Suicide Squad box office prediction

[Pickleweasel]

Is this supposed to open higher than guardians as far as expectations are concerned?

Given it's WB and there are always expectations, I'm guessing it's supposed to do better otherwise be seen as an under performer.

Having will smith in regardless of what has just been proven about the mans selling power will work against it in this regard. Having post TDKT Joker..etc.

uh no

 

[Fallen Angel]

Is this supposed to open higher than guardians as far as expectations are concerned?

Given it's WB and there are always expectations, I'm guessing it's supposed to do better otherwise be seen as an under performer.

Having will smith in regardless of what has just been proven about the mans selling power will work against it in this regard. Having post TDKT Joker..etc.

This is just a ton of crap.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

WB has to be happy that they had the highest grossing movie of 2014 and it was Rated R. Makes me wish Suicide Squad would be Rated R.

 

[Pickleweasel]

There is about a 0% chance of this having a $170 million budget. My guess is it'll be more like 100, so I don't know why it need to make more than Guardians to not be a failure.

 

[GL's Light]

I could see Suicide Squad having a big budget, well over $100 million, but it doesn't need to match or exceed the box office of Guardians of the Galaxy to be a success. Guardians over-performed its budget. It would have been a success had it done $500-600 million worldwide. Even a bit lower would have been all right.

 

[Pickleweasel]

It doesn't need a budget well over 100 million. Wolverine's was 120 it doesn't need to be huge it won't be heavy CGI

 

[GL's Light]

It has a pricey cast and I think they're going for larger scale action than most are expecting. Warner Bros tends to spend more on their superhero films than Fox. My guess is the budget will be in the $150 million range.

A budget of $100 million would be $20 million less than The Green Hornet.

 

[Pickleweasel]

It has a pricey cast and I think they're going for larger scale action than most are expecting. Warner Bros tends to spend more on their superhero films than Fox. My guess is the budget will be in the $150 million range.

A budget of $100 million would be $20 million less than The Green Hornet.

Look at the place beyond the pines' cast and look at its budget. the cast thing is being blown out of proportion. Gadot got 300,000. Margot probably got similar, no way cara or jai got anything even close. Even if Will Smith and leto got 10 mil each (which would be a lot) the cast isn't going to be pricy.

 

[GL's Light]

Look at the place beyond the pines' cast and look at its budget.

Not relevant to the discussion. People cut their asking price way down for certain types of films. They don't cut their asking price for big commercial comic book movies.

 

[Pickleweasel]

You said it has a pricey cast. It doesn't. There is one big name actor in the cast.

 

[GL's Light]

It's a pricey cast overall. It doesn't take more than one A-list star to push a cast into pricey territory.

Anyway, your guess is the budget will be about $100 million. Mine is it'll be about $150 million. We'll see who's closer when the budget is eventually reported. No use arguing a hypothetical into the ground.

 

[Pickleweasel]

It's a pricey cast overall. It doesn't take more than one A-list star to push a cast into pricey territory.

Anyway, your guess is the budget will be about $100 million. Mine is it'll be about $150 million. We'll see who's closer when the budget is eventually reported. No use arguing a hypothetical into the ground.

Yes it does. Will isn't getting 30 mil plus for this.

 

[GL's Light]

Regardless, we'll see what the budget is reported to be eventually.

 

[Marvin]

Good grief.

uh no

This is just a ton of crap.

...

There is about a 0% chance of this having a $170 million budget. My guess is it'll be more like 100, so I don't know why it need to make more than Guardians to not be a failure.

I asked if it needed to open more than 94 million.
I'm asking in relation to the eventual fan and blog sphere reaction and the competitive nature of comparison. Is this film supposed to open higher or not. Given it's full of stars and known characters and what not or are people still looking at it like an unknown film that is expected to open 'lower'.

As for guardians and it's total box office and legs, that's another story. One that involves other circumstances but again, I'm talking about the discussion that occurs the monday after the film is released.

Seemed like an honest question given all the buzz and hype I'm now seeing for this movie whereas a few months ago it was seen as something else imo. I'm also asking because inspite of MOS's massive numbers and circumstance, people all over this place are deeming it underperformed given what the 'brand' is seemingly supposed to do(but never actually has).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You guys are misundering Marvin's point. Now he can correct me if I am wrong but I think he is saying that there is a bias against Warner Brothers, that there are different standards. Because some nerds didn't like it they deemed MOS a flop even though it was in fact not. If it were, Snyder would not have directed BvS and Warners would not be going through with this new Universe.

He is wondering whether the film is going to be labeled a flop if it doesn't do near 800 million like GOTG.

As for the budget discussion, we don't know right now. Do I think it's over a 100 million? Sure, of course. All I can say is that I hope it isn't much above that because I don't think it's guaranteed Man of Steel type box office. If they are spending 150 million on an quirky comicbook movie like Suicide Squad (which they might be doing for all I know) that means that Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Flash are guaranteed to cost over 200million. That means each film is going to have to perform big time and their universe is just starting out so that type of gamble would be dangerous and stupid IMHO. And the sequel budgets would just be beyond astronomical.

EDIT: Marvin already explained himself. I was too slow!

 

[mclay18]

I think $600M worldwide is the high end. BVS would have to be as well-received as the first Avengers film in order to give SS a huge bump.

 

[GL's Light]

I'm asking in relation to the eventual fan and blog sphere reaction and the competitive nature of comparison. Is this film supposed to open higher or not. Given it's full of stars and known characters and what not or are people still looking at it like an unknown film that is expected to open 'lower'.

Sorry, I had misread you. Some people will spin a lower opening as a failure based on bias or ignorance, but anyone sensible will judge the opening in relation to the film's budget and the kind of gross it needs. Guardians after all set a new opening weekend record for an August release. To say that anything short of that would be a disappointment is setting an unreasonably high bar.

If they are spending 150 million on an quirky comicbook movie like Suicide Squad (which they might be doing for all I know) that means that Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Flash are guaranteed to cost over 200million.

Not necessarily. Suicide Squad is a quirky comic book, but it's getting a big, no-frills film adaptation. How much bigger the budgets would be for the other superhero films would depend on casting and the scale they're going for.

 

[Marvin]

Thanks spidey, however I was less focusing on the bias and more simply concerned with gauging what people's expectations were for this film's opening weekend are. I bring up GotG given how often they have been compared before.

As for the bias, I do tend to think DC stuff is held to higher standard in terms of expectations the term under perform is thrown around carelessly whereas it's the opposite for some of the competition. For example I assume this Wonder Woman film is going to face a similar deal as Superman. If everything you do is seen as 'over performing' it helps with buzz and marketing and the opposite for the reverse.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Thanks spidey, however I was less focusing on the bias and more simply concerned with gauging what people's expectations were for this film's opening weekend are. I bring up GotG given how often they have been compared before.

As for the bias, I do tend to think DC stuff is held to higher standard in terms of expectations the term under perform is thrown around carelessly whereas it's the opposite for some of the competition. For example I assume this Wonder Woman film is going to face a similar deal as Superman. If everything you do is seen as 'over performing' it helps with buzz and marketing and the opposite for the reverse.

Okay I gotcha.

I don't really get the GOTG comparisons beyond very superficial reasons. GOTG was an edgy family comedy like Shrek or something while Suicide Squad isn't.

 

[Marvin]

^I can't tell you how often I hear the term, DC's Guardians film brought up. I tend to agree with you but it's out there.

Sorry, I had misread you. Some people will spin a lower opening as a failure based on bias or ignorance, but anyone sensible will judge the opening in relation to the film's budget and the kind of gross it needs. Guardians after all set a new opening weekend record for an August release. To say that anything short of that would be a disappointment is setting an unreasonably high bar.

I personally don't get the celebration of breaking a record for a certain month. I mean you could release avengers in august and claim the title for that month(and all the buzz that comes with it). A film is destined to open big or small and doing so in a month that has little big films even try seems like a non thing imo.

So you don't think anything lower than say 80 will be met with a negative label by anyone sensible? I personally can't see the Grace Randolph's of the world holding their tongues now that they have a set precedent to be honest. Especially when the buzz and hype post bvs and into joker get into full gear approaching release.

Does the film have a rating yet? I can't imagine the opportunity to have the Joker in an R rated film being taken lightly by the creative leads.

 

[GL's Light]

I personally don't get the celebration of breaking a record for a certain month. I mean you could release avengers in august and claim the title for that month(and all the buzz that comes with it). A film is destined to open big or small and doing so in a month that has little big films even try seems like a non thing imo.

Some months naturally have bigger attendance than others. It makes a difference in trying to generate a big opening.

So you don't think anything lower than say 80 will be met with a negative label by anyone sensible? I personally can't see the Grace Randolph's of the world holding their tongues now that they have a set precedent to be honest. Especially when the buzz and hype post bvs and into joker get into full gear approaching release.

The tracking numbers close to release will have a big influence on shaping how people react to the opening. Plenty of people will react based on those and based on the precedent of Guardians, but the bottom line is the opening will either set the film up to make a good gross relative to its budget or it won't, and the commensurate legs will either be good enough to carry it to that gross or they won't, regardless of online spin the Monday following opening weekend.

Does the film have a rating yet? I can't imagine the opportunity to have the Joker in an R rated film being taken lightly by the creative leads.

It doesn't have a rating yet. I'll be shocked if it's not PG-13.

 

[Marvin]

I can see how budget can determine expectations and if they are met, but I've also seen such things consistently determined(in conversation anyways) by things beyond budget.

Take Cap for instance. I think it made like 250mill domestic this summer. If they didn't raise the budget beyond 170mill and kept it the same, there would be a clear expectation for the following solo film do do 'better' given things like momentum and brand growth and such. Now take the Civil War card they pulled, if that film cost 170 to produce, it wouldn't be expected to make what TWS did, even if it went down in cost to 150 it would be expected to so something approaching avengers numbers.
A more pertinent example would be that of Ironman. The last two solo's cost the same yet the expectation for the third film was far higher given it was the direct follow up and first film following the Avengers event. My point being given SS's positioning(first film after BvS and in the same year) and things like Will Smith and Joker and Luthor and possibly Batman...I fear the expectations may be influenced by things beyond that which you named. Particularly budget. If it's under 145mill to make, then perhaps but if it's over I imagine it will be fair game. Unless of course it's rated R.

 

[GL's Light]

The expectations game can always bite you. Marvel may eventually be a victim of their own success in that regard with some of their releases. But studios will ultimately make decisions based on their own internal expectations and financials.

 

[Pickleweasel]

About the budget the US dollar is really strong now compared to the Canadian dollar. Today $794 gets you 1000 canadian, just a year ago it took $910.

If almost all the filming is in Toronto they might be able to save $10-20 million on the budget assuming its in the 100 - 120 million budget range.

 

[dalonewolf]

After seeing that cast and knowing batman is un it
I'm pretty sure 100+ o.w is on the rise