BvS Batman V Superman Box Office Prediction - - - - - - Part 15

[Loden Greatstorm]

It looks like the move could earn 850 mil. worldwide.

(as of Apr. 17, 2016)

Domestic: $311,311,730 37.6%
+ Foreign: $516,000,000 62.4%
----------------------------
= Worldwide: $827,311,730

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2015.htm

$170 million isn't that far off....

 

[jaymes_e06]

The only real argument for this not being a success is the budget. I hope WB monitors their spending more with JL.

 

[Silliminite]

It looks like the move could earn 850 mil. worldwide.

(as of Apr. 17, 2016)

Domestic: $311,311,730 37.6%
+ Foreign: $516,000,000 62.4%
----------------------------
= Worldwide: $827,311,730

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2015.htm

Yeah, looks like it might just get there.

 

[Mutato]

The only real argument for this not being a success is the budget.

That... and general audience reception.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Not to mention the bottom acceptable profit for a movie like this is 10% return on investment. Assuming $400 mil is accurate to the dollar BvS would need to make $40 mil profit to be considered an acceptable return.

I don't know PB, I can't envision WB is going to be able to afford making more 250M+ productions if they are only making $40M profit even at the low end.

If I were them, I would want $100M at the low end but ideally at least a profit equal to the amount put in to produce it.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Final domestic gross 330
Final ww gross 540
Total 870

 

[Poni_Boy]

Please, do not give people in this thread an out, they can cling to, to cite this movie as any kind of passable financial endeavour.

Forthcoming words 100% aren't directed at you - because you know better.

This movie needed well over 1B AT THE Box Office so that execs could deliver on a promise to stock holders who bought into this whole DCU movie deal.

Investors saw what was happening at Disney, they thought they were getting in on the ground floor of that. That Time Warner as a whole would be worth more then Disney after this movie, (and its effects reverberated through the company).

This movie doesn't exist in a bubble. Executives. Investors (past and recent) bet on this as something that would prop up the company as a whole. Raise the company into more prosperous times.

What do people think will happen when end of fiscal comes out, and that didn't happen at WB (and as a result TW)?

Do your research and find out how large TW is. How much money this franchise - these comic movies - need to turn as a profit for that money to impact Time Warner's bottom line. 40 million profit might as well go down as a rounding error. It needs to be at least 10x that amount for the investment community to notice BvS's positive impact on TW.

This movie needed Avengers like money. Period. Full Stop. No Negotiation, No debate. Turning a profit doesn't mean **** in a stock driven world. Educate yourself if you think otherwise.

Debate whether you love this movie in another thread. Play spin the bottle with Forbes, your friends, and the B.O. numbers until it lands on something that gets you in that closet and kiss-happy. Because I can virtually guarantee this movie will lead to a whole lot of stock going down down down when this financial disaster gets folded into another so so year at TW - INSTEAD of financials coming out with a sizeable increase in profit thanks to BvS.

That is what was at stake here. It's also why JL will STILL happen. And why investors will eat up whatever execs tell them. What other choice will investors have? Sell the stock at a loss? That's not how it works.

Apologists will still get their way on this (Justice League will happen). But certainly not because this thing was any kind of passable success financially. But because business dictates, everyone involved doesn't want to lose money they invested on a dream.

Spot on. And I'm sure some people will consider breaking even a success. Because they need to justify liking it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I don't know PB, I can't envision WB is going to be able to afford making more 250M+ productions if they are only making $40M profit even at the low end.

If I were them, I would want $100M at the low end but ideally at least a profit equal to the amount put in to produce it.

Oh I'm not saying a $40 mil profit at the BO on this movie is a success. I'm saying rule of thumb is a 10% return on investment as the absolute bottom for not getting people fired.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You're overselling the point. It was a mild disappointment at the BO, that's all.

Lol no. Try again. Failed at the BO. Failed with critics. Failed with general audience response. Failed with fan response. It's a dud. You don't have to like it but it is what it is. BvS is this year's ASM2.

 

[InCali]

$170 million isn't that far off....

I have a REALLY hard time seeing that. $170M is a LOT of money. Even for a studio (though they wouldn't get all of that). Enough to make a Deadpool, which made about 360M DOM and 760M WW.

It's pretty far off IMO.

Also, when we talk about BO, it "MIGHT" not be the most important failing of this movie. It was supposed to create a buzz and a demand for JL. If WB can't do that, and do it quickly, JL will suffer and a LOT of money will be left on the table in the future (not just with BvS).

Also, imagine what the box office might look like for JL if BvS had hit a home run both critically AND financially. It's a whole different ballgame for WB.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I'm curious how all this will affect the budgets for those movie. If at all.

 

[Longshot777]

The only real argument for this not being a success is the budget. I hope WB monitors their spending more with JL.

Yeah why was the budget so high in this movie????


There were so many "wow" action superhero scenes from lower budget movies than this.

Yeah definitely spend the budget WISELY for future DC movies.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yeah why was the budget so high in this movie????


There were so many "wow" action superhero scenes from lower budget movies than this.

Yeah definitely spend the budget WISELY for future DC movies.

DREDD (which was basically The Raid with a comic book mythology) cost $45 mil to make. That should be the model for the Batman solo movie. Set it in Arkham. Keep it all there. No more than $100 mil to produce. Following that model WB could actually start recouping some of the money BvS left on the table.

 

[InCali]

Yeah why was the budget so high in this movie????


There were so many "wow" action superhero scenes from lower budget movies than this.

Yeah definitely spend the budget WISELY for future DC movies.

You always need to spend money wisely. If the movie was well received (at the Box Office at least), no one would be worried about the amount of money spent. The first Avengers movie had a budget of 220M and that was 4 years ago. AoU also had a 250M budget and no one was complaining about the money spent on either movie. The reason is pretty obvious. Both made a ton of money.

Bottom line is that if you sink that kind of money in a movie, you are thinking of a WW box office haul in the 1.5B neighborhood. That's not the neighborhood BvS ended up in.

 

[Poni_Boy]

$170 million isn't that far off....

Seriously? Where would that money come from? $2,500 per ticket?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think the budget was that much of a problem as it should made well over a billion easily. The marketing clearly worked as they were able to get huge opening day numbers. Even if it was received as well as Man of Steel, it probably would have been really profitable and made everyone at WB happy.

It was a quality problem that sunk this movie, not a budget problem.

 

[Erzengel]

BvS and AOU are both listed at $250M in production costs, so it's not off base to surmise that they both cost around $800M. Even if we said $900M, AOU still made another $500M on top of that and still within $100M of the previous movie.

 

[GreenKToo]

Honest question, will WB continue as is, hoping for the best with JL? OR,
Will they actually do something to try and win some goodwill back?
( really, i'm just thinking out loud, since no one knows )

on one hand, 850ish mill ww is nothing to sneeze at.
on the other, its Batman, superman, and ww together. not getting a billion ought to get someone fired.

 

[Webhead38]

It will be extremely difficult to get there as the number of theaters where they show the movie keeps decreasing, after the fourth week, still it would be some achievement if the movie can make it to 900 mil. mark. The movie has under-performed but made back it's budget.


Even at 850 mil (projected) it is has earned more than Marvel's popular A-lister Spider-Man (just saying), despite low RT score and bad wom.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Worldwide: $757,930,663

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) Worldwide: $708,982,323

That's hardly a apples to apples comparison since the original Spiderman was released 14 years ago with no 3D or IMAX screens, plus average ticket prices were $5.81. Adjusted just for the domestic total alone, Spiderman currently sits at a astounding $604,517,300.00 while Spiderman 2 comes in at $523,381,100.00. BVS doesn't even make the top 200 films domestically when the playing field is even. It really stings given BVS had the largest pre-order response in cinematic history (even beating Force Awakens) yet Star Wars crossed a billion WW in twelve days. I still think when it's all tallied, BVS will end somewhere between $850 to $860 total.

 

[Orba]

I don't think the budget was that much of a problem as it should made well over a billion easily. The marketing clearly worked as they were able to get huge opening day numbers. Even if it was received as well as Man of Steel, it probably would have been really profitable and made everyone at WB happy.

It was a quality problem that sunk this movie, not a budget problem.

There is a problem in how WB are using the budget they had though, the fact that massively long cuts of the film exist show that. The editing room is where they trim the fat but the existence of 4 hour cuts show that no only did they have a lot of fat to trim they still had the hide attached. Most of that should have been cleared out at the script stage but WB allowed it to go shooting (I'd hate to image how long the shooting script was). How much money could WB have saved (or used elsewhere in the production) by not wasting money filming scenes they knew would very likely end up on the cutting room floor?

 

[Webhead38]

Prior to BvS, I did some research into how many DC movies were going to be made and for various reasons weren't.

Batman vs. Superman (Wolfgang Peterson)
Batman Year One (Darren Aronofsky)
Batman Unchained (Sequel to Batman and Robin)
Superman Lives (Tim Burton)
Superman Flyby (JJ Abrams)
Justice League Mortal (George Miller)
Wonder Woman (Josh Whedon)

It just seems that WB doesn't have a grasp what to do besides Batman and to a very small extent Superman.

Now, WB is going to release SS and WW. Which honestly if it made anywhere between Ant-Man to Deadpool type money with decent reviews, would be considered a success, but it seems that WB has to pull the trigger on JL because that was suppose to start shooting soon.

Great post. But I believe the working title to the sequel of Batman & Robin was entitled Batman Triumphant. It was supposed to have Jack Nicholson return for a cameo as the Joker with the chief villain being the Scarecrow. With the appropriate feedback in place Schumacher might have redeemed himself since he was good at more serious/horror based stories. His film didn't fall nearly as hard as BVS either.

 

[jmc]

Why in Zods name Snyder was allowed to film enough footage for a four hour film is going to baffle me for years.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There is a problem in how WB are using the budget they had though, the fact that massively long cuts of the film exist show that. The editing room is where they trim the fat but the existence of 4 hour cuts show that no only did they have a lot of fat to trim they still had the hide attached. Most of that should have been cleared out at the script stage but WB allowed it to go shooting (I'd hate to image how long the shooting script was). How much money could WB have saved (or used elsewhere in the production) by not wasting money filming scenes they knew would very likely end up on the cutting room floor?

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they spent the money wisely or anything like that.

 

[FunkMiller]

Why in Zods name Snyder was allowed to film enough footage for a four hour film is going to baffle me for years.

I know, right? How many millions were wasted, that could have been saved if the script had been tighter and better constructed, and they'd only filmed what was actually needed to tell the story?

 

[Erzengel]

The only real argument for this not being a success is the budget. I hope WB monitors their spending more with JL.

Yeah why was the budget so high in this movie????


There were so many "wow" action superhero scenes from lower budget movies than this.

Yeah definitely spend the budget WISELY for future DC movies.

$150 - $200M is fine for a SS, Cyborg or even a WW movie.

Not for a JL movie. Who's going to want to see Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg not have huge action sequences.