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

[Ozbridge]

So as its domestic run is ending, $330,360,194 seems to be the final number for this film.

Is there anyone here who can explain this to me? In the latest week (June 10 - 16) BvS still made $305k, showed at 215 theaters with average $1.4k/ theater. Barbershop, Miracles from Heaven, Kung Fu Panda, God's not Dead, etc all made less both in total weekly number and average per theater number, yet all are still showing this weekend (though this weekend also marks the end of domestic run of Deadpool, The Boss, Huntsman). Is there like some theaters showing mainly non-blockbuster drama/ comedy movies (not the like of BvS) and they're much more content with small number?

 

[JKKS085]

Is there anyone here who can explain this to me? In the latest week (June 10 - 16) BvS still made $305k, showed at 215 theaters with average $1.4k/ theater. Barbershop, Miracles from Heaven, Kung Fu Panda, God's not Dead, etc all made less both in total weekly number and average per theater number, yet all are still showing this weekend (though this weekend also marks the end of domestic run of Deadpool, The Boss, Huntsman). Is there like some theaters showing mainly non-blockbuster drama/ comedy movies (not the like of BvS) and they're much more content with small number?

I would guess that WB is pulling the movie from theaters just days ahead of the home video release to maybe try and generate some kind of anticipation.

 

[FunkMiller]

Batman v Superman makes under 100 million more than Deadpool in total.

 

[Kanon]

Seems like it is indeed over. Less than 2x multiplier. Shame.

Gitesh Pandya ‏@GiteshPandya

NorthAmerican #boxoffice reporting on #BatmanvSuperman is now final. Domestic run finished at $330,360,194. 50% was from opening wknd.

https://twitter.com/GiteshPandya/status/743875603393294336

 

[Flint Marko]

Seems like it is indeed over. Less than 2x multiplier. Shame.

https://twitter.com/GiteshPandya/status/743875603393294336

For what it's worth, that's a lower multiplier than Josh Trank's FFINO.

 

[The Shape]

That's worth nothing.

 

[Kanon]

Valentine's Day, Fifty Shades of Grey, and Watchmen. Those are the only big releases I could find with worst multipliers

 

[JKKS085]

Valentine's Day, Fifty Shades of Grey, and Watchmen. Those are the only big releases I could find with worst multipliers

Warcraft is gonna be close as well if it doesn't recover from that dreadful second week end drop.
Edit: Friday The 13th (2009) and Doom did worse actually but BvS' performance is I think unprecedented in the genre.

 

[samsnee]

Valentine's Day, Fifty Shades of Grey, and Watchmen. Those are the only big releases I could find with worst multipliers

Shame Snyder didn't the hat trick.

 

[Arach Knight]

872/873 million dollars WW + stellar video sales. This movie is a smash hit.

Hardly. That is not the way that box office revenue works.

First of all, the film has an estimated adjusted budget of $410 million (~$250 for production and ~$160 million for marketing). Off the top, the move has only generated revenue amounting to twice its overall investment.

Second, there is the revenue share between theaters and studios. On average (each studio makes different contracts for different films), the share is ~55/45, with the studio getting the larger portion. So of the $897 million this film made, $410 million doesn't count because that is just the return on the initial investment.

The profitable portion of the revenue comes from the remaining $487 million, meaning the studio is only earning ~$267 million off of their $410 million investment. But even this is not an adequate overview, because the share taken by the studio is even smaller overseas (~40%) than the average I listed above. In other words, the actual revenue earned is likely less than $267 million.

So, no, the film is not a "smash hit". Warner Bros. will make their money though thanks to licensing and video sales. But making their money is not synonymous with "smash hit". This film would have needed to cross the $1 billion mark to have truly been a smash hit. As of right now, Warner Bros. is mostly in the position to break even, since the rule of thumb is that a film should earn twice its total production budget to break even. Batman v Superman narrowly earned more than twice its budget.

 

[Ozbridge]

Valentine's Day, Fifty Shades of Grey, and Watchmen. Those are the only big releases I could find with worst multipliers

Valentine's Day, 50 Shades, Watchmen and Paranormal Activity 3.

Warcraft is gonna be close as well if it doesn't recover from that dreadful second week end drop.
Edit: Friday The 13th (2009) and Doom did worse actually but BvS' performance is I think unprecedented in the genre.

Warcraft and Doom aren't big releases though, there might be a lot of small films with worse legs than BvS.

Movies with moderate-to-big OW with multiplier less than 2X:

OW > 50M
BvS
50 Shades
Valentine's Day
Watchmen
Paranormal Activity 3

OW 35M to 50M
Friday the 13th
Cloverfield

OW 25M to 35M
The Purge
The Devil Inside
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Saw IV
The Wolfman
Bruno
Saw V
Paranormal Activity 4
About Last Night

 

[sf2]

Is there anyone here who can explain this to me? In the latest week (June 10 - 16) BvS still made $305k, showed at 215 theaters with average $1.4k/ theater. Barbershop, Miracles from Heaven, Kung Fu Panda, God's not Dead, etc all made less both in total weekly number and average per theater number, yet all are still showing this weekend (though this weekend also marks the end of domestic run of Deadpool, The Boss, Huntsman). Is there like some theaters showing mainly non-blockbuster drama/ comedy movies (not the like of BvS) and they're much more content with small number?

write to the cinemas operators, then you will get the right answer.

 

[Jekecy]

Movies with moderate-to-big OW with multiplier less than 2X:

OW > 50M
BvS
50 Shades
Valentine's Day
Watchmen
Paranormal Activity 3

Yeesh, that's some bad company. Even worse when the only other CBM on that list is another Snyder film.

 

[sf2]

Yeesh, that's some bad company. Even worse when the only other CBM on that list is another Snyder film.

don't worry be happy.
we are getting the UC in a week!!! cheer!

 

[JKKS085]

Warcraft and Doom aren't big releases though, there might be a lot of small films with worse legs than BvS.

3000+ theaters easily qualifies as wide release (limited is under 1000).

 

[The Joker]

Hardly. That is not the way that box office revenue works.

First of all, the film has an estimated adjusted budget of $410 million (~$250 for production and ~$160 million for marketing). Off the top, the move has only generated revenue amounting to twice its overall investment.

Second, there is the revenue share between theaters and studios. On average (each studio makes different contracts for different films), the share is ~55/45, with the studio getting the larger portion. So of the $897 million this film made, $410 million doesn't count because that is just the return on the initial investment.

The profitable portion of the revenue comes from the remaining $487 million, meaning the studio is only earning ~$267 million off of their $410 million investment. But even this is not an adequate overview, because the share taken by the studio is even smaller overseas (~40%) than the average I listed above. In other words, the actual revenue earned is likely less than $267 million.

So, no, the film is not a "smash hit". Warner Bros. will make their money though thanks to licensing and video sales. But making their money is not synonymous with "smash hit". This film would have needed to cross the $1 billion mark to have truly been a smash hit. As of right now, Warner Bros. is mostly in the position to break even, since the rule of thumb is that a film should earn twice its total production budget to break even. Batman v Superman narrowly earned more than twice its budget.

Exactly.

 

[Ozbridge]

3000+ theaters easily qualifies as wide release (limited is under 1000).

Yeah but I guess what Kanon meant originally was big releases qualified as blockbusters (i.e. movies with OW more than 50M), hence only 50 Shades, Valentine's Day and Watchmen were mentioned (and I add Paranormal Activity 3, which has OW of 52M). If we count all movies released in 3000+ theaters that have multiplier less than 2X then there were at least a dozen more:

Friday the 13th
Cloverfield
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Saw IV
The Wolfman
Saw V
Paranormal Activity 4
The Grudge 2
Sucker Punch (another work by Snyder)
Doom (as you mentioned)
Saw IV
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
Elektra
Battlefield Earth

 

[JKKS085]

Yeah but I guess what Kanon meant originally was big releases qualified as blockbusters (i.e. movies with OW more than 50M), hence only 50 Shades, Valentine's Day and Watchmen were mentioned (and I add Paranormal Activity 3, which has OW of 52M). If we count all movies released in 3000+ theaters that have multiplier less than 2X then there were at least a dozen more:

Friday the 13th
Cloverfield
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Saw IV
The Wolfman
Saw V
Paranormal Activity 4
The Grudge 2
Sucker Punch (another work by Snyder)
Doom (as you mentioned)
Saw IV
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
Elektra
Battlefield Earth

The 50M+ ow seems somehow arbitrary but I get the general idea.
I think it's an impressive feat in and of itself that Snyder managed to direct 3 films that failed to earn 2x their respective ow. That really speaks volumes about how his films are received by the general audience, regardless of the usual ramblings of the Snyder apologists.

 

[Kanon]

Yeah but I guess what Kanon meant originally was big releases qualified as blockbusters (i.e. movies with OW more than 50M)

Yeah, it was actually a quick look at big OW releases, not high theather count (wich is true is the actual definition of big releases). My bad for using the term

 

[metaphysician]

Hardly. That is not the way that box office revenue works.

First of all, the film has an estimated adjusted budget of $410 million (~$250 for production and ~$160 million for marketing). Off the top, the move has only generated revenue amounting to twice its overall investment.

Second, there is the revenue share between theaters and studios. On average (each studio makes different contracts for different films), the share is ~55/45, with the studio getting the larger portion. So of the $897 million this film made, $410 million doesn't count because that is just the return on the initial investment.

The profitable portion of the revenue comes from the remaining $487 million, meaning the studio is only earning ~$267 million off of their $410 million investment. But even this is not an adequate overview, because the share taken by the studio is even smaller overseas (~40%) than the average I listed above. In other words, the actual revenue earned is likely less than $267 million.

So, no, the film is not a "smash hit". Warner Bros. will make their money though thanks to licensing and video sales. But making their money is not synonymous with "smash hit". This film would have needed to cross the $1 billion mark to have truly been a smash hit. As of right now, Warner Bros. is mostly in the position to break even, since the rule of thumb is that a film should earn twice its total production budget to break even. Batman v Superman narrowly earned more than twice its budget.

Your estimate is off, and on the generous side. The studio expenses are only substracted from revenue *after* the theaters get their cut. So its not ( 897 - 410 )/2, its ( 892 / 2 ) -410. So, your looking at a total profit in the $35M range, from the theatrical release, unless their marketing costs were much less than the estimate in real dollars ( which to be fair, they may be; marketing budget is where the Hollywood accounting lies ).

 

[Arach Knight]

Your estimate is off, and on the generous side. The studio expenses are only substracted from revenue *after* the theaters get their cut. So its not ( 897 - 410 )/2, its ( 892 / 2 ) -410. So, your looking at a total profit in the $35M range, from the theatrical release, unless their marketing costs were much less than the estimate in real dollars ( which to be fair, they may be; marketing budget is where the Hollywood accounting lies ).

I don't believe that is accurate. The revenue from the first month of ticket sales goes mostly to the studio. This is why theaters sell concessions. Most of the profit made by a movie theatre comes from selling snacks, not selling tickets. However, you are correct that my estimate is on the generous side. I didn't really bother to address how revenue is also shared with film distributors because that would require going on about the 1948 Paramount decision, studio use of subsidiaries to comply with the anti-trust decision from that case, and Hollywood accounting. So yes, there is a good chance that the revenue earned before tax is lower than the $267 million estimate I initially provided.

 

[metaphysician]

Thing is, either way, the money is still split between the studio and the various other parties *before* they pay off their sunk costs, not after.

 

[Tymminator]

I had heard the deal with much of the first month going to the studios was the way it was before, like several years ago, and that it's different nowadays.

I have not seen a recent article about this stuff so if anyone knows one, please link me to it.

 

[Flint Marko]

That's worth nothing.

Comparing two poorly received superhero films that suffered steep drops at the box office is worth nothing?

 

[The Shape]

Comparing two poorly received superhero films that suffered steep drops at the box office is worth nothing?

Not in this case, really.

Aside from the joy you might feel in having the chance to lump FFINO together with BvS, there isn't much value in comparing a true box office bomb that was DOA with another film that matched the total worldwide gross of the first film with its domestic opening weekend gross, regardless of whether they were both poorly received superhero films.

One film suffered steep drops but also had a heavily front-loaded worldwide release during which many, many people saw the film, which makes its drops at least a bit more excusable. The other film made roughly half of what it was even predicted to make opening weekend and just got worse from there -- the definition of a dud. I personally don't know anyone "in real life" that actually saw it in theaters.