BvS Batman V Superman Box Office Prediction - - - - - - - Part 16

[Mandon Knight]

I would wager that it will reach 329M. 330 is possible but is doubtful

It will reach $330m in my view, just mind.

 

[Will4179]

I'm guessing, StormC, that IronManHype was referring to Captain America and Iron Man, rather than Superman and Batman.

Though I suspect you've already figured that out.

It's funny, though, how vehement you were in making sure people understood Superman isn't as popular as Batman. That Batman is more popular isn't a surprise, but your emphasis on the point made your post something worth responding to.

As a Superman fan, I guess I'll just have to be happy with an entire town in America celebrating him annually. It's going on 38 years this June.

 

[FunkMiller]

So, Civil War beat BvS's entire domestic and international haul in two weeks.

TWO WEEKS.

Yeah, no-one at WB is happy about the box office for BvS.

 

[The Joker]

And BvS had no competition in theaters either. It's so laughingly embarrassing.

 

[FunkMiller]

There's a chance it won't make the top ten earners in 2016.

It's already third, Jungle Book will go over it soon, then we still have Rogue One, Finding Dory, Inferno, Fantastic Beasts, Independence Day etc. etc. to come out.

Can you imagine it? A movie starring Batman and Superman potentially not being in the top ten earners for its year of release. I'm not saying it's a definite or anything, but even the mere idea being a possibility speaks volumes about this movie's failure.

 

[Vortigern99]

Somehow, magically, $870M is "embarrassing".

The standard used to be that 3X budget in box office was considered a success. Using that rubric would mean BvS would have to cross $750M to be deemed successful. Now, however, it's double whatever the production + marketing costs were, which is $400M, for a required global total of $800M. Yet now even that number is not enough, according to the doomsayers. $870M on a $250M budget is now "embarrassing" according to these deeply insightful persons.

Your standards are ridiculous, in case I'm not being clear.

 

[Aejej]

Don't feed the trolls, as they say.

 

[Orba]

Somehow, magically, $870M is "embarrassing".

The standard used to be that 3X budget in box office was considered a success. Using that rubric would mean BvS would have to cross $750M to be deemed successful. Now, however, it's double whatever the production + marketing costs were, which is $400M, for a required global total of $800M. Yet now even that number is not enough, according to the doomsayers. $870M on a $250M budget is now "embarrassing" according to these deeply insightful persons.

You need to remember that marketing budgets have exploded over the past decade or so. Sure people used to say 3X budget was a good measure, but that was in the days when studios weren't spending upwards of $150million just on advertising. Its an insane amount, I remember when a films production budget being $150m was considered crazy. All of this has had a massive effect on how we gauge box office success.

 

[Johnglen]

Can't compare Civil War to BvS - Civil War is the 13th Film in the MCU and BvS is the 2nd, not to mention CW being Avengers 2.5, it should do better business, the public, at this point, is more invested in their characters.

Marvel continues the no stakes, safe road, I'll be fine with what the DCEU brings, anything different than the Mouse House at this point.

Except that BvS had batman, superman, Wonder Woman, the dark knight returns, the death of superman e.t.c

Calling it the second movie just to give it an excuse doesn't fly. If we were talking about , for example, an aquaman movie being "the second" then yes that would be an excuse but for a movie like BvS it simply isn't .

Oh and what the **** does the " no stakes" means, the stakes and ending of civil war were much higher than the pretentious silly crap that BvS had and a ressuracted superman in the end .

 

[Vortigern99]

You need to remember that marketing budgets have exploded over the past decade or so. Sure people used to say 3X budget was a good measure, but that was in the days when studios weren't spending upwards of $150million just on advertising. Its an insane amount, I remember when a films production budget being $150m was considered crazy. All of this has had a massive effect on how we gauge box office success.

Understood... but at $870M, that's $70M in profit over the $800M line required by that rubric. Seventy million dollars in profit. SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT. Who exactly is embarrassed, disappointed, ashamed or whatever the claim is by this astonishing amount of money?

The executives in charge of WB already make 6 or 7 figures a year. Whatever their exact point percentages on this film, the profits are indisputably enormous. This is in addition to all the ancillary stuff, such as streaming and disc sales, which will total something in the neighborhood of $100-200M. That's not counting non-movie merchandise -- toys, T-shirts, etc. -- which will also total multi-millions in sales, and of which the WB execs will continue to reap the rewards.

There is nothing "disappointing" about any of this for the unbelievably wealthy people profiting from the enormous success of this film. The doomsaying posts about how "embarrassing" a $70 MILLION PROFIT is are out of touch with reality.

 

[StormC]

A 70 million profit is pretty poor for a tentpole. That was TASM2's profit margin (which spurred Sony to partner with Disney). Meanwhile in the same year, GOTG made a 200M profit.

deadline.com/2015/03/most-profitable-movies-of-2014-box-office-1201390489/

It's actually not even 70 million since after the break even point of 800 around half would still go to the theaters.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Somehow, magically, $870M is "embarrassing".

The standard used to be that 3X budget in box office was considered a success. Using that rubric would mean BvS would have to cross $750M to be deemed successful. Now, however, it's double whatever the production + marketing costs were, which is $400M, for a required global total of $800M. Yet now even that number is not enough, according to the doomsayers. $870M on a $250M budget is now "embarrassing" according to these deeply insightful persons.

Your standards are ridiculous, in case I'm not being clear.

 

[FunkMiller]

Understood... but at $870M, that's $70M in profit over the $800M line required by that rubric. Seventy million dollars in profit. SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT. Who exactly is embarrassed, disappointed, ashamed or whatever the claim is by this astonishing amount of money?

The executives in charge of WB already make 6 or 7 figures a year. Whatever their exact point percentages on this film, the profits are indisputably enormous. This is in addition to all the ancillary stuff, such as streaming and disc sales, which will total something in the neighborhood of $100-200M. That's not counting non-movie merchandise -- toys, T-shirts, etc. -- which will also total multi-millions in sales, and of which the WB execs will continue to reap the rewards.

There is nothing "disappointing" about any of this for the unbelievably wealthy people profiting from the enormous success of this film. The doomsaying posts about how "embarrassing" a $70 MILLION PROFIT is are out of touch with reality.

If you think for one second that WB aren't comparing BvS's BO to other superhero movies like it, then you don't understand how the movie business works.

To them, when compared to Civil War's take, it is embarrassing. Hell, never mind Civil War, Deadpool out grossed it domestically.

This movie was meant to make more than it did. Keep kidding yourself all you like, but by the metric of how Hollywood functions, BvS is a disappointment. It underperformed, and will only have a small profit.

You think for a moment WB are thinking about that $70 mil?

They're not. They're thinking about the $300 million extra this film should have made, and didn't.

 

[Vortigern99]

A 70 million profit is pretty poor for a tentpole. That was TASM2's profit margin (which spurred Sony to partner with Disney). Meanwhile in the same year, GOTG made a 200M profit.

deadline.com/2015/03/most-profitable-movies-of-2014-box-office-1201390489/

It's actually not even 70 million since after the break even point of 800 around half would still go to the theaters.

I urge you to check your facts, as you've reported them inaccurately.

ASM2 had a budget of ~$250M and a marketing budget of ~$185M. That's $35M more in payout than BvS. It made $709M, which is $160M less than BvS. Your distortions are similar for GotG.

70 million dollars is not "poor" by any standard. Yes, some films do better, and more millions are made than on BvS. That doesn't mean BvS is an "embarrassment"" at a mere $70M in profits. By your logic, which measures financial success according to the profits of only the highest earners, every film that doesn't do Avatar or Avengers dollars is a financial failure.

 

[FunkMiller]

70 million dollars is not "poor" by any standard. Yes, some films do better, and more millions are made than on BvS. That doesn't mean BvS is an "embarrassment"" at a mere $70M in profits. By your logic, which measures financial success according to the profits of only the highest earners, every film that doesn't do Avatar or Avengers dollars is a financial failure.

Batman and Superman on screen together.

BATMAN and SUPERMAN.

$70 million (approximate) profit on a movie starring Batman and Superman.

What universe are you living in if you think WB are happy with that?

 

[Vortigern99]

If you think for one second that WB aren't comparing BvS's BO to other superhero movies like it, then you don't understand how the movie business works.

To them, when compared to Civil War's take, it is embarrassing. Hell, never mind Civil War, Deadpool out grossed it domestically.

This movie was meant to make more than it did. Keep kidding yourself all you like, but by the metric of how Hollywood functions, BvS is a disappointment. It underperformed, and will only have a small profit.

You think for a moment WB are thinking about that $70 mil?

They're not. They're thinking about the $300 million extra this film should have made, and didn't.

Your claim to have insight into the minds and thoughts of others is as astonishing as it is nonsensical.

But let's allow that your pretense at seeing into others' minds is correct, and the WB execs are in fact disappointed by BvS' paltry $70M profit (without ancillaries). They're super-bummed out that they only have to split $70M, instead of the $300M it "should have made" (in some platonic conception of a world in which events transpire according to what "should" happen). Let's say that bizarro scenario is in fact wholly correct and accurate.

So, because multi-millionaires with 6 and 7-figure salaries are disappointed that they only have $70M to split up, that means that, to them, BvS is an "embarrassment" and a "failure". Okay.

Remind me again why this is important to audiences or fans? Explain why the belly-aching of unbelievably wealthy, privileged multi-millionaires -- who are no doubt weeping as they oversee the laying down of fresh carpet on their yacht -- is in any way significant? Doubtless your unclouded clairvoyance into their thoughts and emotions will help you in formulating a cogent and persuasive response.

 

[Erzengel]

Then what's the point of doing a big budget tent pole movie at all for only $70M?

They might as well and try and do a buddy cop movie and make at least twice that much back especially with a lower budget.

I understand what you're saying that $70M is a lot of money but in terms of the time and effort put into BvS, it just seems underwhelming.

 

[FunkMiller]

Your claim to have insight into the minds and thoughts of others is as astonishing as it is nonsensical.

But let's allow that your pretense at seeing into others' minds is correct, and the WB execs are in fact disappointed by BvS' paltry $70M profit (without ancillaries). They're super-bummed out that they only have to split $70M, instead of the $300M it "should have made" (in some platonic conception of a world in which events transpire according to what "should" happen). Let's say that bizarro scenario is in fact wholly correct and accurate.

So, because multi-millionaires with 6 and 7-figure salaries are disappointed that they only have $70M to split up, that means that, to them, BvS is an "embarrassment" and a "failure". Okay.

Remind me again why this is important to audiences or fans? Explain why the belly-aching of unbelievably wealthy, privileged multi-millionaires -- who are no doubt weeping as they oversee the laying down of fresh carpet on their yacht -- is in any way significant? Doubtless your unclouded clairvoyance into their thoughts and emotions will help you in formulating a cogent and persuasive response.

I do séances twice weekly under the name Madame Friskythighs. Why not pop along and I can tell you when you'll next be laid off work with stress?

And, to restate what I would imagine to most would be an extremely obvious point:

BATMAN and SUPERMAN - with a little Wonder Woman thrown in for good measure.

You can deride what I have to say all you like, and it will bother me not a jot, because I know I'm right.

This isn't some random blockbuster movie we're talking about here. It isn't Tom Cruise's latest foray into spycraft, or Michael Bay's latest attempt to lobotomise us all with another Transformers movie.

This is Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. A movie starring the two greatest superheroes ever conceived, a project hyped beyond all measure for three years, and a flick that is meant to be equal to The Avengers.

All the ret-conning going on about how it should only be compared to Iron Man 2 or similar smaller scale movies in Marvel's output is cloudy ********, because, and here it is for the fourth time:

It's BATMAN and SUPERMAN.

Of course it was supposed to make more money than it did. And of course WB are disappointed when they look across town at all the money Civil War is raking in.

I don't need to be clairvoyant to know that, just a rational human being who isn't desperately ret-conning what this movie should have done business-wise because they don't want to admit that Zack Snyder served up a warmed over turd of a movie.

Remember: Madame Friskythighs. She'll read your palm and make your day!

 

[Kanon]

70 million dollars is not "poor" by any standard.

It is in Hollywood with major tentpoles, and in any industry where you invest 800M to only make 70

I bet you wouldn't be talking about success if you go to the black jack table with 800, risk it all, and walk away with 870.

The executives in charge of WB already make 6 or 7 figures a year.

They earn that because movies return a profit of more than 70M. With that margin of profit, you can only pay a small group of people that money, while also maintaining the studio infraestructure.

 

[wobbly]

Mic dropped^

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Then what's the point of doing a big budget tent pole movie at all for only $70M?

They might as well and try and do a buddy cop movie and make at least twice that much back especially with a lower budget.

I understand what you're saying that $70M is a lot of money but in terms of the time and effort put into BvS, it just seems underwhelming.

$70 million gross over the break even point. Not $70 million profit. They would only keep roughly half of that, so it would be more like $35 million profit. Which would be under a 10% rate of return on the investment.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yawn.

 

[Leenie]

WB/DC should be embarrassed. I just hope that people don't blame this on "lack of interest for DC characters," because that's a load of bunk. This movie's shortcomings in the box office are solely due to the quality (or lack thereof) of the film. Most people think the movie sucks. And a lot of people feel emphatically and passionately about that, because WB dropped the ball on characters that people care about. So that's proof to me that audiences want to like DC movies.

It's no surprise to me at all that even Deadpool outgrossed it. I bought Deadpool on Blu-Ray last week, and I've watched it twice over the past several days. Deadpool has more of an emotional core and message than BvS does ... And that's pretty pathetic on WB's part! A movie that consists of a "protagonist" who relies on sophomoric humor and gore gave me more of a message than a movie that has Batman and Superman in it. Unbelievable.

And everyone is making the comparisons between Civil War and BvS. It's inevitable at this point. Most people are saying that Civil War is the good version of BvS. And considering the praise that a lot of the supporting characters in Civil War got, we're living in a time where the general audience is most likely more pumped for the next Ant-Man movie over another Superman movie. Crazy times, y'all. Good job, WB.

 

[Kanon]

Then what's the point of doing a big budget tent pole movie at all for only $70M?

They might as well and try and do a buddy cop movie and make at least twice that much back especially with a lower budget.

I understand what you're saying that $70M is a lot of money but in terms of the time and effort put into BvS, it just seems underwhelming.

I bet it's even safer to invest in wall street, or just put 800M it in the bank and earn interests

 

[Shikamaru]

By your logic, which measures financial success according to the profits of only the highest earners, every film that doesn't do Avatar or Avengers dollars is a financial failure.

Then by WB's logic this is a financial failure, as they were expecting this to make Avengers dollars. And in the end it made even less than the last two solo Batman films. You essentially made our point for us, thank you.