Man of Steel Box Office Prediction Thread

[Greeneyes]

When this thread first started by the OP, I leaned in and thought conservative and went for 700 million WW but everything that I'm hearing and seeing and ABOUT to see, I'll gladly uptake that number to 800-900 million with the possibility of tip-toeing 1 billion. I think it's going to be a huge hit.

The times I've been on this thread are usually when I've had a few cold ones,and that is what has happened again lol,the first time I voted for the Billion mark,now I'm going to agree with Tra-El. 800-900 million with a chance of 1 billion if the IMAX and 3D looks good after the conversions,and then gets good word of mouth.

I'll be *Burp* back after the third *hic* trailer hits!

 

[N7 Joseph Shepard]

I'm calling it....Man Of Steel will earn all the money in the history of movie making time.....and then triple it x 99...............

 

[Marvin]

When this thread first started by the OP, I leaned in and thought conservative and went for 700 million WW but everything that I'm hearing and seeing and ABOUT to see, I'll gladly uptake that number to 800-900 million with the possibility of tip-toeing 1 billion. I think it's going to be a huge hit.

in time, more people will see the light.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If you don't care about box office why are you in a box office thread?

Well now that you got that off your chest surely you are going to not come back in here.

What? I asked that because of his wording of "bonus".

 

[Swansea]

I'm going for around $650 million world wide.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I would be disappointed with anything under 550 m WW.

Satisfied with around 650 m WW.

and really happy with 750+ m WW.

 

[Liam_H]

Anything under $500 million WW would just not make sense to me.

 

[snyderrocks]

Anything under $500 million WW would just not make sense to me.

anything under 500 million would be a flop .

 

[Liam_H]

Green Lantern is a flop, that would just be under performing to a degree. If the movies makes like $475 million WW but is extremely well received by critics and audience then we will get a sequel.

 

[snyderrocks]

Green Lantern is a flop, that would just be under performing to a degree. If the movies makes like $475 million WW but is extremely well received by critics and audience then we will get a sequel.

475 ww would not be enough for a sequel to be green lit if you factor in how much the budget is and how much wb spent to market man of steel .

 

[Liam_H]

Look at Batman Begins or even Star Trek. If this movie can reignite the character/franchise then we will get a sequel.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Look at Batman Begins or even Star Trek. If this movie can reignite the character/franchise then we will get a sequel.

Those movies had a marketing/production budget 125-150 m less than MOS will.

MOS will need at least 575 m to launch a sequel.

 

[Liam_H]

So you're saying if this movie makes $500 million WW flat there is no sequel at all?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So you're saying if this movie makes $500 million WW flat there is no sequel at all?

If WB pays 200+ m for production and 100 m for marketing then yes, I'm saying 500 m won't be enough for a sequel.

 

[Kane52630]

It's gonna make one kajillon babillon dollars, bank on it.

 

[flickchick85]

If WB pays 200+ m for production and 100 m for marketing then yes, I'm saying 500 m won't be enough for a sequel.

Batman Begins didn't double its Budget+Marketing Cost and it got a sequel. Neither did Star Trek. I think $500M would be enough if the word-of-mouth was good.

 

[Lily Adler]

100 Million WW gross. Bank on it.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Batman Begins didn't double its Budget+Marketing Cost and it got a sequel. Neither did Star Trek. I think $500M would be enough if the word-of-mouth was good.

There's a huge difference between falling 20-25 m short and 100-125 m short.

You can easily recoup the former from dvd sales. The latter will have the studio in the red much longer which is why Superman Returns never got a sequel.

 

[kedrell]

SR couldn't even 2X it's budget WW and had fairly weak WOM. That's why it didn't get a sequel. Generally speaking a film has needed 2X it's production budget WW(always assuming a standard amount was spent on marketing instead of going overboard with it) just to break even in it's theatrical run alone and even then that's not enough to justify a sequel. Usually 2.5X prod. budget WW is the minimum to be sequel worthy.

 

[flickchick85]

There's a huge difference between falling 20-25 m short and 100-125 m short.

Both of them reportedly spent at least $100M on marketing (more in the case of ST), so they fell a lot shorter than that.

At any rate, MoS would be far less in the hole with $500M than SR was with $391M, partially because there was a lot less wasted on it in development hell to begin with. I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly about how all those failed start-ups were considered development costs for SR, so WB was expecting a huge return to make up for it. Didn't happen. That, along with the lukewarm reception, is why it didn't get a sequel. There's no way their financial investment in MoS will be nearly as high, regardless of what kind of awesomely expensive marketing they could possibly come up with in the next few months (which they won't. I'm sure we'll get fairly standard marketing).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

People are putting too much pressure on the dollar amount. The amount of money the film makes matters, I mean it can't pull a Jack the Giant Slayer and get a sequel but like Paramount with Star Trek WB are playing a long game. If your first movie's reception is good enough then you can build the box office with a sequel. Paramount was dying to get a Trek sequel made not solely because of the box office of the first film but because it was so well received. A well received Superman movie that makes 500mil is a lock to get a sequel.

 

[Marvin]

Considering what WB wants to do with their properties moving forward and where Superman fits into all of that, it's a safe bet this movie would have to bomb to not get a sequel.

 

[Micromind]

It will make around 700 mil.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Both of them reportedly spent at least $100M on marketing (more in the case of ST), so they fell a lot shorter than that.

At any rate, MoS would be far less in the hole with $500M than SR was with $391M, partially because there was a lot less wasted on it in development hell to begin with. I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly about how all those failed start-ups were considered development costs for SR, so WB was expecting a huge return to make up for it. Didn't happen. That, along with the lukewarm reception, is why it didn't get a sequel. There's no way their financial investment in MoS will be nearly as high, regardless of what kind of awesomely expensive marketing they could possibly come up with in the next few months (which they won't. I'm sure we'll get fairly standard marketing).

Most movies don't get 100 m spent toward marketing. That's reserved for only movies with a 200+ m production budget.

 

[Tony Stark]

People are putting too much pressure on the dollar amount. The amount of money the film makes matters, I mean it can't pull a Jack the Giant Slayer and get a sequel but like Paramount with Star Trek WB are playing a long game. If your first movie's reception is good enough then you can build the box office with a sequel. Paramount was dying to get a Trek sequel made not solely because of the box office of the first film but because it was so well received. A well received Superman movie that makes 500mil is a lock to get a sequel.

I agree with this. Thor made 449M WW, and while he's not as recognized as Superman, I really don't think it's going to be 300M more than that movie was. Plus if you adjust Batman Begins for inflation, it's around 450-500M.

500M-600M is a good start and will start the franchise.

Part of the problem, and I know I've beat this like a dead horse, but having a mid June release date was horrible for this film, and hopefully it will have good legs, because there's strong competition on either side of it's release.