Suicide Squad box office prediction - Part 2

[Kathemy]

Here's another batch of "Dreamer Logic" numbers!

Star Trek (2009):
Production budget $150m, advertising+ (very conservatively) $100m

Domestic: $257,730,019 (66.8%)
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 (33.2%)

Domestic revenue: $128,865,010
Foreign revenue: $44,782,649

Total loss: $76,352,341

Wow, how could they give that a sequel?! They must be crazy!

Star Trek: Into Darkness
Production budget: $190m, marketing+ (again very conservatively) $150m

Domestic: $228,778,661 (48.9%)
+ Foreign: $238,602,808 (51.1%)

Domestic revenue: $114,389,330
Foreign revenue: $83,510,982

Total loss: $142,099,688

Wow, they did it again!!! Surely this must be the end of it?!

 

[Zant]

Lol JTDreamer is just upset, and just trying to convince himself and everyone that the film will not make much. It was a nice try.

 

[JtheDreamer]

What?

The spin is out of control for this movie lmao

There's nothing to spin. It's basic math.

Spinning is touting "future revenues over a decade" to provide justification - when in fact these studio require shorter term profits to both finance the studio itself and in many cases work to increase shareholder value.

Regardless, the movie is most definitely not a box office success (beyond the fact that it was a terrible movie to begin with).

 

[JKKS085]

Star Trek: Into Darkness
Production budget: $190m, marketing+ (again very conservatively) $150m

Paramount spent an estimated 120M in P&A for Into Darkness.
But they did lose around 100M from its theatrical run and only started turning a very small profit once the film hit the home video market and TV rights were sold.

But again side revenues is where studios make their money with these big franchises. Although I'm not sure using Star Trek as a metric for success is really a good idea. The franchise is known for being a dud and offering a very poor ROI and despite being well received each film has been making less money at the BO than the previous one which is probably not what WB/DC is aiming for.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Paramount spent an estimated 120M in P&A for Into Darkness.
But they did lose around 100M from its theatrical run and only started turning a very small profit once the film hit the home video market and TV rights were sold.

But again side revenues is where studios make their money with these big franchises. Although I'm not sure using Star Trek as a metric for success is really a good idea. The franchise is known for being a dud and offering a very poor ROI and despite being well received each film has been making less money at the BO than the previous one which is probably not what WB/DC is aiming for.

Ultimately, what can insulate Box Office under-performers in the CBM genre (aside from ancillaries ***COUGH TOYS/Apparel***) is the nature of the "connected universe". You will have the "bell cows" carrying most of the $$$ return and the rest of the films used to introduce other characters so that they can mix and match in future ones.

It's all "cumulative" now with these two MCU and DCEU brands.

 

[Knight-Tale]

Yeah this movie is such a flop its only going to make 20 million less domestically than GOTG
DCEU is a joke

 

[Techn9ne77]

Aww another DCEU film, another bout of number crunching (box office, percentage drops, etc), opinions that are FACT (i.e. "I didn't like this movie, so it's wasn't good" THE END), & breakdowns to the tee ("Let me pull out this magnifying glass & look at these set photos. Yup, Leto's hair was longer here, this is a reshoot shot, no doubt about it"). You telling me I've got to wait until Wonder Woman next summer before I'm blessed with this again Meanwhile, over at the Dr. Strange forums, don't step on the crickets upon entering. Eat it up fellas, this level of vitriol vs defense is only exclusive to the DCEU

 

[Kathemy]

Aww another DCEU film, another bout of number crunching (box office, percentage drops, etc), opinions that are FACT (i.e. "I didn't like this movie, so it's wasn't good" THE END), & breakdowns to the tee ("Let me pull out this magnifying glass & look at these set photos. Yup, Leto's hair was longer here, this is a reshoot shot, no doubt about it"). You telling me I've got to wait until Wonder Woman next summer before I'm blessed with this again Meanwhile, over at the Dr. Strange forums, don't step on the crickets upon entering. Eat it up fellas, this level of vitriol vs defense is only exclusive to the DCEU

This is undoubtedly true. I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to the Doctor Strange movie or not. It has Cumberbatch but I was never a fan of the character... the anti-mysticism/"ancient wisdom" is strong in me. It might be the same as Into Darkness where Benedict was adequate enough but unable to save that disaster of a story, though I reckon Doctor Strange will treat its own source material with more respect regardless of the economically motivated Tibetan rewrite.

 

[Sleiek]

Aww another DCEU film, another bout of number crunching (box office, percentage drops, etc), opinions that are FACT (i.e. "I didn't like this movie, so it's wasn't good" THE END), & breakdowns to the tee ("Let me pull out this magnifying glass & look at these set photos. Yup, Leto's hair was longer here, this is a reshoot shot, no doubt about it"). You telling me I've got to wait until Wonder Woman next summer before I'm blessed with this again Meanwhile, over at the Dr. Strange forums, don't step on the crickets upon entering. Eat it up fellas, this level of vitriol vs defense is only exclusive to the DCEU

Truth

 

[flickchick85]

If you all wish to continue this debate, I suggest you do it without insulting each other.

 

[Kathemy]

Duly noted and will adjust my posting accordingly. Apologies.

 

[flickchick85]

Appreciate the cooperation.

 

[Greenlite]

We are half way through the list,

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=34141855&postcount=96

1. IM+Hulk = Trinity+Harley Quinn+Will Smith+Joker
2. WB spends crazy for budget+marketing, Kevin Feige controls his budget, therefore profit wise IM+Hulk > Trinity+Harley Quinn+Will Smith+Joker
3. DC has no sustainability, check the RT
4. SS won't even make 500M
5. SS won't even make 600M
6. SS making 650M is unrealistic
7. SS needs 800M to break even
8. You live in your own world and deny the reality.


http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=34123139&postcount=697

"it's not gonna even make 600M!! it's a flop!"
Then it makes 650+M
"it needs 800M to break even!"
Then you show that MOS made 300M without breaking even and it's like
"it takes ages for the money to return! it's not ideal" (though it did make $$$)
or
"we don't know anything about hollywood accounting, there's no point discussing this!"
and in 2 years time you show a report saying SS made a good (not great but good good) xyz profit, it's like
"those reports are bogus, they just say things you want to hear, they work for WB, or they are paid by WB"
"Well Transformers made money, so that's not indicative of quality of a movie"

Spoiler

http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925

Your numbers and your methods are flawed, simplistic and possibly fraudulent. The reason I don't normally bother responding to you isn't that I have a problem refuting your trash; it's that I can't take you seriously.

And thanks Kathemy that diagram is a gem!

 

[Greenlite]

And I'm sure Disney is gutted that they only get about 100M sales revenue over the next 5 years for their Thor, Cap, Star Wars toys on the store shelves worldwide, before they have to make x number of star war spin offs to just make their acquisition back (4 billion I hear), that takes decades, therefore, star war films are not making their budget back right away, they are duds, bombs, flops!

And I'm sure all movie companies share ALL the budget by themselves, like you know how TDK is financed by WB, Legendary, Syncops etc, it's ONLY WB financing it, damn it.

 

[Kathemy]

And thanks Kathemy that diagram is a gem!

Thank you, I just wish I could read the full article. I won't sign up on WSJ just for that. Also I wish I could get access to the "full financial information" part of The Numbers, but apparently you have to send them an email and God knows what that would cost. I'm not that obsessive. Yet.

 

[Techn9ne77]

We are half way through the list,

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=34141855&postcount=96

1. IM+Hulk = Trinity+Harley Quinn+Will Smith+Joker
2. WB spends crazy for budget+marketing, Kevin Feige controls his budget, therefore profit wise IM+Hulk > Trinity+Harley Quinn+Will Smith+Joker
3. DC has no sustainability, check the RT
4. SS won't even make 500M
5. SS won't even make 600M
6. SS making 650M is unrealistic
7. SS needs 800M to break even
8. You live in your own world and deny the reality.


http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=34123139&postcount=697

"it's not gonna even make 600M!! it's a flop!"
Then it makes 650+M
"it needs 800M to break even!"
Then you show that MOS made 300M without breaking even and it's like
"it takes ages for the money to return! it's not ideal" (though it did make $$$)
or
"we don't know anything about hollywood accounting, there's no point discussing this!"
and in 2 years time you show a report saying SS made a good (not great but good good) xyz profit, it's like
"those reports are bogus, they just say things you want to hear, they work for WB, or they are paid by WB"

Where's the inevitable "Well Transformers made money, so that's not indicative of quality of a movie" line? I'm sure that's been delivered, maybe I missed it....

 

[JtheDreamer]

Where's the inevitable "Well Transformers made money, so that's not indicative of quality of a movie" line? I'm sure that's been delivered, maybe I missed it....

Quality and entertainment are two distinctly different things.

 

[dc_mos]

David Ayer ‏@DavidAyerMovies
@SuicideSquadWB 600 million worldwide! Thank you to everyone for making this a success! @WarnerBrosEnt

 

[brandeezy89]

There's nothing to spin. It's basic math.

Spinning is touting "future revenues over a decade" to provide justification - when in fact these studio require shorter term profits to both finance the studio itself and in many cases work to increase shareholder value.

Regardless, the movie is most definitely not a box office success (beyond the fact that it was a terrible movie to begin with).

David Ayer ‏@DavidAyerMovies
@SuicideSquadWB 600 million worldwide! Thank you to everyone for making this a success! @WarnerBrosEnt

Quick, someone tell him that according to people on comic book forums, his movie isn't a success

 

[JKKS085]

Because the director of a movie is going to be completely objective about wether or not his own movie is a box office success. Sure !

But congrats to DC. 600M is no doubt an important milestone and that's the third terrible film in a row they release and yet they still manage to get half decent box office returns thanks to gangbuster openings. And that's gonna give rabid dc fans the opportunity to get even more insufferable over the next few days so we all win. Yeay !!!

 

[Greenlite]

Where's the inevitable "Well Transformers made money, so that's not indicative of quality of a movie" line? I'm sure that's been delivered, maybe I missed it....

done!

 

[JtheDreamer]

Quick, someone tell him that according to people on comic book forums, his movie isn't a success

EDIT: I realize it's just going to be more of the same rebuttles, so this is pointless.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Because the director of a movie is going to be completely objective about wether or not his own movie is a box office success. Sure !

I think it's pretty clear what or "who" is behind these posts. LOL

 

[Greenlite]

Because the director of a movie is going to be completely objective about wether or not his own movie is a box office success. Sure !

he's probably as objective as you based on your post history

Except his movie just "broke even" with another 80-100M to go, oh well, what a flop eh.

 

[Kathemy]

So in other word (of course) Ayer has more current information than Mojo.