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

[BH/HHH]

Yep. $290-$295M domestic and $650M WW is truly terrible.

 

[LostSon88]

Looks like no 300 Million or 700 Million.

Am I the only one who found it annoying how two weeks into its run you had people going, "$300 million is a lock." or "$300 million is guaranteed."

I can't explain why but I just find that ridiculously annoying when people jump the gun so early in the game.

$285/630 WW is pretty solid for me.

 

[Liam_H]

Those people shouting that it was lock were doing so mostly to counter the supposed haters during the 2nd weekend.

 

[Tra-El]

The 2nd weekend was a brutal drop. This was an abnormal year for the June BO and MOS faced some nasty competition. It stabilized pretty well however and when all said and done, will have pretty solid numbers factoring in the large drop.

MOS made the studio happy since I believe they wanted a sequel + the introduction of the new Bats all along. They didnt waste any time announcing at SDCC.

 

[Moridin]

Pass Catching Fire? No way. That film is a beast all its own. It will eat Dark World alive.

Well I was talking about it passing MOS overseas & worldwide, but sure, I can see it outgrossing CF overseas too (not US though). I just don't think HG:CF is going to explode OS anyhwere near enough to get to $1bn.

Just to be clear, my prediction:
TDW: US - high $200's, maybe $300m. | OS - $600-$700m

HG:CF: US - high $300's. | OS - $400m-ish.

Catching Fire looks intense. The first movie made a lot of people start to pick up the books. This movie will be a force in the BO.

No doubt. But there were also a fair few people who went to see the first HG* to see what all the fuss was about and weren't all that impressed.

*People tend to forget that the first HG had practically no competition before or after it's release. There wasn't really anything to see & a fuss was being made about HG, so people went to see it. This time it has to deal with Thor & the Hobbit.

I'll add, Thor & The Hobbit have that fantasy spectacle that OS audiences eat up, THG doesn't have that.

 

[MrMaooz]

Yep. $290-$295M domestic and $650M WW is truly terrible.

I was just kidding.

 

[MrMaooz]

no movie has had a 400mill budget please you sound like a dope!

A dope huh? Well it is true, it was expensive in the first place but then rewrites and reshoots skyrocketed the budget to around 400 million.

 

[chiefchirpa]

That's what will happen if they don't replace the actor and let Jarvis be the star of the film. A new actor might be generic as well. However a strong and charismatic actor...wouldn't be generic no.

And please Tony Stark as portrayed by RDJ has more defining personality than Bale's Bruce Wayne, Garfield's Peter Parker and yup, Cavill's Kal El.

The next actor is not acting as Iron Man/man in the exosuit, he will be acting as Tony Stark.

 

[Superchan]

And please Tony Stark as portrayed by RDJ has more defining personality than Bale's Bruce Wayne, Garfield's Peter Parker and yup, Cavill's Kal El.

The next actor is not acting as Iron Man/man in the exosuit, he will be acting as Tony Stark.

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.

 

[roach]

WB could re-release it in Aug

 

[chiefchirpa]

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.

But RDJ needs only one movie for a character named Tony Stark to break out as a scattermouth, eccentric genius that the tweetverse seem to love so much.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Am I the only one who found it annoying how two weeks into its run you had people going, "$300 million is a lock." or "$300 million is guaranteed."

I can't explain why but I just find that ridiculously annoying when people jump the gun so early in the game.

$285/630 WW is pretty solid for me.

Yep. The main reason I stopped talking about BO in this thread.

And $285/630 is very respectable.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yep. The main reason I stopped talking about BO in this thread.

And $285/630 is very respectable.

I think it'll end up around $670/680 M

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's a solid take. My prediction was anywhere between 600 - 650 so 20 mil over that is gravy. I bet a few people at WB are kicking themselves in the ass for giving that sweet July release date to Pacific Rim.

 

[robot]

That's a solid take. My prediction was anywhere between 600 - 650 so 20 mil over that is gravy. I bet a few people at WB are kicking themselves in the ass for giving that sweet July release date to Pacific Rim.

Yup. Dumbest marketing decision ever!!!

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yeah it was. So much of this 'UR A HATER' stuff going around weeks ago when in actually it was just people being realistic. A bad release date, tough competition and front loaded marketing all came together to stall the movie. 650+ WW is a solid take, but it's obvious the studio wanted much more with the reported production budget alone being over 225. Whether you liked/loved it or not had nothing to do with charting its BO. Maybe now more people will understand that.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

But RDJ needs only one movie for a character named Tony Stark to break out as a scattermouth, eccentric genius that the tweetverse seem to love so much.

Because Iron Man's an AWESOME movie

 

[sf2]

My city, of a million, has three theatres still showing it - all gigantic cineplexs. I went to a 7:05 showing of it last night (granted Tuesday - 8 dollar movies), and the theatre was practically sold out. I think there is definitely still some interest there, and that MOS got a bit lost in the onslaught of summer films. A lot of it's drop in earnings can arguably be said to be attributable to the fact it's # of screens is down to 25%. To me, anything on top of what it has now will be great, given the time delay, I don't expect Japan to contribute that much to its earnings, but I guess we won't know. $650-$670 mil is likely the end to a nice first run for the film.

Nice to hear that.
I don't understand too. MOS were doing good in my country. But the screens n show times drop were severe. By the 4th week, it was almost gone. I remember I was still able to watch SR after a month.
Btw, what country u from?

 

[sf2]

For those that care

Man of Steel grossed this on Tuesday:

$321,028

26.7% / -54.9%

1,050 / $306

$285,574,854 / 40

Thanks. So can it make 1M this weekend?

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

650+ WW is a solid take, but it's obvious the studio wanted much more with the reported production budget alone being over 225.

Is it just me, or does Warner Bros. seem utterly incapable of controlling the budgets on its would-be summer tentpoles? I'm not quite sure how a Lone Ranger movie ends up costing $250 million. But the $200 million+ cost of MOS gives me deja vu from the SR days, where extreme pressure is put on the Superman film in question to be a bona fide box office phenomenon - just to make up for that bloated budget.

A mere "hit" doesn't even cover it, which is why some in this thread can look at $285 million domestic and $650 million worldwide and consider that a "flop" (!).

A recent op-ed on the Sleepy Skunk website had some interesting thoughts on the state of the summer blockbuster in 2013:

The pressure to fill a limited number of available summer weekends with successful content is enormous. We’re now witnessing what amounts to a special effects arms race between studios, as they each try to outdo each other with an ever more impressive level of spectacle. As this arms race has escalated, the budgets of studio tentpoles have gotten absolutely out of control. In 2003, there were 10 wide releases that came in with reported budgets of $100 million or higher. By 2012, there were 23 films with reported budgets at that level. Seven of these films had budgets of $200 million or higher. The most expensive film of 2002 was Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines with a reported budget of $170 million. That a $170 million budget should seem quaint in retrospect is the ultimate indictment of a broken business model.

The current environment, in which inevitable release dates are given to films of escalating cost, can be distilled to a simple proposition that helps explain the dearth of originality in the marketplace: major Hollywood studios are no longer in the business of trying to create hits; they are in the business of trying to avoid bombs.

 

[Liam_H]

Do you think the budget of MoS was used well, was it up on the screen? Also, why are you referencing Lone Ranger? That's a Disney film. Pacific Rim you could make a case for but not entirely...

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Whoops, I totally forgot. My mistake.

Actually, that is an interesting case, because unlike Warner Bros., the Disney behemoth appears able to shrug off colossal flops like nothing. In that sense, Disney is the "Superman" of movie studios - massive bombs that would seriously damage other studios, such as John Carter and The Lone Ranger, bounce off Disney harmlessly.

Edit: The budget of MOS was absolutely used well, because you saw every dollar onscreen. It was the anti-SR; you don't see Zack Snyder growing his own cornfield for a brief flashback scene or cutting a $10 million sequence for no apparent reason.

 

[Liam_H]

Yeap, Disney can take the loss. They always have franchise movies that can cover their ass. Its starting new franchises they are having trouble with lately. But sooner or later one of them will catch on.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

What major franchises does Disney have that they didn't acquire after the fact (i.e. the MCU and Star Wars)?

 

[Liam_H]

They have Pirates. Struggling to think of anything else at the moment.