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

[samsnee]

If Age of Ultron made $1.5 Billion and reports were that Disney was "disappointed" then there's no way that WB, who spent the same amount if not more on BvS, don't feel the same if not greater.

 

[dnno1]

B&R has way more redeeming qualities than BVS.

Maybe if your taste in comic book films is camp. I twnd to agree with this video about the film:

[YT]ce_ZDemuKpQ[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Numbers are the only true indicator of a movie's success or failure with the GA, that's why keeping an eye on the box office is so important - and understanding how much money actually goes to the movie company is even more important. BvS will barely break even. In WB's eyes it will be regarded as a failure. Anyone can dress the situation up as much as they like, but the numbers don't lie. It's a poor movie, and it'll have a deserved poor return on investment.

I completely agree, this film was lucky to get what it got and that's due in part to part to WB pulling off genius marketing and the global release stunt. But now that they blew their load with that trick the rest of the DCCU films are going to have to stand on their own merits because now the GA is going to be wary of the DC brand until they prove otherwise. Luckily, for the most part, the GA is much more forgiving than we fanboys. Look at how for the FOX-Men films have come. To this day, I still refuse to pay for any of their films after X3 and Origins haha.

It's one thing to objectively speak in regard to a film's critical and financial performance, but it's something entirely different to reiterate ad nauseam how the film is a disappointment. I've seen the same users repeat the same information over and over again in regard to the film's box office performance; for example, it's been said God knows how many times how Zootopia has stronger legs, how the film won't even hit a billion, how the film will barely make a 2X multiplier by the end of its run, etc. Literally, this same information has been repeated hundreds of times in the past weeks that I've been reading through this series of threads. Hence, it's obvious at this point that this series of threads isn't a means to talk about the film's box office performance but is one to bash the film over and over again with the same set of hammers. What makes this even more obvious than it is intrinsically are the wannabe-witty posts in which some of you hurl personal insults at the movie (e.g. 'compared to BvS, SM3 is Schnilder's list,' etc). At this point, it's clear that the film isn't performing as it was expected to. So, what's the purpose of this non-stop badgering? When will this stop? After the 30th iteration of these threads? It would be sensible to judge the film's performance based on its critical reception and readjusted expectations.

Having said all this, whether or not you all except the truth, the truth is that this film is a financial success; $862 million is nothing to scoff at and, despite what's been said, is enough for the film to make a decent profit. You'd have to be foolish to believe that $800 million is the breaking point, because no studio is dumb enough to expect a guaranteed $1 billion or more; a studio would hope for that level of revenue but wouldn't bank on it. Considering the aforementioned advertisement deals that WB has made with Doritos, Turkish Airlines, and other businesses, it's obvious that they've made a profit via these deals in addition to the box office receipt.

One more thing, it's pathetic that some of you have actually expressed joy that this film is "disappointing" at the box office; you sound like spoiled children who don't want their not-so-favorite team to win. Quite sad.

Hell of a first post. Me thinks I smell a previously banned user and with your tone I can see why. So you seem to have some kind of issue with us talking about the films numbers in the thread specifically made to talk about the films numbers? Weird, that would be like me going to the Abuse of Power thread and then complaining about everyone talking about people who abuse their power.

As was mentioned the numbers for this film directly affecting the DCCU going forward which is why we are getting several reports from numerous places about the studio trying to be more hands on. Several film studios have risked a movie needing to clear a billion to turn a decent profit so why you think WB wouldn't think the Trinity onscreen would be the time to make such a bet is kind of funny. Those risks don't always work out (ask Disney how that John Carter franchise is coming along) and sometimes it does (the MCU and Avengers come to mind).

In the end, movie making is all about taking calculated risk and trying to maximize profits for their investors. When the investors break even/barely turn a profit then major shake-ups happen. Sometimes within public view and other times behind hidden doors. I'm happy you think this film turned a good profit for the studio but I'm fairly certain the WB execs and their investors don't share your opinion.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If Age of Ultron made $1.5 Billion and reports were that Disney was "disappointed" then there's no way that WB, who spent the same amount if not more on BvS, don't feel the same if not greater.

Exactly, they believed their own Hype and that's why AoU had such a tremendous budget. In the end, I thought it was a good film and the GA for the most part agreed but it just didn't have that some newness like the first Avengers did. And Marvel Studios did what any sane studio does and learned to reign in the spending a bit which is a lesson WB and specifically Snyder really need to understand.

 

[dnno1]

If Age of Ultron made $1.5 Billion and reports were that Disney was "disappointed" then there's no way that WB, who spent the same amount if not more on BvS, don't feel the same if not greater.

Those reports are just rumor. Although it did not make as much as its predecessor film, Age of Ultron made a lot of money. I wouldn't doubt it if Kevin Feige used the fact that it made less than and didn't get as much praise as its predecessor as leverage to dissolve the creative committee that was led by Isaac Perlmutter. Like HeroicFan said in his post "no studio is dumb enough to expect a guaranteed $1 billion ", and I believe that

 

[dnno1]

Just to let everybody know, Time Warner is having a quarterly conference call this coming Wednesday. If somebody is brave enough they may want to call in and ask a question about the results of BvS and the future of the DC Expanded Universe.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Those reports are just rumor. Although it did not make as much as its predecessor film, Age of Ultron made a lot of money. I wouldn't doubt it if Kevin Feige used the fact that it made less than and didn get as much praise as its predecessor as leverage to disolve the creative committee that was led by Isaac Perlmutter. Like HeroicFan said in his post "no studio is dumb enough to expect a guaranteed $1 billion ", and I belive that

As I posted earlier both of you are completely wrong on that fact. Movie studios make their living off of trying to figure out which films will be the tentpoles and make them the most money. Feige has gone on record saying that they knew they had to make a billion for the MCU to work and recently went on record saying that if the Avengers had the same performance as BvS the MCU would be drastically different. Just because you and another poster may think things are a certain way does not actually make it a fact.

 

[Sithborg]

Yet, Feige even admitted that Avengers needed to make a billion. I mean, just look at the beginnings of the thread. Expecting a billion was hardly a stretch. Hell, the marketing team set it up to make Avengers money. Just look at that opening weekend.

But as always, due the complexity of Hollywood accounting, you can only really tell how happy the studio is by what their actions are afterwards.

(looks at the current director drama)

 

[Erzengel]

Reports are they needed around $800-$850 to break even and $925 to make a profit.

Theatrically, BvS's profit seems to be marginal at best.

If you need to include video, merchandising as well as other promotional profits to pad BvS's profit margin, it's all $ in the end. However, with most franchises, it's better when the primary source doesn't need to be helped.

 

[Sithborg]

The overall number probably changed due to the performance in various regions.

 

[kaneluan06]

Such as?

B-movie kind of fun

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The overall number probably changed due to the performance in various regions.

Some regions have a better return for the studio than others. That's why these are more estimates and a good rule of thumb than hard numbers.

 

[dnno1]

As I posted earlier both of you are completely wrong on that fact. Movie studios make their living off of trying to figure out which films will be the tentpoles and make them the most money. Feige has gone on record saying that they knew they had to make a billion for the MCU to work and recently went on record saying that if the Avengers had the same performance as BvS the MCU would be drastically different. Just because you and another poster may think things are a certain way does not actually make it a fact.

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong on that and you're going to have to produce some evidence that Kevin Feige said that they had to make $1 billion for the MCU to work. I know of an opinion piece that Chris Agar over at Screen Rant wrote that quoted Feige as saying he knew that "things had to work" for them to make follow on films, but he never mentioned how much they had to make (as studios never do).

The truth of the matter is that BvS never had to make $1 billion to be a success and it more than likely broke even in its second weekend when it hit $650 million. In its 5th weekend in release, the film has made more than $860 million world wide and still has more than 9 weeks left at the box office. This is just a talking point made up by bloggers to fit their angle that the film is struggling.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong on that and you're going to have to produce some evidence that Kevin Feige said that they had to make $1 billion for the MCU to work. I know of an opinion piece that Chris Agar over at Screen Rant wrote that quoted Feige as saying he knew that "things had to work" for them to make follow on films, but he never mentioned how much they had to make (as studios never do).

The truth of the matter is that BvS never had to make $1 billion to be a success and it more than likely broke even in its second weekend when it hit $650 million. In its 5th weekend in release, the film has made more than $860 million world wide and still has more than 9 weeks left at the box office. This is just a talking point made up by bloggers to fit their angle that the film is struggling.

Haha I love arguing with delusional people. You are insane if you think it broke even on its second weekend. The cut from overseas is nowhere near as much as the DOM BO. Almost every industry expert who has been doing this much longer than you or I say that it needs $850-$900M to break even and $925M to turn a profit.

You are right that Feige never specifically said they had to make a billion but that's exactly what he means when he says "Things had to work".

It was not an opinion piece, it was a direct question that io9 asked Feige. What you linked to was an opinion piece. Here is the article:

So we were wondering: If Avengers had received Batman v. Superman’s critical response and box office, would Marvel still be about to release its 13th movie in May 2016?

Here’s what Feige told io9.

Realistically, I don’t know. I think [Warner Bros.] is in a very different position than we were, when we were doing those early movies. We were just trying something, and now there’s a golden ring to try to grab.

But I’ve always believed, since Iron Man 1, that things have got to work. Things have got to work, or people won’t let us make another one. I don’t think that’s the case for [DC].​

Which sounds like his way of saying: No. If The Avengers hadn’t worked as well as it did, the MCU most likely would have stalled out, and we’d be looking at a very different movie landscape today.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-if-the-avengers-had-only-done-as-well-at-the-box-o-1770385517

It was a direct question that if Avengers was received and made as much money as BvS would the MCU be where it is today. Feige churched it up because he's a gentleman but the answer is no, the MCU would not be what it is today if it performed the same.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

I'm curious as to where the $650 million number is coming from. And no, I'm not interested in setting up a "out of poster X's butt" gag. I'm genuinely curious as to where the number comes from.

 

[King23DC]

What Feige is saying there, even if politely or passive aggressively ... is that WB is lazy. And they'll put these films out regardless. Even if not truly well received.

Which was obvious the case via MOS's reception. And even worse, it's massively all time underwhelming Batman V Superman sequel.

A lot of those Marvel films IMO are overrated, future promoting fluff and monotony. They did put the effort in for all them. Even if they play it safe and by the numbers. Cookie cutter even. Marvel earned what they got.

Hell, even Nolan understood this world building organically (even more so than Marvel) where you make a great film people like. Characters you root for and appreciate. Then build off that. He didn't use the heavy hitters like Joker off the bat. Pun intended. Boom still got it.

Nolan made you love the tortured character of Bruce Wayne, out of costume even, and gave a great origin film before he started building the world or city of Gotham for the Batman character play in for future sequels.

Regardless of Ledger's performance. TDK doesn't work without Bale's outstanding work, making the audience invested in the protagonist. While Nolan gave a great story as foundation for more escalation or entertaining stories to leap off from. It established good will with audiences before it lead to even more massive events.

This sloppy DCCU at the hands of Hack Snyder tried to cliff note it into theaters. It didn't work and it didn't sit well with audiences that have come to expect so much more in these sub genres of film.

 

[dnno1]

Haha I love arguing with delusional people. You are insane if you think it broke even on its second weekend. The cut from overseas is nowhere near as much as the DOM BO. Almost every industry expert who has been doing this much longer than you or I say that it needs $850-$900M to break even and $925M to turn a profit.

You are right that Feige never specifically said they had to make a billion but that's exactly what he means when he says "Things had to work".

It was not an opinion piece, it was a direct question that io9 asked Feige. What you linked to was an opinion piece. Here is the article:



http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-if-the-avengers-had-only-done-as-well-at-the-box-o-1770385517

It was a direct question that if Avengers was received and made as much money as BvS wouhttp://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution2.htmld the MCU be where it is today. Feige churched it up because he's a gentleman but the answer is no, the MCU would not be what it is today if it performed the same.

Actually his answer was "I don't know", and all he knew was that they had to make it work. No reference to how much it had to make (I know I am not delusional, by the way so I will ignore the fact that you imploed I was). I doubt he would disclose that type of competition sensitive information.

In truth we in the general public do not know the exact formula for the box office ticket split, but what is known is that studios like the WB and Disney own the distribution rights to their films both domestically and over seas. Another fact is that the terms of the revenue split are negotiated far before the film is released to theatres. Although sources say that theatres 50% of the ticket price in the long run, the studio and the distributor (which are the same for the WB) get more than that (90%) during the first 3 weeks of release. During that time the theatre make most of their money selling popcorn. The theater eventually gets more after then (thats why they try to keep in theatres fo sa long as they do).

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Yes, the studio gets a big percentage of the early box office. But that's after the house nut is subtracted, as you own link tells. They don't get 90% for the first three weeks.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Actually his answer was "I don't know", and all he knew was that they had to make it work. No reference to how much it had to make (I know I am not delusional, by the way so I will ignore the fact that you imploed I was). I doubt he would disclose that type of competition sensitive information.

In truth we in the general public do not know the exact formula for the box office ticket split, but what is known is that studios like the WB and Disney own the distribution rights to their films both domestically and over seas. Another fact is that the terms of the revenue split are negotiated far before the film is released to theatres. Although sources say that theatres 50% of the ticket price in the long run, the studio and the distributor (which are the same for the WB) get more than that (90%) during the first 3 weeks of release. During that time the theatre make most of their money selling popcorn. The theater eventually gets more after then (thats why they try to keep in theatres fo sa long as they do).

I love people that post links thinking that it validates their argument when in fact it does the opposite. No, no movie theaters give do not give 90% of ticket prices to the studio. Domestically and certainly not internationally. As stated before, industry experts who have been in the business and have connections within the studios have all reported BvS needed to make between $850M-$900M to break even. Considering how it underperformed here DOM I would venture that it may even need a bit more than that considering the intl BO is known to take quite a chunk out of those ticket sales, specifically major markets like China and Russia. Theaters do not keep films that don't have good legs in the theaters. Makes no sense to keep a movie in there just because you make more money off of it if only one person shows up for the movie.

 

[superion]

Actually his answer was "I don't know", and all he knew was that they had to make it work. No reference to how much it had to make (I know I am not delusional, by the way so I will ignore the fact that you imploed I was). I doubt he would disclose that type of competition sensitive information.

In truth we in the general public do not know the exact formula for the box office ticket split, but what is known is that studios like the WB and Disney own the distribution rights to their films both domestically and over seas. Another fact is that the terms of the revenue split are negotiated far before the film is released to theatres. Although sources say that theatres 50% of the ticket price in the long run, the studio and the distributor (which are the same for the WB) get more than that (90%) during the first 3 weeks of release. During that time the theatre make most of their money selling popcorn. The theater eventually gets more after then (thats why they try to keep in theatres fo sa long as they do).

WB was not getting 90% of the cut in the first 3 weeks. These articles are old and the splits no longer works that way. If Disney could only get 60% of the box office for Star Wars (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/29/hows-all-the-money-from-the-force-awakens-divvied-up.html). WB wasn't getting 90% for BvS.

Also people keep on forgetting the "nut" in these articles. Even before the split the theaters take part of the box office to cover their expenses so studios never got 90% of the total box office in the first few weeks. They may have gotten 90% after the theaters already took part of the box office for expenses.

Supposedly this film cost $400 million to make and market. $800 million would be the break even point maybe $850 to account for China only returning 25% of the box office to studios.

This film made about $100 million in China and $863 million total so far. 50% of $863-M is $432-M for the studio minus another $25 million to account for China. That's $407 million so the movie should be in the black. It does not however have another 9 weeks to make money. This film is losing steam quickly domestic and overseas (this weekend less than $4 million domestic and $3 million overseas). It'll be done making any serious money when Civil War comes out this week.

Of course it still has home video sales to make money and that is where most of the profit for this film will come from.

 

[Omegabat]

What Feige is saying there, even if politely or passive aggressively ... is that WB is lazy. And they'll put these films out regardless. Even if not truly well received.

Which was obvious the case via MOS's reception. And even worse, it's massively all time underwhelming Batman V Superman sequel.

A lot of those Marvel films IMO are overrated, future promoting fluff and monotony. They did put the effort in for all them. Even if they play it safe and by the numbers. Cookie cutter even. Marvel earned what they got.

Hell, even Nolan understood this world building organically (even more so than Marvel) where you make a great film people like. Characters you root for and appreciate. Then build off that. He didn't use the heavy hitters like Joker off the bat. Pun intended. Boom still got it.

Nolan made you love the tortured character of Bruce Wayne, out of costume even, and gave a great origin film before he started building the world or city of Gotham for the Batman character play in for future sequels.

Regardless of Ledger's performance. TDK doesn't work without Bale's outstanding work, making the audience invested in the protagonist. While Nolan gave a great story as foundation for more escalation or entertaining stories to leap off from. It established good will with audiences before it lead to even more massive events.

This sloppy DCCU at the hands of Hack Snyder tried to cliff note it into theaters. It didn't work and it didn't sit well with audiences that have come to expect so much more in these sub genres of film.

Yup, Nolan didn't even bother with Joker in TDKR, with DCEU I expect Joker to be in every Batman movie and maybe a few non Batman movies as well not that I dont love Joker but it's obvious WB is just milking the cow instead of breeding new ones.
Back on topic, this will stop at 872 million dollars at this rate tops.

 

[TheScarecrow]

What Fiege is saying has nothing to do with having a shot at DC and makes a lot of sense.

Back in those days Marvel was essentially an independent film studio where one big failure would have tanked the whole operation. Marvel was essentially tied up in making good returns on its products. If it didn't, it was done as a complete operation.

WB is hardly in that position. Now Marvel is not because its own by Disney.

That's all he's saying.

 

[Stark Bauer]

What Fiege is saying has nothing to do with having a shot at DC and makes a lot of sense.

Back in those days Marvel was essentially an independent film studio where one big failure would have tanked the whole operation. Marvel was essentially tied up in making good returns on its products. If it didn't, it was done as a complete operation.

WB is hardly in that position. Now Marvel is not because its own by Disney.

That's all he's saying.

Was about to say this.

Also if CW in its second week drops by 80% from Fri to Fri or in its third week gets beat by a Melissa McCarthy movie, I would consider those the elements of a failure in the making.

 

[FunkMiller]

The truth of the matter is that BvS never had to make $1 billion to be a success and it more than likely broke even in its second weekend when it hit $650 million. In its 5th weekend in release, the film has made more than $860 million world wide and still has more than 9 weeks left at the box office. This is just a talking point made up by bloggers to fit their angle that the film is struggling.

You're just going to ignore every post telling you how movie profits are earned, aren't you?

 

[dnno1]

WB was not getting 90% of the cut in the first 3 weeks. These articles are old and the splits no longer works that way. If Disney could only get 60% of the box office for Star Wars (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/29/hows-all-the-money-from-the-force-awakens-divvied-up.html). WB wasn't getting 90% for BvS.

Also people keep on forgetting the "nut" in these articles. Even before the split the theaters take part of the box office to cover their expenses so studios never got 90% of the total box office in the first few weeks. They may have gotten 90% after the theaters already took part of the box office for expenses.

Supposedly this film cost $400 million to make and market. $800 million would be the break even point maybe $850 to account for China only returning 25% of the box office to studios.

This film made about $100 million in China and $863 million total so far. 50% of $863-M is $432-M for the studio minus another $25 million to account for China. That's $407 million so the movie should be in the black. It does not however have another 9 weeks to make money. This film is losing steam quickly domestic and overseas (this weekend less than $4 million domestic and $3 million overseas). It'll be done making any serious money when Civil War comes out this week.

Of course it still has home video sales to make money and that is where most of the profit for this film will come from.

You forgot to include the tax offsets and promotion deals. The WB's total budget was more like $300 million than $400 million. As far as weeks in release, how do you explain a film like "American Snyper", which had ordes of magnitude higher weekly drops than BvS after its 5th week in release beeing in theatres for 26 weeks?