Suicide Squad box office prediction - Part 2

[atomicbattery]

Whoa... didn't realize they paid that much for Marvel as well (the Lucas films deal was also 4 billion). Well... okay... maybe not in the black yet, but certainly not too far (they have 4 - billion dollar plus films under their belt). They can't be too far (if they aren't there already).

Yes, Disney paid eight billion for Marvel and Star Wars.
And while TFA and The Avengers probably paid a billion each against that, my guess is they aren't halfway there yet (that's just film- merchandising, games, theme parks- well, for Star Wars anyway- are the bigger dog to the movie tail).
And these were great acquisitions by Disney.

DC properties have been in-house since Warner-Kinney in 1967. One can question how they've been managed, but every dollar they make is found-money profit for Warner- unlike, say, Harry Potter was.

DCEU doomsayers are funny.

 

[Zarex]

Good call there, iirc Disney paid somewhere around 4 billion to Paramount for the rights to MCU movies while Time Warner owns DC entirely.

Disney paid off Paramount a hundred million or so to end their film distribution deal early, but Sumner Redstone never owned Marvel. Pre-Disney it was publicly traded with Ike Perlmutter owning a controlling share.

 

[Erzengel]

BoxOffice.com is projecting $762 million in cumulative ticket sales for The Force Awakens, and Robbins says “generally, rule of thumb, most people will tell you it’s about 50 percent” that makes it back to the studio. So count on $380 million in Disney revenue there.

And let us not forget the non-toy licensing, pay-per-view, home DVD sales, and more.

“That $4 billion is a large chunk of change,” Robbins says, “but more than likely, we think Disney will make half that back on this movie alone once you figure in all the revenue streams.” And will there be more down the line? These are the dividends you’re looking for. (Some analysts are already predicting Disney could reap $500 million in revenue next year from Star Wars products alone.)

That's before TFA was released. So instead of $762M, it made $2 Billion.

Marvel cost $4B to buy? The franchise made $7.94B just in the movies from Avengers to Civil War. (Did not include the first 5 from Paramount).

I think it's safe to say that Disney is more than just half way with their Star Wars and Marvel purchases. Because that doesn't even include merchandising.

I don't think they would have moved ahead with demolishing large portions of their parks in Disneyland and Disney World to include Star Wars lands and Pixar lands if they weren't sure they wouldn't be popular.

 

[Knight-Tale]

Disney has so much money but the Hulk is still tied up in a distribution deal with another studio unbelievable

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Disney paid off Paramount a hundred million or so to end their film distribution deal early, but Sumner Redstone never owned Marvel. Pre-Disney it was publicly traded with Ike Perlmutter owning a controlling share.

I don't honestly know the details because I just saw this on Wikipedia and this is where I'm coming from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

In late December 2009, The Walt Disney Company purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. In October 2010, Walt Disney Studios bought the distribution rights for Marvel's The Avengers and Iron Man 3 from Paramount Pictures

So is this untrue or what?

 

[Erzengel]

I don't think Universal Studios can get new Marvel rides but they seem to be able to update them. I think that's another thing Disney would like to get. But then again, there are rumors that Tower of Terror in California will become a Guardians of the Galaxy refurbished ride.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That's before TFA was released. So instead of $762M, it made $2 Billion.

Marvel cost $4B to buy? The franchise made $7.94B just in the movies from Avengers to Civil War. (Did not include the first 5 from Paramount).

I think it's safe to say that Disney is more than just half way with their Star Wars and Marvel purchases. Because that doesn't even include merchandising.

I don't think they would have moved ahead with demolishing large portions of their parks in Disneyland and Disney World to include Star Wars lands and Pixar lands if they weren't sure they wouldn't be popular.

The first one is actually from Universal.

 

[atomicbattery]

That's before TFA was released. So instead of $762M, it made $2 Billion.

Marvel cost $4B to buy? The franchise made $7.94B just in the movies from Avengers to Civil War. (Did not include the first 5 from Paramount).

I think it's safe to say that Disney is more than just half way with their Star Wars and Marvel purchases. Because that doesn't even include merchandising.

I don't think they would have moved ahead with demolishing large portions of their parks in Disneyland and Disney World to include Star Wars lands and Pixar lands if they weren't sure they wouldn't be popular.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my post, but I said that I was just talking film and not ancillaries, which, of course, are huge. I was just at Disney Hollywood Studios two weeks ago and they are obviously raking there with only StarTours, Launch Bay and a fireworks show years out from the opening of Star Wars Land. One can only imagine the revenue stream once that opens. It will likely dwarf Wizarding World of Harry Potter, which has been a monster for Universal.

The point is- talking only film- and using the logic that says SS has to make 700 mil. to turn a profit for Warner (yeah, right)- TFA, at two billion, probably made Disney something like one and a quarter billion in profit. Avengers, at 1.6 billion gross, probably made Dis about three quarters of a billion. Together that's two billion against an eight billion acquisition fee. To get halfway to eight, Disney's other Marvel films- combined- would have to have turned a two billion profit, and I'm not sure they're there yet. As enormous as Civil War was, for example, the profit was likely something in the 3-400 million range. Did Antman make Disney more than 100 million?
Yes, these films are huge and will continue to be so, and both acquisitions were brilliant moves by Disney (kudos to you, Mr. Iger).
But in Warners case, there's no entry fee. 'Oh, superheroes are big, you say? Well, I've got all this stuff in my closet.'
Dollar one goes right in their pocket.

 

[atomicbattery]

I don't honestly know the details because I just saw this on Wikipedia and this is where I'm coming from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe



So is this untrue or what?

Yeah, it's all true. Disney bought Marvel, but all the pre-existing Marvel deals were still in place. Fox still owned movie rights to X-men, Sony to Spider-man, Universal owned theme park rights to many of the characters, etc.

 

[metaphysician]

(sigh)Ok, here you go...

MARVEL

Domestic Gross (adjusted)
Iron Man - $384,034,200
The Incredible Hulk - $162,594,400
Iron Man 2 - $340,336,200

Total - $886,964,800

Worldwide Gross (adjusted)
Iron Man - $706,305,286 (est.)
The Incredible Hulk - $317,957,054 (est.)
Iron Man 2 - $680,087,331 (est.)

Total - $1,704,349,671 (est.)

Now since I couldn't find actual figures for adjusted worldwide numbers, these are estimated based on a little bit of math (I always rounded up in Marvel's favor). If someone else can provide actual numbers, please do. I have to figure my numbers are not too far off.

DC

Domestic Gross (adjusted)
Man of Steel - $300,770,200
Batman v Superman - $330,360,194 (no adjustment)
Suicide Squad - $238,002,651 (and growing)

Total - $869,133,045

Worldwide Gross (adjusted)
Man of Steel - $688,086,884 (est.)
Batman v Superman - $872,662,631 (no adjustment)
Suicide Squad - $509,000,000 (and growing)

Total - $2,069,749,515

Now before we start arguing about 'A' list and 'B' list heroes, it can be safely argued Iron Man was 'A' list by the time Iron Man 2 rolled around (although, to be frank, I've always considered him 'A' list...he's a freakin' original Avenger) and The Hulk was already 'A' list (he had a successful TV show for Christ's sake). But to be fair...let's add another Marvel movie...Thor (also an original Avenger).

Thor - $449,326,618 (estimated worldwide adjusted)

This gives Marvel a grand total (for 4 movies, mind you) of $2,189,622,418, which means Suicide Squad needs to earn $120,000,000 more (worldwide) for DC to surpass (with 3 movies, mind you).

For all the negative talk DC gets, sorry boys and girls, that's not too shabby.

First, I categorically reject your suggestion that Iron Man and Hulk were A list. Hulk was B list at best, having a 70s TV show and a failure of an earlier movie, and he was *vastly* higher profile and better known than Iron Man. Neither of them could hold a candle at the time to Superman or Batman in cultural cachet, and pretending otherwise does your argument no service.

Second, a factor you ignore: budget. WB earned marginally more in their first movies, yes. . . but they spent *vastly* more to do it. The first three Marvel movies only cost 490M total production budget ( 140, 150, 200 ), whereas the first three DCEU movies cost 650M total production budget ( 225, 250, 175 ). So, Marvel made 3.48 times their budget WW, while WB made 3.18 times their budget WW. DC spent more, to make proportionately less.

Third, there is the matter of ratings. While not as solid a measure of results as box office take, ratings and reviews speak to the quality of the movies, and thus to their future potential. And in that, the first three Marvel movies carry far greater potential, as the worst of the three reviewed considerably better than the best of three DC movies. And this is, and will be, a source of consternation at WB no matter how many people try to act like critics don't matter.

 

[Creo]

First, I categorically reject your suggestion that Iron Man and Hulk were A list. Hulk was B list at best, having a 70s TV show and a failure of an earlier movie, and he was *vastly* higher profile and better known than Iron Man. Neither of them could hold a candle at the time to Superman or Batman in cultural cachet, and pretending otherwise does your argument no service.

Second, a factor you ignore: budget. WB earned marginally more in their first movies, yes. . . but they spent *vastly* more to do it. The first three Marvel movies only cost 490M total production budget ( 140, 150, 200 ), whereas the first three DCEU movies cost 650M total production budget ( 225, 250, 175 ). So, Marvel made 3.48 times their budget WW, while WB made 3.18 times their budget WW. DC spent more, to make proportionately less.

Third, there is the matter of ratings. While not as solid a measure of results as box office take, ratings and reviews speak to the quality of the movies, and thus to their future potential. And in that, the first three Marvel movies carry far greater potential, as the worst of the three reviewed considerably better than the best of three DC movies. And this is, and will be, a source of consternation at WB no matter how many people try to act like critics don't matter.

Plus D.C. had the added benefit of 3d and Imax (only IM2 had it) and a largely expanded international box office (it really started blowing up around the release of The Avengers). I'd add on the increased interest in super hero movies brought about by the MCU as well, but I can see that being contested.

 

[writer0327]

Plus D.C. had the added benefit of 3d and Imax (only IM2 had it) and a largely expanded international box office (it really started blowing up around the release of The Avengers). I'd add on the increased interest in super hero movies brought about by the MCU as well, but I can see that being contested.

I don't contest that, I actually think its a fair point. But not so much that MCU brought about an increased interest in superhero movies, because we had that with Spiderman, X-Men, and Nolan's Batman.

What the MCU created was bringing about a "universe", multiple superhero movies all existing within the same universe, telling separate stories, but all related. When Sam Jackson appeared in the post-credit scene at the end of Iron Man talking about "The Avengers Initiative", that shook up the comic book movie world.

 

[dragonjo8]

First, I categorically reject your suggestion that Iron Man and Hulk were A list. Hulk was B list at best, having a 70s TV show and a failure of an earlier movie, and he was *vastly* higher profile and better known than Iron Man. Neither of them could hold a candle at the time to Superman or Batman in cultural cachet, and pretending otherwise does your argument no service.

Second, a factor you ignore: budget. WB earned marginally more in their first movies, yes. . . but they spent *vastly* more to do it. The first three Marvel movies only cost 490M total production budget ( 140, 150, 200 ), whereas the first three DCEU movies cost 650M total production budget ( 225, 250, 175 ). So, Marvel made 3.48 times their budget WW, while WB made 3.18 times their budget WW. DC spent more, to make proportionately less.

Third, there is the matter of ratings. While not as solid a measure of results as box office take, ratings and reviews speak to the quality of the movies, and thus to their future potential. And in that, the first three Marvel movies carry far greater potential, as the worst of the three reviewed considerably better than the best of three DC movies. And this is, and will be, a source of consternation at WB no matter how many people try to act like critics don't matter.

Whoa...slow down, chief. If I haven't made this clear from previous posts...I'm a SUPERHERO fan, I like both Marvel and DC...

These statements alone are probably at the root of all the hate (and the reason DC films seem to be held to a higher standard). The perception is DC should be knocking it out of the park (and they should be) based on their 'pedigree'. There is also probably a little bit of Marvel fans (always kind of playing second fiddle to DC) finally having something to gloat about. But come on folks... we're SUPERHERO fans. Let's stop all the Marvel vs DC crap. Marvel's successes should be DC's successes and vice versa.

Let me address your assertions...

1st assertion:
Really? Then you are saying (at the time) Marvel had no A-list heroes besides say, Spider-Man? I mean who else would Marvel (or the general public) consider their A-list heroes? Come on...I categorically reject that suggestion. For the longest time, Spider-Man, Captain America, The Hulk, Thor, X-Men, The Fantastic Four, and (in my opinion) Iron Man were consistently at the top of Marvel's stable of superheroes. I mean, if these guys were/are not the A-listers of their stable, who then? I never once said Marvel's TOP superheroes were as popular or well known as DC's. Besides...I really don't like the notion of A-listers but Marvel fans always bring it up to counter the fact the DCEU's 1st three movies will more than likely out gross the MCU's 1st four (ADJUSTED).

I remember the nineties Iron Man cartoon being on sky1 as a kid.

I've never really understood people's obsession with categorizing characters A, B, C, ect.

I've seen people on websites endless talk about where a character fits on a list to either prop up or belittle or distinguish a certain character they like or dislike.

None it really matters.

Popularity shifts all the time. Things go out of fashion and then later return to being fashionable.

I could not agree more. Unfortunately, whenever the pro Marvel folks assert Marvel is far more financially successful than DC, the pro DC folks point out the first 3 films of each franchise has DC more financially successful. The Marvel fans invariably counter with the notion of A-list and B-list heroes or adjusted box office grosses. I simply pointed out that even when these things are considered, DC still comes out on top (or at least they will if Suicide Squad earns $120,000,000 more in worldwide grosses).

2nd assertion:
The reason budget was ignored is because I was replying to someone who was making an assertion based on ADJUSTED BOX OFFICE NUMBERS. I know full well DC has spent way more than they should have on their first 3 films.

It'd be just a little more impressive if DC had been more conservative with the budgets like Marvel. I'm not going to trash talk them but they've already spent about $750 million on those three films.

In contrast, Marvel spent around half that for the three films you mentioned.

Agreed. Look folks, no one is saying Marvel hasn't done a superb job. They clearly have. DC, on the other hand, whether due to their haste in trying to play catch up or just sheer incompetence, have left A LOT on the table. In spite of this, however, I think the numbers clearly show things aren't as bad as the haters would have (want) you to believe.

3rd assertion:
I can't find where I addressed this before (otherwise I would quote it here) but there definitely appears to be a component of popularity with hating on the films of the DCEU, far more than is warranted. Do these movies have problems? Sure they do but not (IMHO) to the degree of the outright vitriol they have received from many. Unfortunately, critical assessments from both critics and the general audience are often subjective in nature and totally susceptible to influence.

 

[Creo]

I don't contest that, I actually think its a fair point. But not so much that MCU brought about an increased interest in superhero movies, because we had that with Spiderman, X-Men, and Nolan's Batman.

What the MCU created was bringing about a "universe", multiple superhero movies all existing within the same universe, telling separate stories, but all related. When Sam Jackson appeared in the post-credit scene at the end of Iron Man talking about "The Avengers Initiative", that shook up the comic book movie world.

That's fair, I'll give you that. Spider-Man and X-Men definitely deserve the most credit, with TDK trilogy showing us that superhero movies can also carry some real weight. The MCU just brought an interest in building a world around them instead of having them each in isolated universes. That end scene with Nick is still one of my favorite scenes in any movie just for the absolute elation I felt after seeing it.

 

[See Cap Run]

Plus D.C. had the added benefit of 3d and Imax (only IM2 had it) and a largely expanded international box office (it really started blowing up around the release of The Avengers). I'd add on the increased interest in super hero movies brought about by the MCU as well, but I can see that being contested.

Minor correction:I don't know about Imax but the first MCU film to be released in 3d was Thor.

 

[Greenlite]

As a person who watched his first superhero movie in theater in 2005 (Batman Begins), second one in 2007 Spiderman 3, and became a big fan of the genre after seeing TDK in 2008, I can say from my own experience that I've never heard of Iron Man before the movie (I've heard of Ironman the Olympic competition and Ironman the cereal in my country(s)).

I became aware of the character via its trailers in theaters in 2008 (I thought it was Tom Cruise in the role but then thought hmm..who's this articulate guy?), and my engineer friend kept on raving about it. In 2010 news stations here started showing IM2 trailers, Scarlett Jo as one of the new characters, and then you see all the exhibition of IM armors and coverage of its box office success (and critical drubbing). I'd argue that IM became an A-lister in 2010, that's why Marvel could market the Avengers around RDJ (centre of posters for example) and without him it'd be difficult for TA to make that crazy 1.5B, I'd argue 5 factors made a huge - RDJ, first team up superhero film, critical appraisal, fun and kids.

IM of course became even more popular after TA - insane b.o and exposure helps, and proves his popularity with IM3 topping TDK/TDKR* and every other superhero not called avengers. I believe IM will be in the same league with Batman and Superman in pop culture and movies, I don't read comics but I heard he's not that hot sales wise. I believe since IM is so popular now, once RDJ retires, Marvel will not look for an unknown for the role, but they will cast a super popular, talented, A-list actor to continue making IM movies hugely profitable. Case in point, for Joker, they had Nicholson, Ledger (controversial at the start but he's got an Oscar nomination) and Leto. But if they do cast someone unknown, then they probably think IM the character is so popular like Spidey and Batman that they can afford to cast actors in the same GA awareness as Bale, Garfield, Holland etc.

 

[dragonjo8]

As a person who watched his first superhero movie in theater in 2005 (Batman Begins), second one in 2007 Spiderman 3, and became a big fan of the genre after seeing TDK in 2008, I can say from my own experience that I've never heard of Iron Man before the movie (I've heard of Ironman the Olympic competition and Ironman the cereal in my country(s)).

I became aware of the character via its trailers in theaters in 2008 (I thought it was Tom Cruise in the role but then thought hmm..who's this articulate guy?), and my engineer friend kept on raving about it. In 2010 news stations here started showing IM2 trailers, Scarlett Jo as one of the new characters, and then you see all the exhibition of IM armors and coverage of its box office success (and critical drubbing). I'd argue that IM became an A-lister in 2010, that's why Marvel could market the Avengers around RDJ (centre of posters for example) and without him it'd be difficult for TA to make that crazy 1.5B, I'd argue 5 factors made a huge - RDJ, first team up superhero film, critical appraisal, fun and kids.

IM of course became even more popular after TA - insane b.o and exposure helps, and proves his popularity with IM3 topping TDK/TDKR* and every other superhero not called avengers. I believe IM will be in the same league with Batman and Superman in pop culture and movies, I don't read comics but I heard he's not that hot sales wise. I believe since IM is so popular now, once RDJ retires, Marvel will not look for an unknown for the role, but they will cast a super popular, talented, A-list actor to continue making IM movies hugely profitable. Case in point, for Joker, they had Nicholson, Ledger (controversial at the start but he's got an Oscar nomination) and Leto. But if they do cast someone unknown, then they probably think IM the character is so popular like Spidey and Batman that they can afford to cast actors in the same GA awareness as Bale, Garfield, Holland etc.

Actually...if you look at it objectively, the character became an A-lister (in the mind of the general public) after the first film. Sure, the hype machine started in 2010 (gearing up for the 5/2010 release) but all you have to do is look at RDJ's salary for the first film ($500,000) and compare it to what he got for the 2nd ($10,000,000) and you can easily attribute it to his previous performance, the positive reception, and the character's rise to A-list status. The bump in salary would not have been as high if the character was still at B-list status.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

http://deadline.com/2016/08/ben-hur...cide-squad-sausage-party-war-dogs-1201806438/

"In all fairness, the marketplace is stacked against all titles, not just Ben-Hur, due to schools back in session the final weekend of the Rio Summer Olympics. Holdovers are coming in lower than projected with Suicide Squad at $19.3M (-56%) in No. 1 and Sausage Party down -57% with $14.7M in second. Warner Bros.’ Todd Phillips action comedy War Dogs is looking at an OK $14.5M, and then there’s Kubo and the Two Strings which is the lowest debut of the four Laika/Focus movies with an estimated $12.6M."

 

[Creo]

Minor correction:I don't know about Imax but the first MCU film to be released in 3d was Thor.

Thanks! I thought IM2 had it when it released in Imax.

Actually...if you look at it objectively, the character became an A-lister (in the mind of the general public) after the first film. Sure, the hype machine started in 2010 (gearing up for the 5/2010 release) but all you have to do is look at RDJ's salary for the first film ($500,000) and compare it to what he got for the 2nd ($10,000,000) and you can easily attribute it to his previous performance, the positive reception, and the character's rise to A-list status. The bump in salary would not have been as high if the character was still at B-list status.

I still disagree. RDJ only warranted $500,000 for IM1 because he was a recovering drug addict and was lucky to have Marvel take a risk on him. Terrance Howard was paid millions for IM1. RDJ commanded a higher pay check for IM2 because he got big, due to two break out films to break $500 million with Sherlock Holmes (where he was paid $9 million). Iron Man didn't hit big time status until after (or because of) IM2.

 

[NotNickFury]

http://deadline.com/2016/08/ben-hur...cide-squad-sausage-party-war-dogs-1201806438/

"In all fairness, the marketplace is stacked against all titles, not just Ben-Hur, due to schools back in session the final weekend of the Rio Summer Olympics. Holdovers are coming in lower than projected with Suicide Squad at $19.3M (-56%) in No. 1 and Sausage Party down -57% with $14.7M in second. Warner Bros.’ Todd Phillips action comedy War Dogs is looking at an OK $14.5M, and then there’s Kubo and the Two Strings which is the lowest debut of the four Laika/Focus movies with an estimated $12.6M."

I expected a film like Kubo to open higher, honestly.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

http://deadline.com/2016/08/ben-hur...cide-squad-sausage-party-war-dogs-1201806438/

1). Suicide Squad (UNI), 3,924 theaters (-331) / $5.7M Fri. (-57%)/ 3-day cume: $19.3M (-56%) /Total cume: $260.9M/ Wk 3

 

[Greenlite]

I expected a film like Kubo to open higher, honestly.

Kubo trailers looked good and got an incredible 4.5/5 on SR. Yet it opened low. US cinema took a hit this weekend, well even I am staying home to watch the Olympic finals (volleyball, relays, Bolt, our super cute 19 y/o Eliza Mccarthney getting a bronze at pole jumping). Would be interesting to see if all films get a good hold for US Sunday. 19M+ should get SS passed 300M ***.

Edit: Comparing Deadline's prediction today to boxoffice.com's initial on Thursday, SS and SP are down by less than 5% while Kubos, War dogs, Ben hur are down by about 10% (I don't have a calculator but it's about that range). Wrong time to release your movies I guess.

 

[JKKS085]

http://deadline.com/2016/08/ben-hur...cide-squad-sausage-party-war-dogs-1201806438/

1). Suicide Squad (UNI), 3,924 theaters (-331) / $5.7M Fri. (-57%)/ 3-day cume: $19.3M (-56%) /Total cume: $260.9M/ Wk 3

Expected and in line with my own prediction but another pretty bad drop nonetheless.

Disclaimer: I know that the budget is 175M. I know that the domestic cume is still a very good number for the IP and I am just commenting on the drop. I know that those are just domestic numbers and that there are other countries in the world where the film might or might not hold better. I know that it is beating several Marvel films. I know that it is just the 3rd DCEU film. I am neither a Marvelite nor a DC hater and just like commenting on numbers despite my Iron Man avatar (that I didn't change since 2008). I am not about doom and gloom. I just like to put raw numbers into perspective by using context and factoring in things such as expectations, competition and IP potential. I don't think the DCEU is gonna end anytime soon. I don't wish for the DCEU to end anytime soon. I can adjust numbers for inflation. I don't wear rose colored glasses, or blue colored glasses or any glasses for that matter. I roughly know how much studios get from theatrical runs and therefore can estimate how much profit they make (if at all). I can estimate how much P&A costs and I know that studios also get revenues from merchandise, TV rights and home video. I know what frontloading means.

 

[idiot09]

"In all fairness, the marketplace is stacked against all titles, not just Ben-Hur, due to schools back in session the final weekend of the Rio Summer Olympics.

Considering the context,the ~$20mil SS would make it not bad at all.

 

[Joy in J-Land]

I expected a film like Kubo to open higher, honestly.

It deserved to open higher. Saw it last night and it was really good.