Man of Steel Box Office Prediction Thread - - - - - Part 14

[kalelvis]

I think with the re-release of Avengers they included bonus footage. If WB did the same with MoS and marketed it well it could make some money. I know I would love to see it with some of the scenes expanded just a bit.

 

[JKKS085]

I think with the re-release of Avengers they included bonus footage.

They did not.

If WB did the same with MoS and marketed it well it could make some money. I know I would love to see it with some of the scenes expanded just a bit.

And they won't. Snyder stated on multiple occasions that the theatrical cut is his director's cut and that he has no interest in making an extended version.

 

[kalelvis]

It seems like all of the promotional stuff for the Avenger's rerelease pushed the whole "stay through the credits" angle. I didn't see it, but I assumed there was something besides the shawarma scene.

Snyder and co have said that the theatrical cut was the directors cut, but given his history I would be absolutely shocked if an 'extended cut' doesn't come out when the first run blu ray and dvd sales slow down.

 

[JKKS085]

Yeah they promoted the re-release with the Thanos image from the middle-credit scene ... wich was already featured in the first release so no there wasn't any new/bonus footage.

As for Snyder, while he has a history of pushing for extended/director's cut of his movies, it's always something that he states very early on (and in this case he said that there won't be any). If memory serves I'm pretty sure that even though I saw Watchmen at an advanced screening I already knew that there was a "director's cut" to be released. Same thing with GL, I think WB revealed the extended cut something like a month or so after the movie's release.

As much as I'd like to see more scenes that may help balance MoS' pace and give some room for the characters to shine, I think that you should brace yourself for a disappointment.

 

[king666]

Watched it again today (third time). There were a few kids in the theater and they enjoyed the **** out of the movie. They were like "WOW!" "Yeah!" the whole movie t:

 

[kalelvis]

It would be a bit disappointing to not get an extended edition but not as disappointing as not even releasing the footage. I'm pretty sure that there were a couple of moments from the trailers that didn't make it to the movie. For instance, i don't remember seeing him sitting on the steps petting the dog during the first "Northern" scenes. Have a feeling having those inbetween moments would have done a lot for the pacing.

 

[Stephen K. Hone]

It was dead last week.

Yep I agree. Unfortunately MOS is running on fumes domestically. $290 million will be tough at this point. Hopefully this means that because not as many people saw MOS in theaters as was hoped, that DVD/ Bluray sales will be stronger because of this.

 

[Bruce Malone]

It appears this film was a little front-loaded. Going through the list of films historically to open with 100m+ or at least in the range MoS did open at most did suceed in crossing the $300m mark.

I'm not sure if this is more about word of mouth or competition? That big 2nd week drop really hurt it though. If it wasn't so steep this film would arguably be crossing 300.

 

[tomoe]

It appears this film was a little front-loaded. Going through the list of films historically to open with 100m+ or at least in the range MoS did open at most did suceed in crossing the $300m mark.

I'm not sure if this is more about word of mouth or competition? That big 2nd week drop really hurt it though. If it wasn't so steep this film would arguably be crossing 300.

Both.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Do you think MOS got the most repeat watchers of any 2013 movies? MOS got Superman fanboys in spades. More than Hobbits or the Hunger Games 2. For each fanboy he'd buy 3-4 movie tickets on average.

But seems that even fanboys numbers is very, very small compared to the number of average watchers.

 

[kedrell]

Let me ask you this..If you take IM and RDJ out of the Avengers, and add in say antman or quicksilver in his place, with someone relatively unknown in the role, would Avengers still have made what it did?? even close?
Lots went to see it Because he was in it. sure it would have still made good money without him, but I dont think you would have seen a billion.

Well, does Ant-man get the same advantages in having 2 highly successful(both critically and financially) and well loved by the GA films to go off of before heading into TA? If so then I'd say sure, maybe. If not then why even bother using this comparison at all.

It's not like Iron Man was a success somewhere far removed from a TA film and then all of a sudden they decided to shove him into TA arbitrarily to help it sell. He was always part of the plan and the plan was in place before he ever got a film.

 

[kedrell]

Yep I agree. Unfortunately MOS is running on fumes domestically. $290 million will be tough at this point. Hopefully this means that because not as many people saw MOS in theaters as was hoped, that DVD/ Bluray sales will be stronger because of this.

Still think it'll crack $700M WW?

 

[John-An]

That's hilarious. 1200 votes accounted for a movie that sold more than 120M tickets wordwide. How can anyone take this seriously and use these numbers to make a point ? That's like 0,001% of IM3's audience for crying out loud.

You could have got people's attention if you used imdb's users ratings (wich are only in the hundred thousands but still better than nothing). But seriously a thousand voters ? You can't be serious.

Well that's more serious than the "impartial" critics from RT to man of steel.. that's curious... but even in the RT people's opinion has a good % of people who LIKED the movie...

 

[sf2]

a re-release should do it wouldn't u agree?

How? Have any moviez done it before?

 

[John Lambert]

Well I agree on the bale part (did a solid job in the role!) but its not fair to compare RDJ's 4 film span portrayal as tony stark with cavill and garfield who so far only had a movie a piece (and did brilliantly in their respective roles).

For me personally Chris Reeve's superman will always be the number one superhero portrayal with Jackman and RDJ as close 2nd (I think it's a tie between these 2).
Really liked Bale and keaton as batman but neither fully captured the essence of batman for me (but then again I don't really like the character so what do I know!)
As for the future, I am certain that Cavill, Garfield and Hemsworth will own their respective roles.

Have you seen SM 4. How do you rate Reeve's SM top? Also, I always thought he came off as incompetent even in SMT. Luthor tells him the missles have been fired. He should just go hunt down the missiles. The lead box is so obviously a trap the whole interchange presents Superman as a stupid, easily fooled fellow.

Anyway, the Superman/Clark/Lois interactions in MOS are just way better. Lois is competent. Clark treats her respectfully. The whole fainting while being mugged scene was horrible, and makes me wonder why Lois agrees to go out with the guy at all. It doesn't really add up.

STM gives up a way too over the top, judgemental Superman. I will take the MOS Superman any day.

 

[John Lambert]

A couple of quick comments....Oz did not hit a billion, it is sitting at under 500 mil ww.

WB does have to split the take on MoS with Legendary but that is only because they paid part of the production cost.

If there is anything major studios are good at it is hiding profits and reporting extra costs. It lowers payment to people who have profit points.

While it has been posted several times, MoS has made significant profit for WB and while it may have disappointed some, they wouldn't be moving forward with the same team if they didn't like who it all turned out.

This movie will have a huge home video run layering on more profits especially when they announce the extended edition about a month after the sales of the standard editions slow down.

Also, there is all the money they got for product placement done in MOS, so the box office takings is not the only thing on the profit side.

 

[John Lambert]

Apparently not profitable enough for a solo sequel though.

The evidence points to plans to include Batman in the sequel before the film was released. I see no evidence that this is at all a reaction to box office performance. They had the Wayne Enterprises satalite in the film. They almost certainly were working with Batman in the script before MOS was released.

 

[Tra-El]

The evidence points to plans to include Batman in the sequel before the film was released. I see no evidence that this is at all a reaction to box office performance. They had the Wayne Enterprises satalite in the film. They almost certainly were working with Batman in the script before MOS was released.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner! The signs were there about 1.5/2 months before MOS was even released. It was defiantly easy to connect those dots in May when Snyder SPECIFICALLY came out and said "Yeah, a Batman Easter Egg is there.."

If MOS was a disappointment at the BO, they would have gave us a solo Bat-reboot for '15 and saved Supes next appearance cameo for that and into the JL.

If MOS were to make 1.5 billion at the box office, we were always going to get a Supes/Bats team-up for the next installment.

 

[John Lambert]

Uh, look at the forum. Not everyone is giddy about the announcement.

I see lots of Superman fans going "this is a horrible idea to mix Batman in." I have yet to see anyone claim this would be a disgrace to Batman. Some other films with Batman included in the sequel, we would see that claim.

 

[John Lambert]

Not saying anything about "biggest competition" just like you're not saying it's the "biggest drop" right.

I'm talking about a film having a 64% drop, maybe possibly being rationalized in part by the fact that it's facing 148million in direct competition from two separate sources of demographics.
That's all.

If Dark Shadows alone opened up a week after MOS and we saw a 64% drop, I'd maybe be singing a different tune.

Why is a big drop so big a deal when you had a record breaking opening. It might show that the people who released it really understood what they were doing with the opening. The other thing it shows is this is not the phenomenal, audiences will return film that some are. But that is mainly because they did not play up the Lois/Clark scenes enough to draw in the undying teenage female fans.

 

[John Lambert]

WB's plan just seems all over the place...


You have MOS which was it's own movie and didn't mention anything into the DC universe besides the Lex forecasting and a satellite with Wayne on it. After finding out the movie made money and can green light a sequel, they throw Batman in the mix taking away the spotlight from Cavil.

Green Lantern, which was a flop in the box office, with no signs of having Reynolds a part of the JLA.

A finished Batman trilogy which is it's own thing, yet people want that Batman pairing up with Snyder's MOS for a sequel to MOS which won't give Cavil his own sequel.

No mention of Flash or Wonder Woman or any other JLA potential...



Is anyone else seeing inconsistencies? At least when Marvel did it, they knew where they were headed from day 1.

Because Marvel never had a Superhero movie flop. Oh wait, there was the Hulk.

 

[John Lambert]

Its just that Potter like Twilight has a defined audience. The open big and drop like a brick, more Twilight than Potter. So big drops were expected.

Also movies that are the start of new franchises are suppose to be less front loaded, there is less of a rush because there isn't already a built in audience.

So to say MoS drop doesn't look bad in comparison to Potter isn't applicable IMO.

But MOS does have a built-in audience. They have the comic book readers, the watchers of TV shows, the readers of Superman novels and all other people exposed to Superman. Plus, they have the draw back of having people already having seen Superman on film.

They differ from Harry Potter and Twilight (and LOTR) in not directly adapting the story line from the books, but they still have a built in audience. Of course, 75 years of comic books that have rebooted at least twice are a bit different than say 7 novels that have one author, but there still is a built in audience.

 

[John Lambert]

$650 MIL or so final numbers is quite impressive for the start of a franchise: yes large budget, yes the most "well-known" Superhero, but that doesn't necessarily translate into box-office gold, especially when your film has some (a lot) of controversy, coming off a bad reboot, isn't entirely child friendly, and has immediate and large competition the following week. I would have preferred to see a stand alone sequel, but given whatever allure The Avengers had -- 1 beloved hero, two that had fine (ok) box office numbers, one with multiple failed films, and two that no one really cares for except for a nice rack, MOS 2 unless the villain(s) were played by big box office draws, likely wouldn't pull in a billion - and this is coming from a guy who has bought tons of man of steel merchandise, pushed everyone to go, and watched it 4 times now.

The "intrigue" apparently of seeing six heroes on one screen at the same time more than doubled what Iron Man 2 - the biggest box office draw of TA's heroes is what likely contributed to the inclusion of Batman, whether for good or bad, and I see pros and cons.

Superman might be the most well knows Superhero, but many people think he is just too powerful. I didn't see these issues with MOS, but after Superman Reutns, and Superman 3 and Superman 4, there are a lot of really bad films it goes up against.

I thought they did a good job with the Zod killing scene. However I get the impression some people dislike it because they take the scenario seriously. It actually should disturb us even more when killings are taken lightly.

 

[John Lambert]

Umm... a new property like Green Lantern or Iron Man has a harder job to show than a reboot. At least for a reboot people know what the subject material is, so there is that guaranteed money. Secondly, do most people really perceive the film as a reboot? I believe people would think "Hey, it's another yadayada film" with an added origin story. Hence why MOS and TASM are doing fine. It's not like famous new property like Hunger Games or Harry Potter, but they're respectable.

If it was not a reboot, we would not see Kal-el come to earth again.

 

[John Lambert]

But Superman is Superman. Many people know about him. There isn't any bad stigma around Superman to non comic moviegoers other than he is an archetype superhero fantasy character. Gist of the matter Superman doesn't start from zero because his name is already famous from old people to kids. His legacy silver spooned any Superman movies until it gets overexposed.

Now compare Superman with Green Lantern pre 2010 or Iron Man pre 2008. These movie franchises start from zero. One failed, one passed.

Also SR is not an origin, but abject continuation of Donnerverse. This shows that some people don't really attune to an origin story or not. What they care is if the franchise got new actors or heck, new life.

There is a stigma around Superman. Many people think he is too powerful, and thus boring. Also with SR we saw that a Superman film really can be boring. MOS has to deal with the negative impact of SR.