Dr Strange box office prediction thread

[MadVillainy]

Well, that's obviously just the studio's "claim", not the real numbers. The studio didn't want to pay people extra cash, I mean the people who get extra cash through net receipts. So they say they lost money, and they don't have to pay them anything.

Harry Potter 5 was actually one of the most profitable movies of all time. It made an estimated 525.5M net profit. It made over 256M gross from DVD/Blu-Ray, and that's only domestically. So WB decided the percentage they would have to pay would be too much money, and they found a way to not pay a thing. It's pretty common for studios to do this.

That's why most people in the business don't accept deals that give them a percentage of the net profit. It's way too easy for a studio to claim they didn't make a profit, so they won't have to pay anything.

So this whole thing is not "fruitless".

Lol none of these numbers you get online are the actual numbers. Or at least not all of them.
Why do you think so many blockbusters are "reported" at 150 mill. None of us have the BTS knowledge to know how much they spent on marketing, production, or how much they got on tax breaks, etc.

 

[InCali]

Lol none of these numbers you get online are the actual numbers. Or at least not all of them.
Why do you think so many blockbusters are "reported" at 150 mill. None of us have the BTS knowledge to know how much they spent on marketing, production, or how much they got on tax breaks, etc.

I've wondered about why Marvel shoots a lot in Atlanta. I'm guessing they get some major perks.

 

[iEquinox]

Lol none of these numbers you get online are the actual numbers. Or at least not all of them.
Why do you think so many blockbusters are "reported" at 150 mill. None of us have the BTS knowledge to know how much they spent on marketing, production, or how much they got on tax breaks, etc.

Sure. But that doesn't mean analysts can't use decades of data development and modeling to make reliable estimates. The numbers are as reliable as possible in a world where the exact numbers are kept secret. These analysts know a lot about this stuff and you can't just ignore all their work and say a movie that's estimated to have a net profit of 500M+ actually lost 167M, just because a source that benefits from lying about it says so.

Your example of HP5 doesn't hold up, WB didn't make a loss on that movie. The only thing the example proves is that unreliable sources provide unreliable numbers.

 

[See Cap Run]

Would comparing Thor:TDW and Doctor Strange's performances paint a fairly accurate picture of where Doctor Strange will end up domestically?

They both opened with $85 million domestically and now Doctor Strange has made $16 million more than TDW did at the same point in their respective cycles (20 days in). So since Thor ended up with $206 million, Doctor Strange is looking at a minimum of $222 million if it doesn't gain any further ground on TDW, but I'd bet folding money that Strange is more likely to increase further against TDW than to stay the same or lose ground to it.

 

[ADollarADay]

I guess this is the article you're referring to:
http://deadline.com/2016/03/ant-man-profit-box-office-2015-marvel-paul-rudd-1201723544/

These deadline articles (which I think they have only done for movies released in 2014 and 2015) is really interesting. I wish they would release them for previous years and the biggest BO bombs as well (I would be rather curious to see Fan4stic's estimated performance).

Not to go too off topic - and pardon my ignorance - but what is meant by "Interests", "Residuals and Off the Tops", "Overeheads", and "Participation"? Also, where is the estimate for Marvel's license fee for something like XM: DOFP (http://deadline.com/2015/03/x-men-days-of-future-past-profit-box-office-2014-1201389620/)?

To put things in perspective and take the example of another origin movie that ended up roughly in the same ballpark BO wise, WB spent a whooping 407.3M to produce and release Man Of Steel. WB made 287.76M from its theater run so they virtually lost about 120M but once you factor in ancillaries, they actually turned a small profit of 42.7M.

Where did you get these numbers from?

I get it in the sense that money is money, and any return on investment is something studios will chase

My bigger issue is the censorship concerns of China, and the way studios are catering to them either via scenes set in China, not mentioning Tibet, spiritual/supernatural elements being somewhat off-limits, etc. If movies can just be released there without chasing their approval, that's fine. But if a director has to alter their film to accomodate a place that's giving them a lower return?? F*** that noise.

I actually read somewhere the studios were going to try to renegotiate to see if they could get a bigger share. I doubt studios will ever get more than 33% in China, let alone dom percentages, but studios should try to get more, if they can.

Yeah, but if the Mods ask, I'll just say that I was trying to get an example in order to evaluate how DS did. AND it would actually be true.

Thanks for the explanation. It's appreciated. I'll bet a lot of these movies show more of a "loss" than we might think. Creative accounting and all. I'll bet the 104M doesn't include "profits" that some of the Disney subsidiaries made......

The number from the article does not include M&L which is where the real money is.

 

[InCali]

These deadline articles (which I think they have only done for movies released in 2014 and 2015) is really interesting. I wish they would release them for previous years and the biggest BO bombs as well (I would be rather curious to see Fan4stic's estimated performance).

Not to go too off topic - and pardon my ignorance - but what is meant by "Interests", "Residuals and Off the Tops", "Overeheads", and "Participation"? Also, where is the estimate for Marvel's license fee for something like XM: DOFP (http://deadline.com/2015/03/x-men-days-of-future-past-profit-box-office-2014-1201389620/)?



Where did you get these numbers from?



I actually read somewhere the studios were going to try to renegotiate to see if they could get a bigger share. I doubt studios will ever get more than 33% in China, let alone dom percentages, but studios should try to get more, if they can.



The number from the article does not include M&L which is where the real money is.

What's M&L?

EDIT: Merchandise and Licensing I suppose...just thought of that.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

$2,645,540 on Tuesday, the domestic total is up to $186,238,475.
Boxofficemojo thinks it will make $18.2M in the next 5 days(13.1M in the weekend), that would mean it will be at 204.4M by the end of the weekend.

Well, it's estimated at about $5.5 million for Wednesday and Thursday so thats holding up so far. May even end up a bit low.

 

[JKKS085]

Not to go too off topic - and pardon my ignorance - but what is meant by "Interests", "Residuals and Off the Tops", "Overeheads", and "Participation"?

Residuals is the percentage from licensing deals paid to actors, directors, writers, guilds ...
Off the top expenses usually implies check collection, currency transfers, stamp taxes, duties and trade/association fees.
Participations is the percentage of film earnings that actors, sometimes directors get in addition to their salary.

 

[Iceman]

Hopefully these numbers mean we get 2 more Strange solos.

 

[ADollarADay]

Residuals is the percentage from licensing deals paid to actors, directors, writers, guilds ...
Off the top expenses usually implies check collection, currency transfers, stamp taxes, duties and trade/association fees.
Participations is the percentage of film earnings that actors, sometimes directors get in addition to their salary.

Thanks. Interests would then be the interests paid on the money loaned from the bank, I guess?

And would the licensing deal between Fox/Marvel be lumped under the Residuals then?

 

[JOE]

This is why I couldn't be happier that Marvel is safely in Disney's hands. If only they could buy DC as well... Not trying to start a war, I just enjoy their takes a lot more. I wondering what the DCeU would have been like under Feige's watch?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

DS made 5.5 million on Friday. 13.8-14 million is in play. Very good result for Mister Doctor.

 

[Typhoon22]

This is why I couldn't be happier that Marvel is safely in Disney's hands. If only they could buy DC as well... Not trying to start a war, I just enjoy their takes a lot more. I wondering what the DCeU would have been like under Feige's watch?

I'm a bit torn on this. On one side Marvel is the only one that makes consistently decent SH films to say the least. So Disney & Marvel deserve a lot of respect for being able to achieve that. No other studio is capable of that. Disneys obsession with making ''quality'' first automatically translates to a lot of money with the way they're handling it. And it encourages other studios to think about that strategy and influences peoples taste in films. I'm not sure if I have any ground to stand on with this but I feel like this strategy has helped people be more aware of the quality of films they choose to watch as opposed to say 10+ years ago. I feel like films that get raving reviews today make more money than 10 years ago when awful blockbuster after awful blockbuster was the norm. We still have those today but I feel like those numbers are reduced.

On the other hand I want Disney to take more risks with their projects. I totally understand why they're not willing to take those chances and cut a large demographic from their projects but I do wish they'd give us some darker SH films, maybe even R rated ones.

 

[Flint Marko]

They're never going to give us R-rated superhero blockbusters, but we're getting something better: some of the best recent TV shows, not just superhero TV shows, are made by this same Disney subsidiary and are thankfully more adult to balance out their stable.

 

[kedrell]

Should comfortably be passed the $600m WW mark after Sunday and likely will exceed Thor2's DOM total in that timeframe as well. Already just beat IM1's WW total. It's a lock to beat Thor2 both DOM and WW and probably beat MoS's total WW as well. I knew it was an easier sell than Ant-Man, which remains the riskiest one they've tried yet.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Wow I am impressed by the domestic daily numbers...Mister Doctor looks like it will eventually surpass my original prediction of $220 million domestic. Does anybody think it can hit $250 M?

 

[InCali]

Wow I am impressed by the domestic daily numbers...Mister Doctor looks like it will eventually surpass my original prediction of $220 million domestic. Does anybody think it can hit $250 M?

No, but people obviously like it and I can see it getting "close" to 240M. I don't know as much about OS BO analysis as others, but think 700M is likely.

I'm really happy for DS. Him and Thor were my fav characters from way back. Here's to Ragnarok killin' it.

Agree with Kedrell that DS was an easier sell, but as far as risk goes, I'd vote for GotG. A tree, talking raccoon, a green Saldana (not a bad thing at all BTW)....well, you get the idea.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

https://***********/ERCboxoffice/status/802906906201243648

Exhibitor Relations
@ERCboxoffice

The doctor is still "in"--Marvel's DOCTOR STRANGE dipped just -25% w/ $13.3M, $205M total.

 

[los pollos]

Deadline has summed up how impressive this movie's run has been.

http://deadline.com/2016/11/doctor-strange-crosses-600-million-global-box-office-1201860255/

Disney/Marvel’s Doctor Strange passed into the $600M+ dimension this weekend with a total $616M worldwide through Sunday. This was the 5th offshore frame for the Sorcerer Supreme and added $9.8M at the international box office, plus $13.4M domestic (3-day). That thrusts the Benedict Cumberbatch-starrer into the Top 10 of 2016 domestically, overseas and globally. The film has also now become the biggest single-character introduction in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.



In further milestones, the Scott Derrickson-directed pic is the 9th MCU title to cross the $600M mark, and Disney’s 5th 2016 movie to do so. Japan, meanwhile, is still to come with a January 27 release.
Earlier this month, Disney reached $6B in global box office, a first for the studio and aided by the spellbinding Stephen Strange.
Compared to his stable mates, Doctor Strange has now surpassed the worldwide lifetime cumes of The Incredible Hulk ($263M), Captain America: The First Avenger ($371M), Thor ($449M), Ant-Man ($520M) and Iron Man ($585M).


Domestically, the surgeon has levitated over the lifetimes of The Incredible Hulk ($135M), Cap 1 ($177M), Ant-Man ($180M) and Thor ($181M). It’s about to also pass Thor: The Dark World ($206.4M).
Internationally, the film is bigger than The Incredible Hulk ($129M), Cap 1 ($194M), Iron Man ($266M), Thor ($268M), Iron Man 2 ($310M) and Ant-Man ($339M). Doctor Strange has also surpassed the lifetime cume of 2016’s X-Men: Apocalypse at all three levels ($155M/$388M/$544M).


He’s been particularly handsy in Asia with China as the No. 1 market at $109.6M, followed by Korea at $40.9M. The UK ($27.5M), Russia ($21.9M) and Brazil ($20.9M) round out the Top 5.


This session’s only new opening was Argentina with a $1M No. 1 start ahead of a national holiday tomorrow.

The bolded part is what I never really expected to happen this year. I thought X-men Apocalypse would do way better numbers than it ended it up doing. I guess without Wolverine and the OT cast in major roles, X-men doesn't have a strong fan-base in the GA.

 

[Silver Surfer]

X-Men movies don't have a big fanbase, Jackman's Wolverine inside an X-Men movie does.

 

[chamber-music]

I knew it would do well in Asia. Benedict Cumberbatch has a good following over there.

X-men Apocalypse didn't have much buzz.

 

[Mitrailleuse]

I knew it would do well in Asia. Benedict Cumberbatch has a good following over there.

X-men Apocalypse didn't have much buzz.

And it was a bad movie

 

[Chesterfield]

With the exception of maybe Ant-Man, Doctor Strange surprisingly had the worst marketing campaign of Marvel movies in the last 4 years and of all the comic book movies released this year. Seeing it perform so well critically and financially is marvelous. I'm glad it's being recieved so well and has silenced those that said this will flop.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I've wondered about why Marvel shoots a lot in Atlanta. I'm guessing they get some major perks.

GA does some huge tax breaks and incentives for filming there. The Walking Dead and several other films/shows do a lot of principal photography there. It's one of the ways GA has been trying to revitalize it's economy and most agree it's working rather well.

They're never going to give us R-rated superhero blockbusters, but we're getting something better: some of the best recent TV shows, not just superhero TV shows, are made by this same Disney subsidiary and are thankfully more adult to balance out their stable.

Well, the Netflix stuff often gets into R-rated territory. If only it were "all connected" as they used to claim haha.

 

[AlluAllu]

With the exception of maybe Ant-Man, Doctor Strange surprisingly had the worst marketing campaign of Marvel movies in the last 4 years and of all the comic book movies released this year. Seeing it perform so well critically and financially is marvelous. I'm glad it's being recieved so well and has silenced those that said this will flop.

Maybe they are onto something. Too extensive marketing campaigns might actually push people away. Now it was like "hey, there's a new Marvel movie out, let's check it out".