made $3.8 billion in 6 movies over 4 years. While phase 2 will only have 5 films but over 3 years(and a tv show as well but you can't get grosses off of that). I'd say phase 2 could top $4 billion now that the wheels have been well and truly greased, even if it has 1 less film to do it in. That's the best case scenario, I think.

[Mr. Dent]

Yeah, I'd agree that's about the best case scenario. Only way it happens though is if IM3 hits a billion, Thor gets 600m, Cap 400m, Guardians 600m, and Avengers 2 another 1.5b or more.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I don't see 600 m out of the gate for GotG....if it gets to a sequel possibly. I'd go 300 - 400 m.

[Mr. Dent]

This is going to surprise a lot of people.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Yeah, I'd agree that's about the best case scenario. Only way it happens though is if IM3 hits a billion, Thor gets 600m, Cap 400m, Guardians 600m, and Avengers 2 another 1.5b or more.

I'd switch those numbers between Cap2 & GotG since it's more likely to earn more. Cap is now known, but GotG is still the new kid on the block.

[Mr. Dent]

I don't see Cap earning much more than 400m. I'm telling you guys Guardians is going to be super hyped; the trailers will be stunning and grab even more people's attention, and as soon as/if the first reviews come out talking about how amazing and breath taking it was it will be a wrap. Guardians has a higher ceiling in my opinion than Cap.

[kedrell]

Cap1 already made about that and it was very well received. No reason the sequel shouldn't gross significantly more. GotG I'm sure will be good(all the MCU films are so far) but it's still much more of an unknown quantity.

[batdude]

Cap will do all right. Gotg depends on casting. If they really get Sandler and it's not just the voice of Rocket Raccoon it will be higher.

[spideymouse]

IMO, GOTG has a very real potential to absolutely flop, perhaps more than any MCU movie that will have come before it. But that's a good thing--it proves that Marvel is continuing their mantra of taking risks. Iron Man was a risk. Rebooting Hulk was a risk (though the Tony Stark cameo in the commercials probably ensured a good amount of butts in seats that year). Thor was a risk. GOTG is a huge risk, especially if it gets the budget it deserves. For the record, I think GOTG will make at least 150M domestic and eventually turn a profit thanks to the overseas market. Gotta love predictions before seeing one casting announcement.

[Kryptonian God]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

I don't see Cap earning much more than 400m. I'm telling you guys Guardians is going to be super hyped; the trailers will be stunning and grab even more people's attention, and as soon as/if the first reviews come out talking about how amazing and breath taking it was it will be a wrap. Guardians has a higher ceiling in my opinion than Cap.

I second this.

[YoungPrime]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

We're getting closer and closer to phase 2 so I'm wondering what everyone's predictions are for the movies' budgets and BO grosses are as a whole. Here's mine:

-IM3
Budget: 200M
Gross: 900M - 400M/500M OS

-Thor 2
Budget: 175M
Gross: 600M - 200M/400M OS

-Cap 2
Budget: 150M
Gross: 400M - 200M/200M OS

-GotG
Budget: 175M
Gross: 500M - 200M/300M OS

-A2
Budget: 250M
Gross: 1.6B - 700M/900M OS

-AM
Budget: 140M
Gross: *350M - 150M/200M OS

-Total
Budget: 1.09B
Gross: 4.4B

I like these numbers...

-All IM3 needs is a strong 80% or more on RT and the box office will have no ceiling.

-And if Gunn can manage a small Starwars camero...say like Boba Fett in a bar dragging a Skrull away in cuffs. Hell, they could even throw in a cameo of the Firefly cruising by and that would be worth the price of admition alone. People are underestimating the number of Cosmic Marvel fans and Scifi fans in general that are out there. Give us a great story with some key cameo apperences from the Cosmic Marvel Universe and this film will succeed big time!

-Thor 2 will be a sleeper hit.... I think many are counting Thor out yet Thor pt 1 was better than more IM2, Wolverine Origon's and Superman Returns...Give us a great story channeling some of that LOTR's and Chronicles of Narnia mojo mixed with all the things that made the first film good and we've got a hit franchise.

-Captain America has to step it up big time. Throwing the frisby around is entertianing but we need to see more out of that super soldier serum of his. As it stands now Black Widow has better fight sceens and is almost more athletic. So we need better scenes of him jumping over gates then we saw in the first film and better fight scenes. A deep story with some kickass villains is a must. Channel some of that 007 and Bourne Identity mojo with Marvels own unique twist.

-Antman has a lot to prove as well. We need an undated "Honey I shrunk the kids" but without the Honey or the kids. Something adventurous with a few relavent cameo's will do decent numbers.

-As for Avengers 2, I'm sure Whedon's aware of his mistakes in the first film and he'll have more time to rectify that in the sequel. I have no doubt that A2 will be better than the first. Which will continue to leave these other studios and their comicbook films in the dust...

[Kryptonian God]

My take:

IM3
Budget: 200M
Domestic: 340M
Foreign: 550M
Total: 890M

Thor: TDW
Budget: 180M
Domestic: 240M
Foreign: 450M
Total: 690M

Captain America: TWS
Budget: 160M
Domestic: 200M
Foreign: 260M
Total: 460M

Guardians of the Galaxy
Budget: 170M
Domestic: 220M
Foreign: 280M
Total: 500M

The Avengers 2
Budget: 260M
Domestic: 550M
Foreign: 950M
Total: 1.6B

Ant-Man
Budget: 120m
Domestic: 160M
Foreign: 150M
Total: 310M

[Hawkingbird]

I think Winter Soldier could do a bit better than that.

[KangConquers]

I've been re-thinking this a bit:


Iron Man 3:

Pros: Avengers rub-off. Robert Downey Jr. Already a huge solo franchise.
Cons: Weak second film (con countered by Downey's last Iron Man appearance being in a 92% tomato metered, A+ Cinema Scored, $1.5 B grossing film...)

Budget: $200 M
Domestic Gross: $300 M
Foreign Gross: $500 M
Worldwide: $850 M


Thor: The Dark World

Pros: Avengers rub off. Increasing twitter psychopathy centering around Loki and Thor from women under 25. Character has a large foreign appeal.
Cons: First big budget Marvel movie to stray from the Summer release date. May prove a gamble.


Budget: $200 M
Domestic: $250 M
Foreign: $400 M
Worldwide: $650 M


Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Pros: Avengers rub off. Well known character.
Cons: Arguably portrayed as the least exciting of the big 4 in The Avengers.

Budget: $180 M
Domestic: $225 M
Foreign: $300 M
Worldwide: $525 M

Guardians of the Galaxy

Pros: Ties in with Avengers 2. Offers an alternative to the typical Superhero origins flick, with more of a Space Opera bent. Has a talking raccoon.
Cons: No name characters, requires big budget. Has a talking raccoon.


Budget: $200 M
Domestic: $145 M
Foreign: $250 M
Worlwide: $395 M


Avengers 2

Pros: Sequel to the biggest non James Cameron film ever. Sequels tend to gain ground in box office receipts.
Cons: Hard act to live up to. Domestic gross of the first film may prove impossible to beat. Sequels to big movies tend to lose ground domestically (Iron Man 2, TDKR, Spider-Man 2, etc.)

Budget: $300 M+ (though Marvel will never admit it openly)
Domestic: $500 M
Foreign: $1 B
Worldwide Gross: $1.5 B


Ant-Man:

Pros: Brilliant director. Long gestation period.
Cons: Little known superhero. Powers could be considered laughable to the uninitiated.

Budget: $120 M
Domestic: $110 M
Foreign: $135 M
Worldwide: $245 M

Phase 2 totals:

Total Budget: $1.2 B
Domestic: $1.53 B
Foreign: $2.585 B
Worldwide: $4.118 B

[flickchick85]

Here's my take:

Iron Man 3
First MCU flick after the Avengers, I expect some of the glow of that movie to rub off on this, particularly in the foreign market.

Budget: $200M
Domestic: $320M
Foreign Gross: $450M
Worldwide: $770M


Thor: The Dark World
The previous installment had the benefit of the May sweet spot, but people seemed to like it, and considering Thor probably had the least amount of screentime of the Big 4 in the Avengers, I think people are still hungry to see more of him and his world.

Budget: $200 M
Domestic: $230 M
Foreign: $320 M
Worldwide: $550M


Captain America: The Winter Soldier
With the combination of this being Cap's first solo installment set in modern times AND being the only Phase II movie that heavily features SHIELD AND another Avenger (Black Widow), I think the marketing for this will likely remind people of Avengers more than the other solo ventures. As a bonus, by the time this movie comes around, SHIELD itself will probably be more popular than ever thanks to the TV show. Thus, I think this is the franchise might be the one to benefit most from the "Avengers glow" effect.

Budget: $185M (Wild guess. I know it'll get a boost over that of the 1st one. Just how big is the question.)
Domestic: $215M
Foreign: $240M
Worldwide: $455M


Guardians of the Galaxy
Marvel's biggest gamble yet, and I think it will pay off somewhat modestly. Some people are gonna be turned off by a talking raccoon, and the lack of resemblance to or characters from Avengers (other than Thanos). BUT I think the whole space adventure aspect, when Star Wars hype is in full swing, will work to its advantage. This movie should look pretty darn epic in the marketing. It doesn't have the best release date, though.

Budget: $200M
Domestic: $180M
Foreign: $220M
Worldwide: $400M


Avengers 2
There's really nothing to say except, this will be huge.

Budget: $285M (though I totally agree that it will probably be closer to $300M whether Marvel admits it or not)
Domestic: $610M
Foreign: $1B
Worldwide Gross: $1.6B

Feige recently talked about Ant-Man being part of Phase III, so I'm not including that here.

Phase II totals:
Budget costs: ~ $1.1B
Domestic: $1.55B
Foreign: $2.23B
Worldwide: $3.78B