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

[dnno1]

Hmmm....it will be interesting to find what the budget actually is. That seems high to me. If they made Avatar for less than that then I would expect WB to put the kibosh down anything too extravagant.

Well, it seems like you can't make a decent Superman film nowadays for less than $225 million ("Superman Returns" was produced for $209 million, while "Man of Steel" was done for $225) and if you want to do Batman any justice and give him a significant part in the film you will need to add on probably another $100 to $150 million, so it wouldn't surprise me if the budget were as high as $350 million. The thing is that you will easily get your money back since even the worst Batman film will make over $240 million and a disappointing Superman film will still make $400. You should break even in that case.

 

[charl_huntress]

Well, it seems like you can't make a decent Superman film nowadays for less than $225 million ("Superman Returns" was produced for $209 million, while "Man of Steel" was done for $225) and if you want to do Batman any justice and give him a significant part in the film you will need to add on probably another $100 to $150 million, so it wouldn't surprise me if the budget were as high as $350 million. The thing is that you will easily get your money back since even the worst Batman film will make over $240 million and a disappointing Superman film will still make $400. You should break even in that case.

You are right. Wow though...I will be curious to see what the budget actually is because that might gives us an indication of how much a role Batman will actually play. Good points dnno1!

 

[Wise]

Remember in regards to the budget WB will be getting tax breaks and incentive rewards because they're shooting in Detroit.

 

[TheScarecrow]

Well, it seems like you can't make a decent Superman film nowadays for less than $225 million ("Superman Returns" was produced for $209 million, while "Man of Steel" was done for $225) and if you want to do Batman any justice and give him a significant part in the film you will need to add on probably another $100 to $150 million, so it wouldn't surprise me if the budget were as high as $350 million. The thing is that you will easily get your money back since even the worst Batman film will make over $240 million and a disappointing Superman film will still make $400. You should break even in that case.

I don't think this maths is right.

I think $250million, max. Just because Batman and Superman are in the film does not mean it needs the budget of two movies.

 

[STARMAN]

There's no way I can see a 350 million dollar budget. You would further cut into your profit margin. There's something wrong if your film needs to make a billion dollars to break even.

 

[dnno1]

I don't think this maths is right.

I think $250million, max. Just because Batman and Superman are in the film does not mean it needs the budget of two movies.

I never said it needed that type of budget ($350 million) I was pointing out the fact that you could get away with spending that much on the film and probably still break even (it wouldn't surprise me) even if it were bad just due to the fact that it would be Superman and Batman in the picture. Furthermore, the expectation for the film from the suits will be a lot lower than what we the fans are expecting. Most of us are probably anticipating a billion dollar plus box office, but in actuality the suits at the studio would be happy to see the film make a little more than what "Man of Steel" took in this summer.

 

[NoLaNitE007]

Well you can bet that the trailers are going to be nuts, and this movie already has damn near everyone's attention. So far I am pretty sure there is nothing the weekend after and I don't think a studio is going to throw something in that slot either.

I don't think Terminator is going to do numbers, could be wrong but I don't think it will be big competition in its 3rd week. Minions has already been pushed back once, maybe they change it again, if not I can see that taking some away but not too much.

MOS had to go against The Purge (kinda had a lot of buzz) This is the End, WWZ, Monsters U, The Heat, White House Down, Despicable me 2, and The Lone Ranger in its first 3 weeks.

As of now it looks like this will have Minions (I expect that to make 700 mil), then 2 weeks by itself, then Antman (450mil), Assassins Creed and Bourne (I dont think Assassins Creed and Bourne are going to be big) and Smurfs 3 (350mil).

That doesn't look too bad to me even in a packed year. So I could see it getting that billion mark especially with even slightly better critic reviews. But I think for it to be a "success" just 800 Mil, anything more than that is gravy. WB might be able to make their money back from simply selling merchandise for this movie leading up to it.

The July 17th release for BvsS is a solid release date. It could even be bumped up another week or to July 4th weekend if need be. There is no way the production budget for BvsS will be 350 million. More like 200-225. Snyder knows how to get the most out of his budgets. Plus WB's and the film are receiving big tax break incentives for shooting in Detroit.

It's funny, because since ANTMAN was announced to be released two weeks later after BvsS, people actually thought ANTMAN would direct competition when it surely is not.

If ANTMAN was direct competition for BvsS than why isn't it being released the same weekend as BvsS if Marvel wanted it to go head to head and if they were so confident? The reality is, BvsS would step on and crush ANTMAN hard if those films were released the same weekend.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I'm not sure why people think BvsS will be more expensive. Affleck's paycheck?

 

[smallville fan]

Many Many Many Many Many people were saying MOS was a billion easy.

The marketing campaign was tremendous and wide reaching and personally the best I had seen since Avatar. Simply blanket marketing and a massive 150 million dollar marketing budget and 170 million dollars worth of product tie-ups and so many tours and displays around the U.S. and memorablie galore with tickets or standins or coloring books or toys or clothes or blankets or anything.

It was insane.

The result of that? 660 million worldwide.

Take in the production budget of 225 million and it does seem ok but not great.

People should realize that their anticipation for a movie is not equal to GA's anticipation for the movie.

I think those saying it will make more than Avengers have lost the plot.

Let's not forget about the idiot critics that made the film lose money.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't see how the critics made the film lose money, and even if they did, it wasn't what kept it from being a billion dollar film.

BvS has an outside chance at a billion, but I don't see it doing better than TDKR. It's in a much better slot release wise than MoS so it has that advantage. The film is really banking on the popularity of the characters, and perhaps Ben Affleck, but I don't see where much else is going for it.

I kind of see these films as being a Fast and Furious kind of success, which is not a bad thing by any means.

 

[JOE]

Anything under a billion worldwide would rightfully be a huge disappointment.
I also think that it should outgross The Dark Knight Rises and ultimately the movie is so obviously designed to compete with The Avengers that it won't be considered a success unless it comes really close to its numbers. Wich would be 1,5 B WW.

I don't understand the logic here. You say it's rightfully a huge disappointment if it doesn't reach 1B, then go on to say it won't be considered a success if it doesn't get close to 1.5B...

So hypothetically if the movie makes 1.1B, it's not technically a huge disappointment, yet not a success either? You're in for a rude awakening my friend... Just like the 1B-1.5B MOS predictors were. The movie did around 660M and it was still considered successful.

But for real, was this post sarcasm? Please tell me it was...

 

[charl_huntress]

But for real, was this post sarcasm? Please tell me it was...

The sad thing is this was real and I'm sure him/her meant it. *shakes head* I hope people truly realize that the film does not need to make a billion dollars to be considered financially successful. Yeah us DC fans would like it to be Avengers, but it doesn't have to be considered successful. I hope it does...but it doesn't have to.

 

[JOE]

They struck gold with The Avengers in '12 and again with IM3 in '13. They set the bar high for themselves as well if you ask me. They're going to promote the crap out of Phase 2, but that 1.5B mark might even be high for A2AU to overcome... Let alone the MOS sequel...

 

[kguillou]

Isnt' it sad we've come to the point in films where $1B is now the "success" standard? I mean, theoretically, if this film made 800-900 mill it SHOULD be considered a HUGE success. That's ALOT of money in profit. I think studios just want the bragging rights.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Nothing less than $1b pretty much, and even just that would be a little disappointing.

 

[sf2]

I'm not sure why people think BvsS will be more expensive. Affleck's paycheck?

ya. i hope the budget is about the same as MOS... maybe 10% more.

 

[Wise]

Isnt' it sad we've come to the point in films where $1B is now the "success" standard? I mean, theoretically, if this film made 800-900 mill it SHOULD be considered a HUGE success. That's ALOT of money in profit. I think studios just want the bragging rights.

The fanboys want them too.

 

[charl_huntress]

The fanboys want them too.

My word don't we? The joy that will be had by having a billion dollar DC so we can toss it back in the face of other fandom!!! Glorious.

 

[slumcat]

I'm not sure why people think BvsS will be more expensive. Affleck's paycheck?

Man Of Steel with not even a A lister in the lead role and being the first film in the franchise cost more than Avengers which was the 5th film in a franchise and chock-a-block with A listers in lead roles.

So it seems to me DC just squander money.

Just imagine if MOS had cost 150, it would have been considered a much bigger success than it is today.

Even TDKR cost 250 million. You look at the budget and you look at the movie and wonder where the money went.

 

[Marvin]

Man Of Steel with not even a A lister in the lead role and being the first film in the franchise cost more than Avengers which was the 5th film in a franchise and chock-a-block with A listers in lead roles.

So it seems to me DC just squander money.

Just imagine if MOS had cost 150, it would have been considered a much bigger success than it is today.

Even TDKR cost 250 million. You look at the budget and you look at the movie and wonder where the money went.

So if it cost about 65 mill less, thus making about 65 mill more on the revenue end, it would have been all the world of difference in terms of success?

Avengers cost less, in part due to two reasons, all the R&D had been taken care off prior with the exception of hulk. MOS built and designed it's 'assets' from scratch as with most first installments. And there is that little wonderment of marvel actor salaries. WB does have a way of squandering funds on them...
WB tends to want to spend money on films they think will make money so I expect similar expenses for BvS. This idea that the film will cost twice as much is pretty silly though(not sure he said it).

The rest comes down to efficiency. People like Bay and GDT have figured out out to milk every penny on screen. Others not so much.

I heard Avatar was the most expensive film produced thus far?

 

[charl_huntress]

You look at the budget and you look at the movie and wonder where the money went.

It went toward a decent cast, good FX, 3D, and all that stuff. Where do you think it went?

 

[slumcat]

So if it cost about 65 mill less, thus making about 65 mill more on the revenue end, it would have been all the world of difference in terms of success?

Avengers cost less, in part due to two reasons, all the R&D had been taken care off prior with the exception of hulk. MOS built and designed it's 'assets' from scratch as with most first installments. And there is that little wonderment of marvel actor salaries. WB does have a way of squandering funds on them...

The rest comes down to efficiency. People like Bay and GDT have figured out out to milk every penny on screen. Others not so much.

Obviously budget is a huge variable while evaluating profit. Profit is earnings - minus investment see? So if investment is less, profit is more???


The general paradigm is profit is WW gross minus twice the budget. This is an approximate equation.

So approximately MOS had a roughly 210 million profit so to say. Had the budget been 75 million less, the profit would have been 360 million and suddenly it starts to seem like one of the most profitable films of the year.

So obviously by the dictates of mathematics, a lower budget helps your movie be more viable and more profitable.

 

[slumcat]

It went toward a decent cast, good FX, 3D, and all that stuff. Where do you think it went?

The question "Where did the money go" is a rhetorical question. When someone uses it, they mean that the money isn't visible on the screen. Meaning that movie is more expensive than it looks.

 

[charl_huntress]

The question "Where did the money go" is a rhetorical question. When someone uses it, they mean that the money isn't visible on the screen. Meaning that movie is more expensive than it looks.

Well if you didn't see all that "money" on the screen with all the CGI and stuff then...well...I guess I didn't get it was rhetorical...

 

[Marvin]

Obviously budget is a huge variable while evaluating profit. Profit is earnings - minus investment see? So if investment is less, profit is more???


The general paradigm is profit is WW gross minus twice the budget. This is an approximate equation.

So approximately MOS had a roughly 210 million profit so to say. Had the budget been 75 million less, the profit would have been 360 million and suddenly it starts to seem like one of the most profitable films of the year.

So obviously by the dictates of mathematics, a lower budget helps your movie be more viable and more profitable.

Yes I get the math. The same math dictates that if the film costs a whole dollar less in investment, it earns an entire dollar more in profit(see). The issue is just how relevant is one entire dollar?
My observation is 75 isn't all that big a figure in the grand scheme of world wide hauls.
It's the difference between a film grossing 115ww and 190ww.

A figure like 200 seems more 'relevant' no?
As for your figure on MOS' profit, it seemingly excludes the promotional tie ins and dvd sales...then again most of these calculations do so it's at least consistent.