Box Office Numbers (& Competition)

[GL's Light]

The profit should be determined by the quality of the film, not marketing or budget. I'm sick of studios playing it safe at the expense of greatness. And it should be a huge epic that spares no expense and treats the source material with uttmost respect above all.

You're often more likely to get a great film if you have a relatively modest budget with a good, smart director at the helm with creative freedom than if there's a huge budget. Huge budgets make studios nervous and when they get nervous they often impose restrictions on filmmakers which dumb films down so that they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I'd rather see comic book films with limited budgets that are very strong on character and story and where the director is skilled enough to stretch his budget to make the film visually appealing than have a hack director turn in a pumped up CGI fest.

Of course the best scenario is to have a studio with the balls and vision to put a lot of money behind a director with the right vision, but even so we have to recognize that not every character and concept can deliver on a massive budget. Some things are esoteric by their nature.

 

[The Kid]

You're often more likely to get a great film if you have a relatively modest budget with a good, smart director at the helm with creative freedom than if there's a huge budget. Huge budgets make studios nervous and when they get nervous they often impose restrictions on filmmakers which dumb films down so that they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I'd rather see comic book films with limited budgets that are very strong on character and story and where the director is skilled enough to stretch his budget to make the film visually appealing than have a hack director turn in a pumped up CGI fest.

Of course the best scenario is to have a studio with the balls and vision to put a lot of money behind a director with the right vision, but even so we have to recognize that not every character and concept can deliver on a massive budget. Some things are esoteric by their nature.

Maybe that's true of the non-cgi era of filmmaking, but nowadays even small budget films can afford to have epic visuals in them thanks to computer technology. Thats why I don't really think a small budget would matter in terms of how much freedom a director feels they'd have unless it was ridiculously small budget, but even then a kid at his computer and enough free time could make a film with better fx than most cgi movies these days using off the shelf software. So still, in my mind, the budget doesn't seem like too large an issue except for who gets cast and the amount of crazy cool action that will be in the film.

And balls is exactly what Wonder woman needs behind her for this film to kick ass. I agree. Whoever's in charge of this needs to be confident and try to capture wonder woman the way she deserves be captured on film, hopefully with that magic lasso.

Seriously though, all I think WW really needs is someone at the helm who has the conviction to do the character justice in the best way possible than just pull a profit from a famous name. If a large budget it required to accomplish that, that's definitely where the balls element comes into play for sure...

 

[highguard]

Daredevil grossed 2.3X its production budget. Ghost Rider would have to gross over $ 270 million worldwide to equal that return, which is unlikely. Daredevil was a much more solid hit than people give it credit for.

Too true, too true.

 

[Tony Stark]

I liked ya till this comment. t: J/K. Ghost Rider is head and shoulders above Daredevil. The biggest problem with DD was Ben Afflack. Cage did a good job, with a difficult charactor. The supporting cast left much to be desired, but I enjoyed Ghost Rider. Watching Daredevil, was worse then root canal.

I agree with you. I didn't like Affleck as DD at all. I can't put my finger on it, but he just felt wrong.

They changed the Elektra character from the comics so much, that I didn't mind Garner, although if they wanted to stay true to the character, they should have chosen someone with more edge, like Millia Joviavich (sp?).

 

[highguard]

.. but even then a kid at his computer and enough free time could make a film with better fx than most cgi movies these days using off the shelf software.

Always sounds that way, and they are a few kids like that out there, met one of them a few years ago in a graduate class he was auditing, 12 years old.

However kids like that are one in a million bud.

Its not as easy as everyone thinks.

 

[Tony Stark]

You're often more likely to get a great film if you have a relatively modest budget with a good, smart director at the helm with creative freedom than if there's a huge budget. Huge budgets make studios nervous and when they get nervous they often impose restrictions on filmmakers which dumb films down so that they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I'd rather see comic book films with limited budgets that are very strong on character and story and where the director is skilled enough to stretch his budget to make the film visually appealing than have a hack director turn in a pumped up CGI fest.

Of course the best scenario is to have a studio with the balls and vision to put a lot of money behind a director with the right vision, but even so we have to recognize that not every character and concept can deliver on a massive budget. Some things are esoteric by their nature.

100 million dollar budget today is like a 50 million dollar budget 20-30 years ago.

By nature Superhero movies are going to have to spend money on effects, as it should be.

The goal of a superhero movie to me is to feel like the comic book comes alive on the screen. Donner did it with Superman, Burton and Nolan did it with Batman, Raimi did it with Spider-man.

Now I'm all for using practicle effects when they can be. One of the great things about Spider-man 2, was so many of Doc Ocs scenes were made with a puppeteers controlling real tentacles. For example the scene were 2 of his tentacles are welding material together, and the other two are lighting up a cigar for him.

The best Superhero movies use a combination of practicle effects and CGI.

 

[Kasady]

I agree with you. I didn't like Affleck as DD at all. I can't put my finger on it, but he just felt wrong.

They changed the Elektra character from the comics so much, that I didn't mind Garner, although if they wanted to stay true to the character, they should have chosen someone with more edge, like Millia Joviavich (sp?).

Each time I watched DD I liked it more. Then when the DD DC came out I liked it even more. I hope the same thing happens each time I see Ghostrider.

 

[Carp Man]

and again.

 

[Carp Man]

ditto.

 

[Carp Man]

triple post.

 

[Carp Man]

Domestic #'s are still estimates, but the overseas #'s are updated thru the 18th. 16.6 million. Biggest overseas opening was Russia, 3.6 million. Spain 3 million.

 

[GL's Light]

What what what what, Carp Carp Carp Carp? t:

 

[Carp Man]

What what what what, Carp Carp Carp Carp? t:

I push the button once and it takes 5 minutes to post. lol

 

[explode7]

Sooooooo any sequel news?

 

[Advanced Dark]

Earnings on the 26th for Marvel though this is a Sony film...we'll see.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Domestic #'s are still estimates, but the overseas #'s are updated thru the 18th. 16.6 million. Biggest overseas opening was Russia, 3.6 million. Spain 3 million.

Anyone know how those openings compare to: Hulk, Fantastic Four, & Daredevil?

It'd be interesting to find out how those 3 movies opened in the same market to give us a measuring stick.

This is all I could find:

Full Edition-

Many people will blame the war in Iraq as the biggest cause of the foreign box office drought, but more likely it's the complete lack of movies that everybody can generally agree are good. However, in Asia SARS is to blame for extremely low numbers. This weekend was another sign of box office decay. Daredevil was the No. 1 movie, but with just $7.7m. Oscar appeal has begun to dwindle and studios seem reluctant to release anything worthy of praise especially in the case of the U.K. where Shanghai Knights, A Man Apart, and Blue Crush opened at No. 2, 3, and 4, yet the total top 15 box office sagged down another percent (now at a yearly low of $7.4m). Thanks to U.S. studios releasing poor showing films local titles have secured ranks among their respective markets as in the case of Goodbye, Lenin!, Chouchou, and El Oro de Moscu.

As stated above Daredevil was the No. 1 movie grossing just $7.7m on 4,337 screens in 43 territories pushing its total to $55.8m. Daredevil had a very good debut in Italy, entering at No. 1 taking in $1.3m on 249 screens while in Japan it placed second to The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers with $1.6m on 354 screens. The film also opened in pole position in Colombia, New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Actuals in!!! Yep up a bit over 52 like I thought!!!

1 N Ghost Rider Sony $52,022,908 - 3,619 - $14,374 $52,022,908 $110 1

Source: Box Office Mojo!

Daredevil in it's second weekend was #1 & made over 18 million down 55% and,

in it's 3rd weekend scored just over 11 million down like 38%

I say Ghost Rider brings in 20-23 million this weekend and possibly retains #1.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Actuals in!!! Yep up a bit over 52 like I thought!!!

1 N Ghost Rider Sony $52,022,908 - 3,619 - $14,374 $52,022,908 $110 1

Source: Box Office Mojo!

Daredevil in it's second weekend was #1 & made over 18 million down 55% and,

in it's 3rd weekend scored just over 11 million down like 38%

I say Ghost Rider brings in 20-23 million this weekend and possibly retains #1.

That sounds like a reasonable prediction.

 

[Theweepeople]

Thank You. Doesnt it get tiresome explaining these facts over and over again to people who dont have a clue?

Explaining what facts? If you are so confident about what you believe then could you explain why theatrical sequels weren't made for the following films after favorable foreign and worldwide grosses? Just in case you haven't done your research like I have sequels were planned for all of these films. Also, Batman Begins and The Incredible Hulk(2008) are not sequels because the movies have nothing to do with the storylines of Hulk/Batman and Robin.


Lost in space Budget(80mil) worldwide gross(136mil)
Van Helsing Budget(160mil) worldwide gross(300mil)
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Budget(78mil) worldwide gross(179mil)
Godzilla Budget(130mil) worldwide gross(379mil)
Constantine Budget(100mil) worldwide gross(230mil)
Elektra Budget(43mil) worldwide gross(56mil)
Daredevil Budget(78mil) worldwide gross(179mil)
The Hulk Budget(137mil) worldwide gross(245)
Batman and Robin(125mil) worldwide gross(238mil)
Men in black 2 budget(140mil) worldwide gross(441mil)
Spawn Budget(40mil) worldwide gross(87mil)
Star Ship Troopers Budget(105mil) worldwide gross(121mil)
Jurassic Park 3 Budget(93mil) worldwide gross(368mil)
The Punisher Budget(33mil) worldwide gross(54mil)

Starship Troopers had a sequel that went directly to video so it doesn't count.

 

[GL's Light]

Explaining what facts? If you are so confident about what you believe then could you explain why theatrical sequels weren't made for the following films after favorable foreign and worldwide grosses? Just in case you haven't done your research like I have sequels were planned for all of these films. Also, Batman Begins and The Incredible Hulk(2008) are not sequels because the movies have nothing to do with the storylines of Hulk/Batman and Robin.


Lost in space Budget(80mil) worldwide gross(136mil)
Van Helsing Budget(160mil) worldwide gross(300mil)
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Budget(78mil) worldwide gross(179mil)
Godzilla Budget(130mil) worldwide gross(379mil)
Constantine Budget(100mil) worldwide gross(230mil)
Elektra Budget(43mil) worldwide gross(56mil)
Daredevil Budget(78mil) worldwide gross(179mil)
The Hulk Budget(137mil) worldwide gross(245)
Batman and Robin(125mil) worldwide gross(238mil)
Men in black 2 budget(140mil) worldwide gross(441mil)
Spawn Budget(40mil) worldwide gross(87mil)
Star Ship Troopers Budget(105mil) worldwide gross(121mil)
Jurassic Park 3 Budget(93mil) worldwide gross(368mil)
The Punisher Budget(33mil) worldwide gross(54mil)

Starship Troopers had a sequel that went directly to video so it doesn't count.

There's a big difference between turning a profit and making enough profit that a studio is willing to take on the financial risk of a sequel. Sequels are almost always more expensive and certainly aren't guaranteed to see an increase in box office over the preceding film, so if a film only has marginal profits it doesn't really make sense to greenlight a sequel in most circumstances.

As I stated earlier in the thread, observation of which films get fast tracked sequels reveals that a return of about 2.4 or 2.5X production budget is the line which pretty much guarantees a quick sequel. The lower a film falls below that level of return the dicier its chances of a sequel become.

Let's have a look at your list:

Lost in Space, Van Helsing, Elektra, Hulk, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Starship Troopers, and The Punisher all grossed less than 2X their production budgets putting them into the category where a theatrical sequel is not to be expected under most circumstances. A Punisher sequel may happen (although it's being delayed and delayed and delayed) because the budget level is so low that a sequel doesn't carry much risk when the DVD sales of the first film are taken into account.

LXG, Daredevil, and Constantine all grossed around 2.3X their production budgets, just below that slam dunk sequel level, but solid moneymakers nonetheless. LXG and Daredevil likely would have had sequels had it not been for their main stars (Connery went into retirement and Affleck wavered on a sequel and then went through a career dip). Constantine 2 is still being kicked back and forth and is likely dependent on the studio and Keanu Reeves striking a financial deal that they can both live with.

Jurassic Park III had a great return on investment (although not as spectacular as that of the two Spielberg-directed JP films) and Jurassic Park IV is in development.

Men in Black II also grossed much more than its production budget, and usually we would've seen another sequel, but here the situation was complicated by the fact that Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, and Barry Sonnenfeld had such incredibly rich participation deals that the studio ended up seeing realtively little profit. Hence, no Men in Black III.

Godzilla actually had a good return because of the strength of its foreign box office, but I guess the studio felt it was one of those films that lots of people saw but few really liked and a sequel was likely to do substantially worse.

 

[Warhammer]

I was off on the B.O. by 10 million.
I'm glad to see Ghost Rider doing well.

 

[FlameHead]

Actuals in!!! Yep up a bit over 52 like I thought!!!

1 N Ghost Rider Sony $52,022,908 - 3,619 - $14,374 $52,022,908 $110 1

Source: Box Office Mojo!

Freakin' awesome!

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Ok,lets have some real numbers.I read in a previous post that the budget for GR was 120 million,i think the movie needs to make more than 120 million to really be called a success.How much money has been made so far,and what do some expect to see?I dont see it going that far along the line.

 

[Theweepeople]

There's a big difference between turning a profit and making enough profit that a studio is willing to take on the financial risk of a sequel. Sequels are almost always more expensive and certainly aren't guaranteed to see an increase in box office over the preceding film, so if a film only has marginal profits it doesn't really make sense to greenlight a sequel in most circumstances.

As I stated earlier in the thread, observation of which films get fast tracked sequels reveals that a return of about 2.4 or 2.5X production budget is the line which pretty much guarantees a quick sequel. The lower a film falls below that level of return the dicier its chances of a sequel become.

Let's have a look at your list:

Lost in Space, Van Helsing, Elektra, Hulk, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Starship Troopers, and The Punisher all grossed less than 2X their production budgets putting them into the category where a theatrical sequel is not to be expected under most circumstances. A Punisher sequel may happen (although it's being delayed and delayed and delayed) because the budget level is so low that a sequel doesn't carry much risk when the DVD sales of the first film are taken into account.

LXG, Daredevil, and Constantine all grossed around 2.3X their production budgets, just below that slam dunk sequel level, but solid moneymakers nonetheless. LXG and Daredevil likely would have had sequels had it not been for their main stars (Connery went into retirement and Affleck wavered on a sequel and then went through a career dip). Constantine 2 is still being kicked back and forth and is likely dependent on the studio and Keanu Reeves striking a financial deal that they can both live with.

Jurassic Park III had a great return on investment (although not as spectacular as that of the two Spielberg-directed JP films) and Jurassic Park IV is in development.

Men in Black II also grossed much more than its production budget, and usually we would've seen another sequel, but here the situation was complicated by the fact that Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, and Barry Sonnenfeld had such incredibly rich participation deals that the studio ended up seeing realtively little profit. Hence, no Men in Black III.

Godzilla actually had a good return because of the strength of its foreign box office, but I guess the studio felt it was one of those films that lots of people saw but few really liked and a sequel was likely to do substantially worse.

Good post. You basically explained what I already knew. I'm convinced a GR sequel won't be made because it's budget(120mil) is too high. Even when the worldwide gross makes it somewhat profitable there still won't be enough justification to make a sequel because many comic book fans are disatisfied with this movie and won't spend money on a sequel. So far all of my comic book friends who've seen GR thought it was disappointing.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

There's a big difference between turning a profit and making enough profit that a studio is willing to take on the financial risk of a sequel. Sequels are almost always more expensive and certainly aren't guaranteed to see an increase in box office over the preceding film, so if a film only has marginal profits it doesn't really make sense to greenlight a sequel in most circumstances.

As I stated earlier in the thread, observation of which films get fast tracked sequels reveals that a return of about 2.4 or 2.5X production budget is the line which pretty much guarantees a quick sequel. The lower a film falls below that level of return the dicier its chances of a sequel become.

Let's have a look at your list:

Lost in Space, Van Helsing, Elektra, Hulk, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Starship Troopers, and The Punisher all grossed less than 2X their production budgets putting them into the category where a theatrical sequel is not to be expected under most circumstances. A Punisher sequel may happen (although it's being delayed and delayed and delayed) because the budget level is so low that a sequel doesn't carry much risk when the DVD sales of the first film are taken into account.

LXG, Daredevil, and Constantine all grossed around 2.3X their production budgets, just below that slam dunk sequel level, but solid moneymakers nonetheless. LXG and Daredevil likely would have had sequels had it not been for their main stars (Connery went into retirement and Affleck wavered on a sequel and then went through a career dip). Constantine 2 is still being kicked back and forth and is likely dependent on the studio and Keanu Reeves striking a financial deal that they can both live with.

Jurassic Park III had a great return on investment (although not as spectacular as that of the two Spielberg-directed JP films) and Jurassic Park IV is in development.

Men in Black II also grossed much more than its production budget, and usually we would've seen another sequel, but here the situation was complicated by the fact that Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, and Barry Sonnenfeld had such incredibly rich participation deals that the studio ended up seeing realtively little profit. Hence, no Men in Black III.

Godzilla actually had a good return because of the strength of its foreign box office, but I guess the studio felt it was one of those films that lots of people saw but few really liked and a sequel was likely to do substantially worse.

Summed up nicely GL. Thanks.