Box Office Predictions - Part 1

[GL's Light]

$50 million would be the domestic marketing costs. That's presumably why third3ye is estimating theatrical profitability against total costs as being slightly above the low to mid-400s, although how much marketing costs count against a movie for a multinational corporation where a lot of the marketing is in-house is an open question.

 

[culver3vlr22]

This should get a sequel easily now with it doing pretty good numbers.

Ppl get caught up comparing this to sequel films in phase 2. And in all honesty doc strange will probably not make huge numbers. I never use the term flop because I think marvel is far away from one. But doc strange and black panther and capt marvel won't make this much money they just won't superhero fatege is setting in and there is to much compition ant man got lucky with not much comic book compition yes it had a kids movie to go up against but Rudd got the 20somethings like myself to get all our buddy's and gfs up to go and it's making good money. God bless cummberbach but he won't have the pull that Rudd does maybe fanboys on the Internet but I know of zero ppl(my friends have seen trek and watched Sherlock) who know who the guy even is. This will get a sequel due to the fact I don't see any phase 3 film with a new character making money based on the actors they've picked. Bosemen will get the capt3 bump so that may help a lot.

 

[InCali]

This should get a sequel easily now with it doing pretty good numbers.

Ppl get caught up comparing this to sequel films in phase 2. And in all honesty doc strange will probably not make huge numbers. I never use the term flop because I think marvel is far away from one. But doc strange and black panther and capt marvel won't make this much money they just won't superhero fatege is setting in and there is to much compition ant man got lucky with not much comic book compition yes it had a kids movie to go up against but Rudd got the 20somethings like myself to get all our buddy's and gfs up to go and it's making good money. God bless cummberbach but he won't have the pull that Rudd does maybe fanboys on the Internet but I know of zero ppl(my friends have seen trek and watched Sherlock) who know who the guy even is. This will get a sequel due to the fact I don't see any phase 3 film with a new character making money based on the actors they've picked. Bosemen will get the capt3 bump so that may help a lot.

Maybe they are (getting fatigue), but I'm not too sure of it. I think what is happening is that people are looking for new and fresh. GotG came out of nowhere less than a year ago and put up huge numbers. After that, it was AoU and now Ant-Man. Get good scripts, good acting, good directing, and good promo and you can put up big numbers.

Marvel is putting out basically 2 per year. DC will be putting out 1 or 2 more and so will Fox. Fox, IMO, isn't going to do well with FF because it probably isn't going to be ultra compelling. I think Fox doesn't have long term legs for this genre. I don't think the field will be too crowded soon.

 

[GL's Light]

Fox has shown long-term legs for the genre with the X-Men franchise.

I think the market can sustain four or five big superhero movies per year. I'm not sure it can sustain the seven or eight per year, such as the studios collectively have lined up in 2016 and 2017, for too long.

 

[LucDisfilm19]

By this weekend, Ant-Man should be pushed past $300M WW with its release in an extra 7 new locations in Eastern Asia and South Africa. I still think it will reach $450M WW and will make enough money worldwide to push the MCU past $9B WW.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

By this weekend, Ant-Man should be pushed past $300M WW with its release in an extra 7 new locations in Eastern Asia and South Africa. I still think it will reach $450M WW and will make enough money worldwide to push the MCU past $9B WW.

That would be fantastic.

Fingers crossed.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Fox has shown long-term legs for the genre with the X-Men franchise.

I think the market can sustain four or five big superhero movies per year. I'm not sure it can sustain the seven or eight per year, such as the studios collectively have lined up in 2016 and 2017, for too long.

It wouldn't be the first time the studios had 4+ superhero movies each year.

 

[third3ye]

I'm not an expert, but from what I've been reading, that should be above break even.

Can you provide your calcs? I'm curious about that. Also, I think it will do better than that WW.

Just rough guesses - 45% studio take from theatrical (not a well known Marvel character, don't think Disney can get 50% here) and $80M global P&A. Wouldn't be surprised if they spent more than $80M on P&A though.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Just rough guesses - 45% studio take from theatrical (not a well known Marvel character, don't think Disney can get 50% here) and $80M global P&A. Wouldn't be surprised if they spent more than $80M on P&A though.

45%? Whaaaaaaa?

 

[GL's Light]

It wouldn't be the first time the studios had 4+ superhero movies each year.

Four or five big superhero films in any particular year has generally been the limit. There's never been seven to eight superhero films per year for multiple years in a row before. That's pushing the genre to new limits. And I'm talking specifically about superhero films, not all comic books films, many of which are non-superhero.

 

[GL's Light]

Just rough guesses - 45% studio take from theatrical (not a well known Marvel character, don't think Disney can get 50% here)

They'd get the standard 50-55% studio take domestically. The studio take of international box office usually averages about 40%.

 

[JtheDreamer]

They'd get the standard 50-55% studio take domestically. The studio take of international box office usually averages about 40%.

I've seen it reported higher than that for international these days.

 

[third3ye]

They'd get the standard 50-55% studio take domestically. The studio take of international box office usually averages about 40%.

Bingo.

Usually averages out to around 45%-50% global for a tentpole depending on how strong the franchise is, I picked the lower end.

 

[GL's Light]

I've seen it reported higher than that for international these days.

The percentage varies widely for different territories. The studio take in China is particularly low. I think 40%, maybe 45% at a push, is still the broad rule of thumb for international box office overall.

 

[third3ye]

I've seen it reported higher than that for international these days.

Averaging across all foreign territories or within specific territories? With China dragging down the IBO average I highly doubt it's materially higher than 40%.

 

[JKKS085]

It's lower than 40% internationally. Deadline publishes great breakdowns every year for tentpole films. I think the average is closer to 35% after expenses in OS territories and around 20% for China.

One thing though the average domestic return for Disney films (those distributed via Buena Vista) are usually in the 55% range or higher if I recall correctly even on lesser known IPs.

 

[GL's Light]

Just had a look at Deadline's 2014 breakdown and foreign rentals (excluding China) are generally 38.5% to 40% of foreign box office.

 

[LucDisfilm19]

My prediction for Ant-Man's final WW gross: $160M domestically and $285M overseas, resulting in $445M WW for Ant-Man.

 

[InCali]

Fox has shown long-term legs for the genre with the X-Men franchise.

I think the market can sustain four or five big superhero movies per year. I'm not sure it can sustain the seven or eight per year, such as the studios collectively have lined up in 2016 and 2017, for too long.

Here's a little more detail as to why I don't like Fox's chances to have legs in this genre. FF is obvious. If this movie doesn't do well, that franchise is basically kaput for Fox (IMO).

X-Men is more interesting, but, think about this. It's true they've had some success with X-Men (but not to the extent that Marvel has had success in Superhero movies), but the current cast is basically winding down (there are exceptions of course). The big question about the X-Men's future is Wolverine. In my mind, there is no question whatsoever that Hugh Jackman has been the rock upon which X-Men flourished. When he goes, then what? I'm NOT saying X-Men will wither and die without him, but that possibility IS there. Fox has a very, very limited universe to work within. Marvel does not.

Can Fox pull it off with X-Men for another 5-10 years? Maybe. Maybe not. The uncertainty about how cast changes will affect the franchise and the relatively narrow scope of characters Fox has to work with make me wonder about their chances. There are other characters. That is true, but, to me, there's much more uncertainty with regard to comic book heroes at Fox than at Marvel.

My two cents.

 

[InCali]

My prediction for Ant-Man's final WW gross: $160M domestically and $285M overseas, resulting in $445M WW for Ant-Man.

Right now it's at 120M OS. I'm not sure where it still hasn't opened, but how (more or less) would you break it down to end at 285M? 160M DOM sounds about right. It might even go a little bit higher. We'll know more after this weekend.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

Right now it's at 120M OS. I'm not sure where it still hasn't opened, but how (more or less) would you break it down to end at 285M? 160M DOM sounds about right. It might even go a little bit higher. We'll know more after this weekend.

Italy, Korea, Japan and China.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Yup, those are the biggies remaining. There's also Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Lebanon, Latvia, South Africa, Mongolia, Austria and Greece, per IMDb.

 

[metaphysician]

*cough* Something to remember is, when estimating break even points? Be careful not to accidentally double stack. When studios talk about only get X percent overseas, part of that reduced percentage is because of local subsidiaries spending money on. . . overseas distribution and marketing. So, that "40% overseas" revenue figure is already accounting for overseas marketing. You don't also add X million to the expenses column.

Really, its best to just ignore marketing costs, unless there's some reason to believe they are unusually high ( TASM 2 ). Half of them are funny money transfers between corporate divisions, or contract barter between companies with no cash changing hands; the other half are typically balanced out by tax breaks and product placement.

 

[InCali]

*cough* Something to remember is, when estimating break even points? Be careful not to accidentally double stack. When studios talk about only get X percent overseas, part of that reduced percentage is because of local subsidiaries spending money on. . . overseas distribution and marketing. So, that "40% overseas" revenue figure is already accounting for overseas marketing. You don't also add X million to the expenses column.

Really, its best to just ignore marketing costs, unless there's some reason to believe they are unusually high ( TASM 2 ). Half of them are funny money transfers between corporate divisions, or contract barter between companies with no cash changing hands; the other half are typically balanced out by tax breaks and product placement.

Hmmmm.....that's interesting. So they use a slightly different way of calculating percentages for OS and DOM (or we do.....)? The other thing that someone pointed out is that Disney is often paying itself to do some of the work. That's not a real (full) cost for the company unless it causes them lose out on other work......something I highly doubt. The infrastructure is already there and is basically an ongoing cost to the company anyway.

The bottom line is that I'm sure Marvel/Disney is quite happy with Ant-Man. They made a very enjoyable movie that only strengthened their brand, probably made some money, kept their people in other areas busy, and helped set the stage for future movies.

Sounds like a better scenario than what Fox is probably in with FF.

 

[Tymminator]

*cough* Something to remember is, when estimating break even points? Be careful not to accidentally double stack. When studios talk about only get X percent overseas, part of that reduced percentage is because of local subsidiaries spending money on. . . overseas distribution and marketing. So, that "40% overseas" revenue figure is already accounting for overseas marketing. You don't also add X million to the expenses column.

Really, its best to just ignore marketing costs, unless there's some reason to believe they are unusually high ( TASM 2 ). Half of them are funny money transfers between corporate divisions, or contract barter between companies with no cash changing hands; the other half are typically balanced out by tax breaks and product placement.