'Days Of Future Past' BOX-OFFICE worldwide prediction

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by josh8

At the moment, I would only assume that Hugh, Halle, and Jennifer are box office draws. Ian and Patrick and maybe even Dinklage have a cult following. James and Fassy are doing great work (with Fassy in particular having lots of buzz), but they haven't had box office hits outside of genre movies.

All combined, they do bolster each others' star power, but the main draw is still the X-Men brand name, the familiar characters, the action/ effects, and finally... a few big name stars.

Oh, I agree. I only listed the others so as to not offend my fellow users here who may think differently. I call it being diplomatic.

But yes, you're right: I believe that beyond this board, the biggest names general audiences will recognize for this film are Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, and Jennifer Lawrence. Although, considering the huge success of the Hobbit, I think Ian McKellan is also a huge draw.

[JP]

You're totally right. But you have to be careful what you say around these parts.

[Angamb]

at the end of the day, its not all about the cast, but more about how epic the movie will look on trailers and tv spots, and the word of mouth. And of course, the marketing.

If Bryan delivers an A-Game spectacle, bigger than previous movies, and the audience and fans leave the theatre more than satisfied, we are on a winner. a real winner

[JP]

The cast definitely plays a huge part as well. Thankfully they have a recognizable cast.

[Angamb]

it does, for sure. Specially to create hype on the net, for cinema lovers and critics.

And a for a decent part of general audience too; seeing familiar faces will always be a positive factor.

But a familiar cast isnt always a safe bet that the movie will be huge. A decent hit, yes, a huge hit, not at all.

But a key point of this sequel is that is an 'All-Star reunion', as many sites are already mentioning, so that will be a big selling point, including to non x-men fans.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez!

Although, considering the huge success of the Hobbit, I think Ian McKellan is also a huge draw.

Appearing in a hugely successful movie doesn't necessarily make an actor a huge draw though, especially when it's a real "brand" film. Neither Elijah Wood nor Viggo Mortensen are huge draws despite playing lead characters in the LoTR trilogy, and I don't think that anyone sees Martin Freeman as a huge draw after The Hobbit. Same for the three main Harry Potter actors. Jennifer Lawrence is only considered a huge draw now that she's proven to have had success outside of the Hunger Games franchise.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by Zant

I see only 7 films coming out next year making more money. Hunger games, Hobbit, Pixar movie, Spiderman, Transformers 4, How to train your dragon 2,and maybe a sci-fi movie

There would definitely be surprises, like a R18 comedy film doing very well.

[Angamb]

who voted 300m? lol

I guess a Fox hater or a Singer one

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

Appearing in a hugely successful movie doesn't necessarily make an actor a huge draw though, especially when it's a real "brand" film. Neither Elijah Wood nor Viggo Mortensen are huge draws despite playing lead characters in the LoTR trilogy, and I don't think that anyone sees Martin Freeman as a huge draw after The Hobbit. Same for the three main Harry Potter actors. Jennifer Lawrence is only considered a huge draw now that she's proven to have had success outside of the Hunger Games franchise.

Yes, but we're talking about The X-Men--and an audience built on his shoulders. Besides, Ian McKellan is not only known for The Hobbit. His career is expansive and The Hobbit is but one of his recent successes; he's had a nice streak of hits including the X-Men series (a trilogy he also received top billing for). He's more recognizable than he was in 2000, because he's been consistent.

In Hollywood, you're only as good as your last film, and he's considered "very good" right now. He's definitely fresh in the memories of casual moviegoers due to the high profile/blockbuster caliber of his latest works.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by Angamb

at the end of the day, its not all about the cast, but more about how epic the movie will look on trailers and tv spots, and the word of mouth. And of course, the marketing.

I disagree. I think the cast's star-power carries a hefty 50% of the responsibility for drawing audiences. The look of the film and it's storyline account for 25% each. People will go and see a s*** movie just to watch their favorite actor or actress. But there have been plenty of films that had stunning SFX in the trailers but failed to become blockbusters because audiences weren't attached to anyone in the cast. First Class is a good example of that: beautifully directed, strong storyline, but fairly unknown cast (save Kevin Bacon) and less-than-memorable characters. The trailers were nice, but not enough to make it a blockbuster.

When an actor/actress has a strong body of work to reference audiences view a film featuring them as an endorsement of potentially quality viewing. So the more Oscar, Tony, Emmy, etc.,-winning stars you pack in a film, the more confident audiences are that they will see some strong performances. Lesser known actors can be amazing performers too (everyone has to start somewhere) but many might not risk spending $$$ to see them if they don't know them. Only strong word of mouth can bring in repeat business for a film after its opening week, but by then other competitors may be charging up the box office charts and drawing audiences away.

A strong cast is what makes the difference for many people in deciding if they're going to actually see the movie in theatres or skip it and rent it later when it comes out on DVD.

[NanaT]

I have to agree with Lightning here.

Why do you think Guardians of the Galaxy have cast Chris Pratt and were considering casting Jim Carey, Steve Carell and are in talks with Zoe Saldana. You would think they could survive on the marvel brand alone and considering it will no doubt be a well made film that should be enough to draw audiences. But even Marvel knows it isn't the cast is a large factor.

Fox knows this, Singer knows this and you guys know that Fox will strongly market the actors on this more than anything else. That tweet singer set is just a taste of how high they regard the actors in this. 3 oscar winners will never hurt a film. (except maybe its budget lol)

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez!

Yes, but we're talking about The X-Men--and an audience built on his shoulders. Besides, Ian McKellan is not only known for The Hobbit. His career is expansive and The Hobbit is but one of his recent successes; he's had a nice streak of hits including the X-Men series (a trilogy he also received top billing for).

I can't really think of any other recent successes apart from The Hobbit. Other than Gandalf and Magneto, what other roles is McKellen is known for really, as far as the general movie-going public is concerned?

Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez!

I disagree. I think the cast's star-power carries a hefty 50% of the responsibility for drawing audiences. The look of the film and it's storyline account for 25% each. People will go and see a s*** movie just to watch their favorite actor or actress. But there have been plenty of films that had stunning SFX in the trailers but failed to become blockbusters because audiences weren't attached to anyone in the cast.

Yes, but there are just as many examples of films that had stellar casts and yet failed to become blockbusters, and stars whose films underperformed.

Oscar-winners (or nominees) matter when you're selling a smaller character-based film, but I dare say that matters much less when it comes to blockbusters. The trailers for blockbusters never really come with "Academy Award winner/nominee" tags - because everyone is well aware that acting is rarely the main selling point for those movies (though it of course matters for the good word of mouth).

Plus, Oscars don't necessarily mean much if the actor's subsequent career, for whatever reason, didn't match that one great performance, especially if they won it a long time ago. That statue alone does not earn you respect. Is Halle Berry widely considered to be a great actress and someone whose presence people will see as a sign of potentially quality viewing? I doubt it. Jennifer Lawrence is basking in the Oscar glow right now, but if she doesn't back this up in the next few years no one will care much about her Oscar win either.

And I really think that if they want this movie to exceed the previous X-Men films, they'll need to market something other than the cast. The original trilogy's cast was not to too shabby, with recognisable stars and respectable actors. But the franchise, while successful, never really made it into the upper echelon of blockbusters.

Originally Posted by NanaT

Why do you think Guardians of the Galaxy have cast Chris Pratt

Um... who is Chris Pratt?

[josh8]

Honestly, Oscars don't matter all that much when outside of that special niche that banks on name recognition only... if that makes any sense.

Ian Mckellan may be known in the Tolkien world, but if he tried to open a movie as a solo lead... sorry, he's not a household name. The movie-going world is super-fickle. Oscars, hit genre movies, and stuff like that do not guarantee an actor's continued bankability. Not a single one of the LOTR actors could anchor a movie on their own. Also, Oscars do not generate buzz to the general masses. Remember that hit movie starring Kate Winslet? Yeah no, it doesn't exist. The only way to be a bankable star is to reliably open hit movies on your own. And these are usually crapfest movies that are crowd-pleasing debacles (see Adam Sandler, Will Smith, Ben Stiller, etc.).

X-Men has to rely on SOME star power... but mostly franchise and pop culture name recognition.

[Angamb]

Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez!

I disagree. I think the cast's star-power carries a hefty 50% of the responsibility for drawing audiences. The look of the film and it's storyline account for 25% each. People will go and see a s*** movie just to watch their favorite actor or actress. But there have been plenty of films that had stunning SFX in the trailers but failed to become blockbusters because audiences weren't attached to anyone in the cast. First Class is a good example of that: beautifully directed, strong storyline, but fairly unknown cast (save Kevin Bacon) and less-than-memorable characters. The trailers were nice, but not enough to make it a blockbuster.

When an actor/actress has a strong body of work to reference audiences view a film featuring them as an endorsement of potentially quality viewing. So the more Oscar, Tony, Emmy, etc.,-winning stars you pack in a film, the more confident audiences are that they will see some strong performances. Lesser known actors can be amazing performers too (everyone has to start somewhere) but many might not risk spending $$$ to see them if they don't know them. Only strong word of mouth can bring in repeat business for a film after its opening week, but by then other competitors may be charging up the box office charts and drawing audiences away.

A strong cast is what makes the difference for many people in deciding if they're going to actually see the movie in theatres or skip it and rent it later when it comes out on DVD.

LS, its true that to have a big star as the lead helps, and a great cast would appeal to a decent part of the viewers, but there are many examples of huge success that didnt have anything to do with the cast. Here are some of the most obvious:

Spiderman 1: $821,708,551
Transformers 1: $709,709,780
Avatar: $2,782,275,172

None of these movies had an impressive cast, or a well known one, yet both 'first movies' were huge.

On other side, X-men franchise had a bigger and better cast, specially X2 and X3, now that they were more known, but none reached the 500m mark.

So there u have it. This just proves that the most important thing really, is the theme of the movie and what the product is about.

We can praise a cast all we want, but a cast will mainly appeal to critics, cinema lovers and some fans.

We could mention more expamples of first movies making more than others with bigger and better casts, but Im sure those three are more than enough to prove the point.

[NanaT]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

I can't really think of any other recent successes apart from The Hobbit. Other than Gandalf and Magneto, what other roles is McKellen is known for really, as far as the general movie-going public is concerned?



Yes, but there are just as many examples of films that had stellar casts and yet failed to become blockbusters, and stars whose films underperformed.

Oscar-winners (or nominees) matter when you're selling a smaller character-based film, but I dare say that matters much less when it comes to blockbusters. The trailers for blockbusters never really come with "Academy Award winner/nominee" tags - because everyone is well aware that acting is rarely the main selling point for those movies (though it of course matters for the good word of mouth).

Plus, Oscars don't necessarily mean much if the actor's subsequent career, for whatever reason, didn't match that one great performance, especially if they won it a long time ago. That statue alone does not earn you respect. Is Halle Berry widely considered to be a great actress and someone whose presence people will see as a sign of potentially quality viewing? I doubt it. Jennifer Lawrence is basking in the Oscar glow right now, but if she doesn't back this up in the next few years no one will care much about her Oscar win either.

And I really think that if they want this movie to exceed the previous X-Men films, they'll need to market something other than the cast. The original trilogy's cast was not to too shabby, with recognisable stars and respectable actors. But the franchise, while successful, never really made it into the upper echelon of blockbusters.



Um... who is Chris Pratt?

Point taken, I concede gracefully

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

Oscar-winners (or nominees) matter when you're selling a smaller character-based film, but I dare say that matters much less when it comes to blockbusters. The trailers for blockbusters never really come with "Academy Award winner/nominee" tags - because everyone is well aware that acting is rarely the main selling point for those movies (though it of course matters for the good word of mouth).

Plus, Oscars don't necessarily mean much if the actor's subsequent career, for whatever reason, didn't match that one great performance, especially if they won it a long time ago. That statue alone does not earn you respect. Is Halle Berry widely considered to be a great actress and someone whose presence people will see as a sign of potentially quality viewing? I doubt it. Jennifer Lawrence is basking in the Oscar glow right now, but if she doesn't back this up in the next few years no one will care much about her Oscar win either.

I disagree. I believe that winning those distinctions can be a powerful marketing tool for studios without flashing the "Academy Award Winner" moniker on screens for sci-fi/ action films. Depending on the actor, adding their name or face to a trailer can add serious gravity to a film in audience's eyes. People are not that dumb--they remember the accomplishments of actors without being told.

For example, Halle Berry is still a popular actress and bankable as her recent films have shown. Controversial? Yes. But she is unlike any other Oscar-winning actress in history for very specific reasons. As a result, she will always be "respected" as you put it, for breaking down certain barriers. Minority audiences are still an important demographic to reach, and while it's not a necessity to have a black actor in every cast to get them in theatres, certainly having the most trendsetting actress of color on the credits doesn't hurt FOX and Bryan Singer.

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

And I really think that if they want this movie to exceed the previous X-Men films, they'll need to market something other than the cast. The original trilogy's cast was not to too shabby, with recognisable stars and respectable actors. But the franchise, while successful, never really made it into the upper echelon of blockbusters.

Agreed. And to Angamb's point, there is a strong need to make the films look amazing too--not discounting that at all. I just don't think a flashy film in itself is a guarantee to box office success either. It's really a combination of all of those elements.

Remember Battleship?

[JP]

This could be the first X-film since X2 where the effects look consistently great throughout. (X3 and First Class have amazing moments followed by other less than amazing moments). I only say that because MPC is fresh off an Oscar win for the incredibly gorgeous Life of Pi, and we have the VFX Supervisor of Prometheus, another film that looked incredible. Plus, I'm sure WETA will also be involved since they work on virtually every FOX film. The best parts of First Class where the Cuba scenes, which was all WETA.

Bad CG has plagued the X-films for far too long.

[kedrell]

I'll say it'll do about a flat $500M WW if it's well recieved. Which would make it the highest unadjusted X-film to date. But this franchise has had notoriously bad legs even for the best of it's films. X-Men in film has a decently large following but at the same time it's never been a frachise to break out and garner multitudes of new fans. Hence why even it's highest grossing film is still down in the mid- $400M's. Unless they have some game changer up their sleeve I don't see this one expanding much beyond X3's total gross. 3-D and inflation will help it but I think some of the massive continuity errors within this movie franchise itself really send the message that they haven't taken this property all that seriously and that can hurt it's reception and over-all box office.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by JP

This could be the first X-film since X2 where the effects look consistently great throughout. (X3 and First Class have amazing moments followed by other less than amazing moments). I only say that because MPC is fresh off an Oscar win for the incredibly gorgeous Life of Pi, and we have the VFX Supervisor of Prometheus, another film that looked incredible. Plus, I'm sure WETA will also be involved since they work on virtually every FOX film. The best parts of First Class where the Cuba scenes, which was all WETA.

Bad CG has plagued the X-films for far too long.

Amen!

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I'll say it'll do about a flat $500M WW if it's well recieved. Which would make it the highest unadjusted X-film to date. But this franchise has had notoriously bad legs even for the best of it's films. X-Men in film has a decently large following but at the same time it's never been a frachise to break out and garner multitudes of new fans. Hence why even it's highest grossing film is still down in the mid- $400M's. Unless they have some game changer up their sleeve I don't see this one expanding much beyond X3's total gross. 3-D and inflation will help it but I think some of the massive continuity errors within this movie franchise itself really send the message that they haven't taken this property all that seriously and that can hurt it's reception and over-all box office.

That's an excellent point. And I think Bryan & Co. are aware of this. This is where I think The Avengers has once again provided a great model. There was equal doses of strong action and effects, but balanced with humor. Humor is so important in these dark sagas sometimes. It keeps audiences coming back over and over again, which was a big reason why Avengers fared so well.

Perhaps that's why Bryan said he wanted to have more humor in DoFP?

[Zarex]

FOX is in a similar position to that of Disney/Marvel's back in 2011. While the success of the Avengers mash-up wasn't completely dependent on the box office results of Thor and Cap, a negative audience response to either film certainly could have slowed the momentum for the 2012 film.

FOX needs The Wolverine to at least match the results of XMFC, stop the declining box office trend with their X films and generate some excitement for DOFP. And unless FOX and Disney reach some kind of accord between now and then, fans can expect to see zero movie related merchandise in stores in the months leading up to the film's release.

If The Wolverine's WW box office exceeds XMFC, DOFP could be the biggest film in the X series to date and reach $500 million. If the declining BO trend continues, $400 million.

[psylockolussus]

I'm pretty sure The Wolverine will exceed the international box-office numbers of First Class especially with 3D tickets. And the Wolverine has a better release date than First Class, July is usually the strongest month of the summer.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

I'm pretty sure The Wolverine will exceed the international box-office numbers of First Class especially with 3D tickets. And the Wolverine has a better release date than First Class, July is usually the strongest month of the summer.

I don't share that confidence at all.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by Lightning Strykez!

Agreed. And to Angamb's point, there is a strong need to make the films look amazing too--not discounting that at all. I just don't think a flashy film in itself is a guarantee to box office success either. It's really a combination of all of those elements.

Remember Battleship?

I don't think you can really compare Battleship to X-Men simply because X-Men is already an established film series. But DOFP has to be as good as X2/first Class to earn strong legs at the box-office.

Then with The Wolverine, it doesn't really have a big competition, its the only major film that is opening in its first weekend. The other major releases in July 2013 are Despicable Me, Lone Ranger, Growns Up, Pacific Rim, Red 2, and RIPD. I don't see any of those films being so successful that it would steal Wolverine's thunder at the box-office. Then with the August 2013 releases, I don't think any of them would hurt the box-office performance of The Wolverine.

Then next year, I don't think Malificent, Hercules, Guardians of the Galaxy and Jupiter Ascending will be a box-office threat to DOFP.

[Zarex]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Then next year, I don't think Malificent, Hercules, Guardians of the Galaxy and Jupiter Ascending will be a box-office threat to DOFP.

I wouldn't sleep on GOTG. DOFP has the established X-Men brand, but Guardians has some advantages over the FOX mash up:

1) A new concept versus the the 7th film in a series.

2) Lots of tie-in merchandise for GOTG, nothing for DOFP.

3) A more "kid friendly" tone than the presumably darker X film.

4) A talking anthropomorphic Raccoon.

5) Promotional Post credit scene in either IM2, CA:TWS or T:TDW.

6) The first look at Avengers 2 in the GOTG post credit scene.

7) A marketing juggernaut that would love to kill off FOX's X franchise.


If Disney is confident in Gunn's work, I wouldn't be surprised if they flip the release dates for this and Maleficent to beat DOFP into movie theaters. The general audience probably won't see two super-hero team films within such a short window, so one of the two will likely fail to meet studio expectations.