Dr Strange box office prediction thread

[JOE]

The MCU is now big enough to not worry about Box office results of the solo movies, as long as it is good and breaks even

I would rather have a great Strange movie doing 450 than an average one doing 750

Well, they still do have to worry in some sense.

The budget for this film is $165 million, if it makes somewhere in the 500 millions it will likely clear $200M + of profit.

That same $165M could be spent towards somewhere else turning an even larger profit for them when put up against the likes of Captain America, Iron-Man, or Avengers movies.

It's not about guaranteeing profit and moving on, it's about maximizing profit in a period of time at 2-3 movies per year.

 

[idiot09]

I would rather have a great Strange movie doing 450 than an average one doing 750

Was the shade throwing really necessary here?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

How much would you say it needs to make to get a sequel?

It will get a sequel no matter what unless it is a spectacular bomb and it sure as hell ain't gonna be a spectacular or any kind of bomb or even a disappointment at the BO. It'll do crazy numbers in the foreign markets and that alone should make DS a huge hit.

Now to kill time,

CA:TFA made 176.5 million on a budget of 140 million,
Thor made 180 million on a budget of 150 million,
Ant-Man made 180 million on a budget of 140 million.

Doctor Strange will need around 205-210 million to be at least in that same level as that of the previous 3 origin movies.

 

[idiot09]

Well, they still do have to worry in some sense.

The budget for this film is $165 million, if it makes somewhere in the 500 millions it will likely clear $200M + of profit.

Well I'm not so sure. Considering it has a budget of $165M(I read on wikipedia that the film that was going to be made on 2005 had a budget of 165M so probably now it has a much higher budget, but I'll let that slide for now) and a modest marketing budget of $115M then its budget will be $280M. And its break even will be somewhere around $560M. There is no way it makes $500M and clears a profit of $200M on BO alone. If it makes around $550M+ it breaks even for Disney, and if its above $600M then its very good and comfortable for them. Thats my amateur analysis.

 

[JOE]

Well I'm not so sure. Considering it has a budget of $165M(I read on wikipedia that the film that was going to be made on 2005 had a budget of 165M so probably now it has a much higher budget, but I'll let that slide for now) and a modest marketing budget of $115M then its budget will be $280M. And its break even will be somewhere around $560M. There is no way it makes $500M and clears a profit of $200M on BO alone. If it makes around $550M+ it breaks even for Disney, and if its above $600M then its very good and comfortable for them. Thats my amateur analysis.

I had given it a 135M cushion, I guess that was too light? I find it hard to believe that the budget is actually double of what they suggest? Seems skewed. You may be right, but I still think 500M and above they're making at least 50-100M clean. That's my even more amateur analysis, lol!

 

[idiot09]

I had given it a 135M cushion, I guess that was too light? I find it hard to believe that the budget is actually double of what they suggest? Seems skewed. You may be right, but I still think 500M and above they're making at least 50-100M clean. That's my even more amateur analysis, lol!

No man, what Im saying is the studio nets around 50% of its ticket sales sum, so if a movie makes $500M, the studio gets around $250M(its a rough estimate since the percentage netted is different internationally and domestically. Domestically it gets around 50% and internationally around 40%. But as a rule of thumb most take 50%). So if Dr. Strange has a total budget(shooting+marketing) of around $280M it needs to make near $560M to break even. Atleast thats what I know. If I'm saying anything wrong, someone please correct me.

Regardless, I think Dr Strange is poised to do well, and based on nothing, I have a feeling it should make more than $600M.

 

[fancyarcher]

I'd assume that making over 500m WW would make ensure that's a sequel gets greenlit, and I can't see Doctor Strange making less then Ant-Man, so I'm pretty positive will get a Doctor Strange 2.

 

[seriesofdreams]

I'm going with $600 million on this one. Hoping for anywhere between $200m-$225m domestic and $375+ worldwide. Hopefully this opens big everywhere else. There is a lot of competition for DS.

Ant-Man didn't have to contend with steep competition that DS does, but I still feel that it will do well. Fantastic Beast will definitely take a big chunk out of DS' DOM during it's third weekend.

 

[Ozbridge]

After seeing the movie I'll be surprised if it makes more than Ant Man number.

Just to clarify: I meant I would be surprised if Strange made more money than Ant-Man worldwide.

 

[ImSGirl95]

Just to clarify: I meant I would be surprised if Strange made more money than Ant-Man worldwide.

Yeah ... and I think that's why nobody replied to you t:

 

[Ozbridge]

Yeah ... and I think that's why nobody replied to you t:

I don't need anyone to reply to me? Just file receipt so I can prove whether I'm right or wrong later.

 

[kedrell]

No man, what Im saying is the studio nets around 50% of its ticket sales sum, so if a movie makes $500M, the studio gets around $250M(its a rough estimate since the percentage netted is different internationally and domestically. Domestically it gets around 50% and internationally around 40%. But as a rule of thumb most take 50%). So if Dr. Strange has a total budget(shooting+marketing) of around $280M it needs to make near $560M to break even. Atleast thats what I know. If I'm saying anything wrong, someone please correct me.

Regardless, I think Dr Strange is poised to do well, and based on nothing, I have a feeling it should make more than $600M.

Actually bigger studios with more proven franchises can negotiate better terms than that. And Disney is the biggest there is and the MCU is the biggest franchise in movie history. I've heard John Campea(who is more in the know than we are regarding the movie industry) say those big boys keep 2/3 of the ticket sales and the theaters keep 1/3. There's also a sliding scale aspect to it where the studios keep around 100% of the sales for the first week or two(not sure which it is and it likely varies from company to company) and then the exhibitors earn a growing percentage with each subsequent week after that but it ultimately works out to where they end up with 1/3 of the total money collected.

Hollywood math and accounting has always been notoriously complex. The best way of deciding whether a movie is successful or not still remains the 2X of the production budget rule, at least where we don't have reliable reports of where they overspent on marketing(like BvS, TASM2, Suicide Squad, Green Lantern, etc.). There are no reports of them overspending on the marketing for DS. The MCU movies never get overspent on with marketing. Marvel's frugality is a saving grace in that regard. WB on the other hand seems much more spendthrift and that works against them(BvS supposedly cost $500m after production and marketing were combined. SS maybe $400m. Most non-Avengers MCU films seem to keep the total amount to around $250m). Sony likewise was spendthrift with the Spider-man marketing. FOX is somewhere in the middle.

So DS has a $165m production budget. That means that a bare bones, no frills break even point where the studio loses no money theatrically from this is a WW total of $330m. Now that is not enough to justify a sequel(they are in this business to turn a profit after all). Sequel-worthy from a pure $ perspective(there are other factors to consider beyond that but I won't get into that here) is probably 2.5X the production budget or better which for DS would require a minimum of $415m WW or so to reach that. But then there's perception to factor in as those phase 1 movies which did this kind of business were doing so at a time that Marvel Studios was still proving itself and the MCU was not yet the biggest thing ever. DS doesn't have that advantage. The expectations for an MCU film have risen. Hard to say where that puts the bar for DS today but I'll say it better at least equal Ant-Man's WW total.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't think any theater allows for a 100 percent split back to the studio. I think sometimes they can negotiate bigger splits. However, if a studio wants a film to stay in theaters longer, they have to offer theaters a bigger cut because the bigger theaters are ready to move the old stuff out.

 

[kedrell]

I heard that especially for big movies like this and especially in the 1st week of release, the studio gets almost all of the money from ticket sales. Then it decreases in subsequent weeks. Maybe it was just the opening weekend money. I dunno, I only heard about that in passing.

 

[JKKS085]

In average studios get around 55% dom, 40% os and 20% in China. And based on more detailed profitability reports Marvel movies follow that trend closely.
When it comes to P&A now although Marvel usually keeps its budgets in check they are still within industry standards. They reportedly spent 120M on Ant-Man and 180M on Age of Ultron. If the 165M budget for Strange is to be trusted and given the magnitude of the marketing campaign it's likely that they spent north of 140M on P&A. That would put the total budget for the film (production + releasing costs) well over the 300M mark.
Based on those numbers and if we set aside ancillary markets revenues, the film needs to gross around 650M to break even with a "normal" split between dom and os numbers.

 

[idiot09]

Edit

 

[idiot09]

In average studios get around 55% dom, 40% os and 20% in China. And based on more detailed profitability reports Marvel movies follow that trend closely.
When it comes to P&A now although Marvel usually keeps its budgets in check they are still within industry standards. They reportedly spent 120M on Ant-Man and 180M on Age of Ultron. If the 165M budget for Strange is to be trusted and given the magnitude of the marketing campaign it's likely that they spent north of 140M on P&A. That would put the total budget for the film (production + releasing costs) well over the 300M mark.
Based on those numbers and if we set aside ancillary markets revenues, the film needs to gross around 650M to break even with a "normal" split between dom and os numbers.

Yep.Thats what I was saying.However I think you have inflated the marketing costs a bit and I think the break even is closer to 600M.

Actually bigger studios with more proven franchises can negotiate better terms than that. And Disney is the biggest there is and the MCU is the biggest franchise in movie history. I've heard John Campea(who is more in the know than we are regarding the movie industry) say those big boys keep 2/3 of the ticket sales and the theaters keep 1/3. There's also a sliding scale aspect to it where the studios keep around 100% of the sales for the first week or two(not sure which it is and it likely varies from company to company) and then the exhibitors earn a growing percentage with each subsequent week after that but it ultimately works out to where they end up with 1/3 of the total money collected.

Hollywood math and accounting has always been notoriously complex. The best way of deciding whether a movie is successful or not still remains the 2X of the production budget rule, at least where we don't have reliable reports of where they overspent on marketing(like BvS, TASM2, Suicide Squad, Green Lantern, etc.). There are no reports of them overspending on the marketing for DS. The MCU movies never get overspent on with marketing. Marvel's frugality is a saving grace in that regard. WB on the other hand seems much more spendthrift and that works against them(BvS supposedly cost $500m after production and marketing were combined. SS maybe $400m. Most non-Avengers MCU films seem to keep the total amount to around $250m). Sony likewise was spendthrift with the Spider-man marketing. FOX is somewhere in the middle.

So DS has a $165m production budget. That means that a bare bones, no frills break even point where the studio loses no money theatrically from this is a WW total of $330m. Now that is not enough to justify a sequel(they are in this business to turn a profit after all). Sequel-worthy from a pure $ perspective(there are other factors to consider beyond that but I won't get into that here) is probably 2.5X the production budget or better which for DS would require a minimum of $415m WW or so to reach that. But then there's perception to factor in as those phase 1 movies which did this kind of business were doing so at a time that Marvel Studios was still proving itself and the MCU was not yet the biggest thing ever. DS doesn't have that advantage. The expectations for an MCU film have risen. Hard to say where that puts the bar for DS today but I'll say it better at least equal Ant-Man's WW total.

A.BvS had a rough total budget around 400M and SS around 300M according to industry estimates.

B.I don't know how much Disney negotiate s with the cinema chains, so like you said a safe bet is the 2x multiplier.

C.You have not included the Marketing budget in your DS estimate.Even if we take a conservative estimate of around 115mil, the total cost of the movie rises to around 280M making the break even point around ~$560M.And that's a very conservative estimate while the break even point could actually be closer to 600M.Regardless, there is no possible scenario that this movie makes less than 500M imho and I see it making something close to 600.However if it makes less than 500 it would be a financial disappointment.However I don't think it will be.Regardless I do think we will get a sequel no matter what the BO is.

 

[Adder]

i doubt DS will do as well as antman. i hope i'm wrong though.

 

[JKKS085]

Yep.Thats what I was saying.However I think you have inflated the marketing costs a bit and I think the break even is closer to 600M.

Maybe. That was just a rough estimate based on what Marvel spent on previous movies. I figured since its production budget is close to TDW their releasing costs should be on par with each other.

 

[idiot09]

Maybe. That was just a rough estimate based on what Marvel spent on previous movies. I figured since its production budget is close to TDW their releasing costs should be on par with each other.

Yeah I just kept it on the down side because :

a.im giving Disney the benefit of the doubt and don't want to be overly negative
b.There is not much promotion in my country

Both terrible reasons :P

 

[JtheDreamer]

So DS has a $165m production budget. That means that a bare bones, no frills break even point where the studio loses no money theatrically from this is a WW total of $330m.

Not a chance in hell. Those numbers are off big time - even with the negotiating power of Disney.

 

[InCali]

A fair amount of the Disney "costs" are charged by Disney to Disney. They have subsidiaries up the wazoo. Sure, it still costs money, but it's different when you pay in house than to a separate company. From the overall perspective, the expense equals the income.

 

[metaphysician]

A fair amount of the Disney "costs" are charged by Disney to Disney. They have subsidiaries up the wazoo. Sure, it still costs money, but it's different when you pay in house than to a separate company. From the overall perspective, the expense equals the income.

Yep. Its part of why you really shouldn't pay too much attention to marketing costs, unless there's reason to believe they are unusually high. Production costs are real money, cash paid out in actors' salaries and set building and whatnot. Marketing costs tend to be where all the funny money happens, like money shuffled from one branch of a corporation to another, or promotional deals where you "pay" with a license to use your imagery. What actual money gets spent even beyond that often is balanced out with product placement deals and tax incentives.

 

[InCali]

Yep. Its part of why you really shouldn't pay too much attention to marketing costs, unless there's reason to believe they are unusually high. Production costs are real money, cash paid out in actors' salaries and set building and whatnot. Marketing costs tend to be where all the funny money happens, like money shuffled from one branch of a corporation to another, or promotional deals where you "pay" with a license to use your imagery. What actual money gets spent even beyond that often is balanced out with product placement deals and tax incentives.

And Disney is the 800 pound gorilla with the gigantic club. The marketing for The Force Awakens was crazy. Subway and other companies were PAYING Disney to market the movie. Some guy back east said he sold more ice cream in like 2 weeks or something than he did the previous 6 months (or something like that) after he started selling Star Wars ice cream.

 

[InCali]

Yep. Its part of why you really shouldn't pay too much attention to marketing costs, unless there's reason to believe they are unusually high. Production costs are real money, cash paid out in actors' salaries and set building and whatnot. Marketing costs tend to be where all the funny money happens, like money shuffled from one branch of a corporation to another, or promotional deals where you "pay" with a license to use your imagery. What actual money gets spent even beyond that often is balanced out with product placement deals and tax incentives.

Disney can even keep some of those production costs in house too.