BvS The box office "bar of success" for Batman/ Superman.

not sure wat you mean by that man

He's implying that domestic $ of BvS would pretty much break-even or even be more than enough for WB to make a profit. Meaning that anything more is literally icing on the cake.
 
He's implying that domestic $ of BvS would pretty much break-even or even be more than enough for WB to make a profit. Meaning that anything more is literally icing on the cake.

I see. but let's say that doesn't happen. say domestic gross does not break even, and MOST of the bo comes from overseas. is that bad news

basically wat I am asking is, is domestic gross valued more than overseas. and if it is then why. do they just not profit off it as much or wat
 
I see. but let's say that doesn't happen. say domestic gross does not break even, and MOST of the bo comes from overseas. is that bad news

basically wat I am asking is, is domestic gross valued more than overseas. and if it is then why. do they just not profit off it as much or wat

If I recall, overseas $ is actually less than what we're led to believe. I can't remember the number, but I do recall an article saying that it basically ranges from 15-40% of overseas revenue that goes to the studio. Thus, it's less reliable than domestic $.
 
And it needs most of the money to be made in the US to be profitable to the producers.

Used to be that way, but not so much anymore according to the resident critic/box office analyst at Forbes, who made the exact opposite argument in his column on "5 lessons of the 2013 box office". Emphasis mine:

3. Domestic gross is all-but-irrelevant

There are the obvious examples over the last twelve months of major films that seemed explicitly intended to strike gold overseas regardless of their domestic performances. The Wolverine is the second-biggest X-Men film worldwide despite being the lowest domestic grosser. Pacific Rim barely crossed $100m domestic yet made $400m worldwide. G.I. Joe: Retaliation was greenlit and constructed specifically with the intent of increasing its overseas grosses even at the expense of domestic earnings, and the film made $72m more worldwide than the first G.I. Joe despite making $30m less in America than The Rise of Cobra.

And of course Iron Man 3 earned $121m of its $1.2 billion in China thanks to (among other things) specially-shot sequences involving Chinese characters that were never intended to be seen by domestic audiences. For comparison, Iron Man 2 made $8m in China three years ago [...]

Even a seeming trifle like 20th Century Fox’s Runner Runner made just $19m in America yet earned $63m worldwide, thus putting it on the road to eventual profitability at a $30m budget [...] What we’re seeing is an industry where the vast majority of studio product, not just the mega-blockbusters, are dependent on foreign grosses to either create real profits or pull their butts out of the fire.

No longer is a domestic success even necessary for the perception of success that can fuel overseas grosses, since so many major films open in various foreign territories ahead of their domestic debut. We’ve seen a slow creep toward a truly international film industry for the last twelve years or so. But this year was notable in terms of how many smaller films treated America as just another territory. The future of the film industry may not be just mega-budget superhero films, but smaller-budgeted genre entries like A Good Day To Die Hard ($67m domestic, $304m worldwide on a $92m budget) or Rush ($90m and counting, 70% of that overseas, on a $38m budget) that are hardwired to succeed outside of America in such a way that their domestic performance becomes all-but-unnecessary.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"