BvS Batman V Superman Box Office Prediction

[Aejej]

I have to agree theres a bias.

For example DC introduces WW into BVS and people call it overcrowded.Marvel introduces Panther into Ironman vs Captainamerica and its brilliant.

DC releases a Film slate and they say its rushed and meaningless.Marvel does the same and its brilliant and well planned.

Marvel releases AOU trailer that takes is darker,serious and has destruction.No one calls it a dreary,disater porn trailer.

Just random examples.

Now to be fair.This is justified bias looking at WB/DC trackrecord.But bias all the same

Also, the DC slate was one revealed primarily to woo investors, it wasn't the focal point of a Hall H-style downtown media event.

The only real foundation current anti-DC/WB bias has is that Nolan's trilogy isn't part of the new shared universe, because two of those films have grossed one billion dollars-plus.

Nobody minded the introduction of a flood of new characters in GotG. Also, Hawkeye will likely play a part in Captain America: Civil War, so anyone who complains about the introductions of Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Cyborg (who will only get a fleeting appearance) in BvS is exactly that: a complainer. And for all the criticism Zack Snyder gets, Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 2+3 are not examples of extraordinarily fine directing. MoS is easily better than those.

 

[Marvin]

@Flint
lol didn't recognize you with that avy.
I actually don't really read poster names but rather know them by their pic.

So if it's justified, why is it biased? Kind of an oxymoron, no?

Probably because it being justified to that particular poster, doesn't make it 'justified'. More importantly, oxymoron or not, that would count as evidence of it existing regardless. Which flies in the face of the idea that there is none. If you think the DCU is going to stink because Snyder will have his clumsy stylized hands all over it, whether that be true or not it's by definition a 'bias'. I think this reality is at the crux of the matter.
Anyways, everything has a bias in some form, even the new star wars film will face something.

If you want some quick and easy examples I'd point to the recent podcast coverage from slash film and how the basic contrast in how covered all these recent developments. They even speak on the issue and coverage(they being the media). The man even said the remedy for the super hero over saturation is for the other studios to just let marvel have it. I thought that was particularly poignant if I do say so.

This doesn't count for everyone but to plead ignorance to this phenomena...There's Faraci and my favorite, that fat dude from screen junkies...I just found it interesting that in just about every DC article Dev produces there comes some form of negative caveat, whereas you will find nill in things he has less bias against. And this isn't just him, I only mention him due to the fact that he's an RT contributor. I personally think(imo) if WB where to turn out 5 hypothetical TDK films within the context of their next 5 releases, you would still have the Cannata's of the world citing it's all too dark and serious for what the material is 'supposed' to be, not fun enough. Though, I do think Suicide Squad would actually get a fair shake in this regard.

I'm curious to see what kinda quality this next film turns out. They have the sequel advantage, so like many cbms in the past they have a chance to not only learn from their first but also get into the more forward moving stuff, they also have a more recognized talent in the epicenter plot(writing), they also have less constraints and launching pressure and more confidence from the studio. Lastly they have some modicum of fan reaction, this is a precious commodity to creators imo. I have a feeling it's going to be a very different experience.

 

[Flint Marko]

I have to agree theres a bias.

For example DC introduces WW into BVS and people call it overcrowded.Marvel introduces Panther into Ironman vs Captainamerica and its brilliant.

DC releases a Film slate and they say its rushed and meaningless.Marvel does the same and its brilliant and well planned.

Marvel releases AOU trailer that takes is darker,serious and has destruction.No one calls it a dreary,disater porn trailer.

Just random examples.

Now to be fair.This is justified bias looking at WB/DC trackrecord.But bias all the same

I was speaking about there being a bias amongst movie critics.
People around here like to pretend that Man of Steels mixed reception had little to do with the quality of the film itself and everything to do with some unspoken disapproval towards DC held by movie critics across the globe, which makes absolutely zero sense.

@Flint
lol didn't recognize you with that avy.
I actually don't really read poster names but rather know them by their pic.

Haha I get what you're saying, I wouldn't recognize you at first w out your signature Blade avatar lol.

Also, the DC slate was one revealed primarily to woo investors, it wasn't the focal point of a Hall H-style downtown media event.

I haven't seen that really come up in these forums yet, maybe it's been discussed at length and I just didn't know about it, but that is just so so so very ridiculous.

 

[Juha Bach]

This critics notions and arguments are given way too much importance in this forums than they deserve in box office perspective. One can even go as far as to say that a number of people here dont even understand how rotten tomatoes works.

 

[Masone]

I consider Guardians of the Galaxy a franchise. They have a sequel coming out and most likely a third one after that. Just because it's part of the MCU it doesn't get that credit? Guardians did it on it's own as far as I'm concerned. The movie was great and it deserves all the money it makes as well as the phenomenal reviews it got. The movie is a franchise starter, IMO.

You can't count it as its own franchise while simultaneously claiming that the MCU is the highest grossing franchise of all time. It's either one or the other. Each Marvel movie is either its own franchise or they are all apart of the Marvel franchise, which is what everyone has been claiming. No way does it perform like it has in a vacuum like other true franchise starters.

I disagree on the reviews part, but I honestly don't care much for reviews either way, just thought it was an average movie.

 

[Bwahaha!]

I have to say that the general public really dug MOS consistently. Talk to just about any casual movie goer who saw MOS and you will likely get positive feedback. As it s Superman, there is definitely a segment of fanboys who kept up with every single detail knowing the movie before they even saw it, and from that crowd there was more inconsistency... BUT still the majority seems to like MOS. It may be a bit smaller majority than general public of course, but it was pretty well received by fans and casual movie goers.

I saw MOS at least three times in the theaters. Once in iMax, once in 3D and once in a regular theater. Each time with a different set of buddies. I just remember the first time I saw it, my jaw dropped to the floor thinking how someone had just made the SM movie I always wanted to see. I had a few nits, but that's the case with almost any movie. Every single one of my friends dug it too. The one consistent complaint I've noticed is (almost always from longtime SM fans that are attached to Supe's Boy Scout aspects) he shouldn't have killed Zod. I have never understood the outrage. It's not that I have some sort of fetish with SM killing, lol, but if he does, as long as it's a super-powered bad guy who is genuinely threatening human life in that moment and in future moments...then I am not gonna judge. In fact, I approve. Every single one of the people complaining about Zod's death would've been cheering SM on if it had been their life had been in danger. I mean, gimme a break.

It should be noted that MOS also did excellent in blu-ray sales, meaning a LOT of people that watched it in theaters wanted to actually own it. Plus, I'm sure many new fans came on board when it was available to rent/buy.

 

[Bwahaha!]

I don't doubt that there people out there who enjoyed MOS but I'm curious... if it was such a huge hit then why didn't it help make Superman popular again? Why hasn't Superman exploded in other forms of media?

Which superheroes do you think most kids will dress up as for halloween this year? Where do you think Superman will rank?

Surely a hit movie would cause a resurgence in the character right? Like we saw with Batman?

What is your explanation?

First, I'm not really that obsessed with box office, at least not like a lot of fans seem to be. As long as I love a movie, that's enough for me. Although I have to admit I'm glad MOS was a huge hit (Top 5 domestic for entire year, and Top 10 international, not too shabby) because I wanted to see this shared DC universe happen onscreen. So I'm thrilled MOS made that happen too. Way to go, Snyder and Cavill! t:

I should also point out that SM as a character wasn't even relevant anymore. MOS came not too long after the bland SM Returns, which I found almost unwatchable. So Warner Bros had an uphill climb promoting a character that many only yawned over. Obviously, they succeeded because Cavill wasn't replaced and they considered Cavill and the rebooted SM character strong enough to hold his own in a movie with Academy Award-winner Affleck and the consistently bankable and arguably most iconic superhero character of all time--Batman.

Even if you compare MOS to phase one Marvel films, MOS outdid Marvel, including both Hulks and the first Iron Man. So, a great kickoff to the DC Movieverse, relatively speaking. IMO, anyway.

As for Halloween costumes and your other questions, honestly I don't know what kids will be wearing this year. SM sure seems to be way more popular now than he was after SM Returns, so I guess at this point I'd say Snyder & Co did their job and stay tuned...

 

[Bwahaha!]

MOS was supposedly about having hope right? I mean that's what Superman is supposed to be right? A symbol of inspiration?

So I'm curious, in what way did Clark/Superman serve as an inspiration in MOS? In what way did that movie instill hope? In what way did the character triumph over fear and disbelief?

SM is a symbol of hope. Look, life is messy. MOS did not present a perfectly crafted Messiah Boy Scout who's able to snap his fingers and make everything all right and then wrap everything up in pretty bows and ribbons to boot. This Clark was on a journey of self-discovery, searching for his roots, trying to find himself, like every single person goes through on one level or another.

The message of hope for me was that you can go on that bumpy journey, discover some potentially very scary parts about yourself and come out the other end perhaps scathed but also changed...for the better.

SM's journey isn't over, either. After the events of MOS, he'll likely be haunted by Zod forcing his hand to kill, and will come up with a no-kill code and also become more skilled in using his powers and end up closer to what some fans apparently wanted from the first frame of MOS. If he'd been so perfect from the outset, where is the character arc? Where does the story go? The fact he is evolving, becoming the best version of himself is of course another reason to be inspired. If he can do it, maybe we can too.

Just know I'm writing these things through the lens of someone who isn't obsessively against superheroes killing supervillains, as long as certain conditions are met. The bottom line for me is SM didn't have a choice. If he'd been more sure of his powers, perhaps he could've manipulated the battle so that Zod never would've been in the position to viciously murder that defenseless family and other innocents. But again, Clark's on a journey, and part of that is refining his abilities so he can become the best SM possible. Watch this space.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

MoS was not a huge hit. It just wasn't. This kind of rationalization is just as silly and transparent as those that claim the movie was a bomb. Given all the (non-cherrypicked)factors, MoS was a modest success boxofficewise. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Marvin]

MoS was not a huge hit. It just wasn't. This kind of rationalization is just as silly and transparent as those that claim the movie was a bomb. Given all the (non-cherrypicked)factors, MoS was a modest success boxofficewise. Nothing more nothing less.

You're describing TMNT both in terms of reception, box office(see phase one films with similar) and more or less in terms of post release studio announcements. MOS wasn't some massive hit ala Hunger Games, but again compared to what I would personally define as modest.

Xmen First Class even. No.
But then again we need some definitions otherwise people can keep saying whatever they please.

How many non big ones can we name that have opened that much higher than 100mill(and I mean the films real number and not the muted botch job). I mean to imply opening with Mocking Jay like numbers doesn't happen that often for films that aren't considered some form of hit.

 

[Jekecy]

MoS was not a huge hit. It just wasn't. This kind of rationalization is just as silly and transparent as those that claim the movie was a bomb. Given all the (non-cherrypicked)factors, MoS was a modest success boxofficewise. Nothing more nothing less.

It did more than modest in the US. To keep things in perspective, the only Marvel films to have outgrossed MOS domestically are the IM trilogy, Avengers, and GoTG. Even the much beloved Winter Soldier and DoFP films this year, did not do as well as MOS in America.

It's the foreign performance that has been vastly disappointing, and thus taints the overall worldwide take.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Too bad MOS didn't come out during the China boom of this year. That probably would've helped it past $700 million.

 

[Masone]

MoS was not a huge hit. It just wasn't. This kind of rationalization is just as silly and transparent as those that claim the movie was a bomb. Given all the (non-cherrypicked)factors, MoS was a modest success boxofficewise. Nothing more nothing less.

Its sequel is looking to make a billion+, and MOS itself serves as ground zero for the entire DCCU, I'd say it was a massive success.

The only other CBM to hit a billion in its first sequel is The Dark Knight. I'd say WB is doing something right.

 

[jmc]

With respect to your opinion, that's a ridiculous assertion. Fact is, WB has hardly pushed this film at all. The most chatter comes from online fan websites, not WB representatives.

Like Batfleck said himself, the movie comes out in MARCH 2016!" WB isn't promoting this at all right now other than allowing Snyder to reveal things via Twitter.

EDIT: To add...want to see what happens when WB wants an audience to forget about a movie? See "Superman Returns" and "Green Lantern." One was rebooted 6 years later and the other is looking at 5 more years until rebooted. BVS is being handled completely opposite of that.

And what have WB done to remind people Superman is still in the movie?Everything about this movie has been pretty much Batman centric since day one, it's a classic marketing technique that if you have a product that didn't go over to well you don't focus on it when you try and sell your next one. They may not be actively promoting Batman as I originally said (which I admit was the wrong phrasing to use), but they're not doing much in regards to reminding people Superman is in the movie, and that's probably how they want it to be.

 

[jmc]

I have to agree theres a bias.

For example DC introduces WW into BVS and people call it overcrowded.Marvel introduces Panther into Ironman vs Captainamerica and its brilliant.

DC releases a Film slate and they say its rushed and meaningless.Marvel does the same and its brilliant and well planned.

Marvel releases AOU trailer that takes is darker,serious and has destruction.No one calls it a dreary,disater porn trailer.

Just random examples.

Now to be fair.This is justified bias looking at WB/DC trackrecord.But bias all the same

How the hell is it biased if it's justified? And to be honest as much crap as I've given Marvel with some of their films the truth is they've laid the groundwork for having a solid support base. I've resisted saying this for a while because I didn't know whether I believed it or not but after recent events Marvel have more or less become the Apple of the movie industry. WB isn't held to a different standard, but they are like Windows in that they are late to the game with what they do, and have the added difficulty of having established pop culture characters with history that are far longer than Marvel's to deal with. There is no bias, just one company doing things better than the other.

 

[Noctis]

Quick question: Man of Steel was able to cross the $500 million line in about 21 days of release with EXTREMELY high competition from both Monsters University and World War Z which knocked it down to 3rd place in its 2nd weekend, so my question is how well will BvS do with the following extra factors:

- BvS is releasing on Friday the 25th of march 2016 (Which is the 2016 Easter holiday) therefore freeing people up to go to the movies with their family and friends.

- practically SIX whole weeks of barely any major competition until CAP3 releases

- The added benefit of having Batman in the film since people are craving more of him since Nolan's TDK trilogy

- and finally the sheer hype surrounding this movie as proven by SDCC 2013 and 2014 nearly confirming it to have an insane Opening Weekend

So assuming that MOS's $500 million in 3 weeks is the bare minimum BvS will do in that same amount of time, how much box office do you guys think BvS will make in three weeks or less, since the Avengers set the record of joining the billion dollar club in just 19 days and Iron Man 3 in just 23 days, will set new records or at least come close? thx

 

[TheNextNolan22]

It's not out of the realm of possibility, especially if they go all-out on the marketing (which they probably will) AND if the movie delivers.

 

[fake]

Quick question: Man of Steel was able to cross the $500 million line in about 21 days of release with EXTREMELY high competition from both Monsters University and World War Z which knocked it down to 3rd place in its 2nd weekend, so my question is how well will BvS do with the following extra factors:

- BvS is releasing on Friday the 25th of march 2016 (Which is the 2016 Easter holiday) therefore freeing people up to go to the movies with their family and friends.

- practically SIX whole weeks of barely any major competition until CAP3 releases

- The added benefit of having Batman in the film since people are craving more of him since Nolan's TDK trilogy

- and finally the sheer hype surrounding this movie as proven by SDCC 2013 and 2014 nearly confirming it to have an insane Opening Weekend

So assuming that MOS's $500 million in 3 weeks is the bare minimum BvS will do in that same amount of time, how much box office do you guys think BvS will make in three weeks or less, since the Avengers set the record of joining the billion dollar club in just 19 days and Iron Man 3 in just 23 days, will set new records or at least come close? thx

Noctis, are you the same user from BOF?

I think WB will go for a WW rollout a week early in Europe and South America due to the Easter week holidays in those countries. So I see around 150-200M in the bag before it even releases in the US (more if the movie is really good and gets good word of mouth).

 

[Noctis]

True i heard somewhere that WB was gonna pump out 2 billion dollars a year in marketing alone

 

[Noctis]

nice, and dont think thats me lol

 

[Bwahaha!]

I guess success is all relative. If you compare MOS to The Dark Knight or Avengers box office, you could say MOS was a modest hit.

But again, contrasting MOS against every single other movie released the same year, MOS was Top 5 Domestic and Top 10 International.

Last time I checked, any movie cracking the Top 5 and Top 10 is most def considered a huge hit. I mean. Cmon, now. I'm not twisting the stats to make my case, I'm just stating what actually happened. Then, of course, by anyone's standards, it went on to become a huge hit on blu-ray.

 

[Marvin]

How the hell is it biased if it's justified? And to be honest as much crap as I've given Marvel with some of their films the truth is they've laid the groundwork for having a solid support base. I've resisted saying this for a while because I didn't know whether I believed it or not but after recent events Marvel have more or less become the Apple of the movie industry. WB isn't held to a different standard, but they are like Windows in that they are late to the game with what they do, and have the added difficulty of having established pop culture characters with history that are far longer than Marvel's to deal with. There is no bias, just one company doing things better than the other.

It's very simple. It would be like me saying this next windows OS has no chance against this next Mac OS. And then justifying it in a fashion similar to what you wrote above. "late to the game and pop culture..etc"
Bias is bias and is < objective "..."

And what have WB done to remind people Superman is still in the movie?Everything about this movie has been pretty much Batman centric since day one, it's a classic marketing technique that if you have a product that didn't go over to well you don't focus on it when you try and sell your next one. They may not be actively promoting Batman as I originally said (which I admit was the wrong phrasing to use), but they're not doing much in regards to reminding people Superman is in the movie, and that's probably how they want it to be.

You'll know, rather you'll have a far clearer palette when WB starts with the promotion. What you are doing now is comparable to suggesting the StarWars reboot have been favoring it's actual stars with it's 'promotion' and they haven't really given enough props to whomever(luke/Leia/Yoda) as to suggest they don't have any faith in the originals...The reality being, they haven't actually put out their focused marketing yet.

Who knows maybe they should have re announced Henry Cavill as Superman, just to avoid this accusation.

Last I checked they released a promo pic of the 3 costumed characters, and a closer first look of the car and cowl of the new character:
1)due to it being a change from previous continuity
2)getting a head of set photo leaks

Last I checked both characters names are in the title. As for this whole batman thing first(which people also like to insight here), the shorter name tends to always go before the longer one in story titles, syllables and all that. And having both names in the title is a no brainer business wise particularly in the case of overseas.

I just don't find how someone can look at everything Snyder put together at this years's comic con in terms of actors on stage and footage and then suggest "It's all been batman". I just find myself at a loss and curious as to what you actually mean by WB promoting batman more than superman? And please don't point to this save the bats thing.

 

[Marvin]

I guess success is all relative. If you compare MOS to The Dark Knight or Avengers box office, you could say MOS was a modest hit.

If you compare the box office of the three big marvel features from this year to TDK or Avengers you could also call them modest hits, but people don't. Yes it's all relative but it should at least be consistent. Can't always shift the goalpost depending on the point one wants to make.
I also think people need to decide if they want to focus on domestic or ww as the measure. That sort of thing also tends to get convenient.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

If you compare the box office of the three big marvel features from this year to TDK or Avengers you could also call them modest hits, but people don't. Yes it's all relative but it should at least be consistent. Can't always shift the goalpost depending on the point one wants to make.
I also think people need to decide if they want to focus on domestic or ww as the measure. That sort of thing also tends to get convenient.

I think MOS could've performed slightly better overseas. Because, considering how packed the rest of June was, and the mixed critical response, It making 291 million domestically is pretty damn good.

 

[jmc]

It's very simple. It would be like me saying this next windows OS has no chance against this next Mac OS. And then justifying it in a fashion similar to what you wrote above. "late to the game and pop culture..etc"
Bias is bias and is < objective "..."


You'll know, rather you'll have a far clearer palette when WB starts with the promotion. What you are doing now is comparable to suggesting the StarWars reboot have been favoring it's actual stars with it's 'promotion' and they haven't really given enough props to whomever(luke/Leia/Yoda) as to suggest they don't have any faith in the originals...The reality being, they haven't actually put out their focused marketing yet.

Who knows maybe they should have re announced Henry Cavill as Superman, just to avoid this accusation.

Last I checked they released a promo pic of the 3 costumed characters, and a closer first look of the car and cowl of the new character:
1)due to it being a change from previous continuity
2)getting a head of set photo leaks

Last I checked both characters names are in the title. As for this whole batman thing first(which people also like to insight here), the shorter name tends to always go before the longer one in story titles, syllables and all that. And having both names in the title is a no brainer business wise particularly in the case of overseas.

I just don't find how someone can look at everything Snyder put together at this years's comic con in terms of actors on stage and footage and then suggest "It's all been batman". I just find myself at a loss and curious as to what you actually mean by WB promoting batman more than superman? And please don't point to this save the bats thing.

No offence mate but can you really not see the lack of push with regards to Superman/Cavill in this film?