The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I hate to keep explaining this but 391mil wasn't SR's problem. Star Trek did similar worldwide numbers and a sequel is about to start filming. Warner's could have lived with that number had the audience not split on the film. The difference between SR and Star Trek is that the vast majority of the audience liked Star Trek while half were indifferent to or disliked Superman Returns. That fact cause WB to be harder on Singer about where the sequel would go and him dragging his feet about a sequel. The reception ultimately killed the sequel.

If MOS makes 391mil and gets Star Trek reviews and audience scores or Batman Begins if you want to keep it DC, a sequel will be made.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

$650-700 million worldwide. 3D and Nolan producing will have some cache.

 

[KalMart]

I hate to keep explaining this but 391mil wasn't SR's problem. Star Trek did similar worldwide numbers and a sequel is about to start filming. Warner's could have lived with that number had the audience not split on the film. The difference between SR and Star Trek is that the vast majority of the audience liked Star Trek while half were indifferent to or disliked Superman Returns. That fact cause WB to be harder on Singer about where the sequel would go and him dragging his feet about a sequel. The reception ultimately killed the sequel.

If MOS makes 391mil and gets Star Trek reviews and audience scores or Batman Begins if you want to keep it DC, a sequel will be made.

Plus, with SR's storyline already killing the origin, early arc, and budding romance aspects...it'd have to be a huge hit both $$ and popularly to warrant finding some way of continuing. And it just wasn't.

 

[KalMart]

MOS, I'm going to be conservative and guess $525M WW.

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

It totally depends on the reviews. I believe the trailers for this movie will be fantastic so awareness won't be a problem. Good to great reviews and I believe its $600 million WW minimum. Otherwise, I think it will $300-400 million WW which isn't bad but it'll feel like a failure considering all of the names involved.

 

[KalMart]

Nolan's name alone should account for, what, $50-75M?

 

[kurac]

im pretty sure the budget will end up in 180-220 mill range which in zack snyder hands will look like a 300 mill $ movie.
as for gross-i believe it will do some serious damage.especially if its good.so ill say 700+ mill worldwide

 

[mclay18]

I keep thinking WB is burnt on SR's reception and the rights issues, that they definitely would've kept the budget threshold for the reboot low (like $150M-$175M) if Nolan didn't get involved as a godfather capacity. Of course, scheduling, production delays and all inflate the budget.

And now with the studio being enthusiastic about the footage and the film being shot and edited on schedule -- they'll actually pour more money into it to make it look better. I wouldn't be surprised if the film ends up closer to $200M, minus P&A costs.

 

[flickchick85]

I hate to keep explaining this but 391mil wasn't SR's problem. Star Trek did similar worldwide numbers and a sequel is about to start filming. Warner's could have lived with that number had the audience not split on the film. The difference between SR and Star Trek is that the vast majority of the audience liked Star Trek while half were indifferent to or disliked Superman Returns. That fact cause WB to be harder on Singer about where the sequel would go and him dragging his feet about a sequel. The reception ultimately killed the sequel.

If MOS makes 391mil and gets Star Trek reviews and audience scores or Batman Begins if you want to keep it DC, a sequel will be made.

While I do agree with you that the reception was the main problem, I think the 391mil was partially the problem as well, simply because of how much money WB had tossed down the drain before cameras even started rolling on SR. They had A LOT of money they were hoping to recoup on that project, which just made that modest number look even worse on the books. Also considering that recent experience, I really don't expect MoS's budget to inflate past $200m or even that. I'm expecting it to end up around $185m.


With MOS's box office, right now I'm going with a fairly modest prediction, but it's one that I think will still be enough to launch a hit franchise:

Domestic: $245m
Worldwide: $470m

Basically, a moderately more successful Batman Begins, thanks to the Nolan name being attached and holding a lot more weight than it did then, and a cast that appeals across demos.

Even with those seemingly small (for a mega-blockbuster) numbers, if it's a damn good movie like I expect it to be, then the sequel could almost double that, WB would have the hot tentpole franchise on their hands that they're looking for with the loss of HP (and Nolan's Bat-series), and Snyder's stock goes right on back to the top of the "in-demand" list.

 

[matrix_ghost]

DC likes to spend big on their movies. Even with the news of them doing some budget crunching , Supes just won't have a budget lower then 190 million.

 

[KingKane88]

This movie is NOT $175 Mil, they are low balling the public on cost of production, it's pure logic from a studio's stand point to do so.


Personally I feel it's more between 190-200 Mill at the least. Just looking at all the action MOS looks to have, and then looking at a movie such as Thor, there is no question that MOS is a good 40 to 50 MIL ahead of Thor on action and special effects. Thor was extremely weak on action in many respects, especially through-out the earth scenes. Thor was what... 150 Mill?!!!! Yea, I'm confident in saying that MOS will far exceed anything Thor has to offer as far as action is concerned. 190-210 Mill sounds about right.

 

[flickchick85]

This movie is NOT $175 Mil, they are low balling the public on cost of production, it's pure logic from a studio's stand point to do so.


Personally I feel it's more between 190-200 Mill at the least. Just looking at all the action MOS looks to have, and then looking at a movie such as Thor, there is no question that MOS is a good 40 to 50 MIL ahead of Thor on action and special effects. Thor was extremely weak on action in many respects, especially through-out the earth scenes. Thor was what... 150 Mill?!!!! Yea, I'm confident in saying that MOS will far exceed anything Thor has to offer as far as action is concerned. 190-210 Mill sounds about right.

Honestly though, I don't think Kenneth Branagh made the most of his Thor budget, not being very experienced in the action genre. I mean, Serenity had more exciting action, and that was on a budget of $38m. Seems like most of Thor's budget went to the sets and costumes. I mean, not only did they build all those elaborate Asgard/Jotenheim sets, but they also built a whole town. To blow up in a less-than-5-minute sequence.

Snyder generally knows how to do a lot more for a lot less. It's one of the reasons WB still favors him, even after a few flops/disappointments. His highest budget project to date was $130m (Watchmen). Everything else he's done was well under $100m. And let's not forget WB's last two experiences of spending over $200m on a superhero movie have gotten them nothing but losses. And one of them was this very franchise. I just don't see them doing it again, especially when they have a director who doesn't need it. $200m is still FAR more than he's ever had to work with. It's more than double the budget of everything he's ever made other than Watchmen, and more than triple his budget for 300. So again I say, $200m tops, maybe even a little less.

 

[KingKane88]

Honestly though, I don't think Kenneth Branagh made the most of his Thor budget, not being very experienced in the action genre. I mean, Serenity had more exciting action, and that was on a budget of $38m. Seems like most of Thor's budget went to the sets and costumes. I mean, not only did they build all those elaborate Asgard/Jotenheim sets, but they also built a whole town. To blow up in a less-than-5-minute sequence.

Snyder generally knows how to do a lot more for a lot less. It's one of the reasons WB still favors him, even after a few flops/disappointments. His highest budget project to date was $130m (Watchmen). Everything else he's done was well under $100m. And let's not forget WB's last two experiences of spending over $200m on a superhero movie have gotten them nothing but losses. And one of them was this very franchise. I just don't see them doing it again, especially when they have a director who doesn't need it. $200m is still FAR more than he's ever had to work with. It's more than double the budget of everything he's ever made other than Watchmen, and more than triple his budget for 300. So again I say, $200m tops, maybe even a little less.

LOL, sorry, don't mean any disrespect laughing at you, but I find some of what you stated comical to say the least.


To say that most of Thors budget went to costumes and sets more so then anything else is just silly, it really is! They didn't build all them elaborate Asgard/Jotenheim sets, that was all SFX CG implemented. If you watch "The Making of THOR", they show the actors behind a Blue/green screen through-out most of the "Asgard" scenes.


Also, you say they built a whole town too blow-up in Thor??? That was a TINY town compared to Smallville in MOS! I been to the Smallville MOS set, and let me tell you, It's HUGE!!! Thor... They literally built 4 buildings! Yes, both have a 7-11, but Thor had nothing like what we see as far as Helicopters, crushed air-force planes, and train wrecks! Everything within the "Thor" town was CG and explosions, very systematic.


Point being is that it is obvious as far as production budget is concerned, that MOS is in a different league then Thor.



.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

While I do agree with you that the reception was the main problem, I think the 391mil was partially the problem as well, simply because of how much money WB had tossed down the drain before cameras even started rolling on SR. They had A LOT of money they were hoping to recoup on that project, which just made that modest number look even worse on the books. Also considering that recent experience, I really don't expect MoS's budget to inflate past $200m or even that. I'm expecting it to end up around $185m.


With MOS's box office, right now I'm going with a fairly modest prediction, but it's one that I think will still be enough to launch a hit franchise:

Domestic: $245m
Worldwide: $470m

Basically, a moderately more successful Batman Begins, thanks to the Nolan name being attached and holding a lot more weight than it did then, and a cast that appeals across demos.

Even with those seemingly small (for a mega-blockbuster) numbers, if it's a damn good movie like I expect it to be, then the sequel could almost double that, WB would have the hot tentpole franchise on their hands that they're looking for with the loss of HP (and Nolan's Bat-series), and Snyder's stock goes right on back to the top of the "in-demand" list.

I don't disagree that the raw numbers played a part, I'm just saying that if the movie was beloved and sold better on DVD (DVD wasn't dying like it is today) WB would have gotten over that disappointment and forked over cash for a sequel. Do you think that Paramount wasn't a little disappointed by the overseas numbers for Star Trek? I mean it did as well as you could expect for a franchise that was never popular overseas but do think that they didn't want 200mil instead of 128mil?

I'm not ready to predict MOS's box office until I see some footage but I do think that if, the good footage reports turn into good movie reports, than the movie could be in a good position to do well. I'm also not ready to give it huge numbers because all of the comic book movies underperformed last year (3D ticket sales propped up both Thor and Captain America, they were like 150-165mil grossers in reality) and with the exception of the big guns like Spidey, Bats and aberrations like Iron Man I think that the golden age of comic book movies box office is winding down as every fad in Hollywood does. Movies like (that were sequels I admit) like Fast Five and MI4 all did better domestic and international numbers than all of the comic book movies. And Rise of the Planet of the Apes sold more tickets domestically and made more money internationally.

I'm sure more comic book movies are coming but the trend isn't going to last forever.

I haven't truly liked one Superman movie so I just hope that MOS is good and usually I root for good movies to be successful.

 

[solidsnake86]

If I had to take a guess I could see this movie making around 400 million. Just looking at recent comic book movies its been very tough to crack that 200 million domestic.

Visually Snyder will probably deliver and if they have unique action pieces I could definitely see it pulling in more.

 

[Herolee10]

If I had to take a guess I could see this movie making around 400 million. Just looking at recent comic book movies its been very tough to crack that 200 million domestic.

Visually Snyder will probably deliver and if they have unique action pieces I could definitely see it pulling in more.

Indeed; and if the story is as captivating as those who are involved with this project have been saying it is, then that should help the BO part as well.

really, it's all about the timing of when this film is released

**hint** WB....Move it back to winter 2012!!!

 

[solidsnake86]

I just look at sherlock holmes, the first one went up against avatar and put up good numbers, nothing earth shattering but better than expected. Even the sequel is doing fairly well and will probably match it in terms of box office.

I think that has more to do with the winter slot where movies don't open huge but can have great legs.

 

[mclay18]

I just look at sherlock holmes, the first one went up against avatar and put up good numbers, nothing earth shattering but better than expected. Even the sequel is doing fairly well and will probably match it in terms of box office.

I think that has more to do with the winter slot where movies don't open huge but can have great legs.

Yeah, I keep saying that. If WB keeps the June 2013 spot, it'll get crushed by the competition. There's not much competition during the December 2012 or late July 2013 spots -- either one gives MOS a better chance b.o.-wise.

 

[Herolee10]

Yeah, I keep saying that. If WB keeps the June 2013 spot, it'll get crushed by the competition. There's not much competition during the December 2012 or late July 2013 spots -- either one gives MOS a better chance b.o.-wise.

Well we should know by June or July if they're seriously thinking about moving it up..since by all accounts, MOS is still staying true to its Winter 2012 schedule at the moment, and with them being impressed by what they see..well let's hope that adds to it.lol

Really, the only real way that MOS will have a stronger chance of making that date is if something unexpected happens tot he Unexpected Journey of the Hobbit.lol

 

[mclay18]

Well we should know by June or July if they're seriously thinking about moving it up..since by all accounts, MOS is still staying true to its Winter 2012 schedule at the moment, and with them being impressed by what they see..well let's hope that adds to it.lol

I think we'll know by April or May, actually. If it does move, they'll need time to reschedule merchandise dates, as well as coordinate their marketing campaign for MOS. I don't think WB will change their minds if TDKR overperforms, since they'll need a prime December movie that's not Oscar bait.

 

[Herolee10]

I think we'll know by April or May, actually. If it does move, they'll need time to reschedule merchandise dates, as well as coordinate their marketing campaign for MOS. I don't think WB will change their minds if TDKR overperforms, since they'll need a prime December movie that's not Oscar bait.

Well, here's to hoping.lol

I mean, miracles can still happen right?haha

I just don't get the company's line of thoughts; nothing against Superman, since he's my favorite comic book hero, but given the lack of financial success with previous films, and the consistent success of the LOTR franchise, it would have made more sense to put the Hobbit into the Summer Spot where there's guaranteed to be a lot of strong competition since the Hobbit, unless super super super crappy..is guaranteed to make lots of money.

Right now, it's Superman's franchise that needs to be revitalized and throwing it into the lion's den of a month for a release date is so bizarre.

 

[flickchick85]

LOL, sorry, don't mean any disrespect laughing at you, but I find some of what you stated comical to say the least.

To say that most of Thors budget went to costumes and sets more so then anything else is just silly, it really is! They didn't build all them elaborate Asgard/Jotenheim sets, that was all SFX CG implemented. If you watch "The Making of THOR", they show the actors behind a Blue/green screen through-out most of the "Asgard" scenes.

Also, you say they built a whole town too blow-up in Thor??? That was a TINY town compared to Smallville in MOS! I been to the Smallville MOS set, and let me tell you, It's HUGE!!! Thor... They literally built 4 buildings! Yes, both have a 7-11, but Thor had nothing like what we see as far as Helicopters, crushed air-force planes, and train wrecks! Everything within the "Thor" town was CG and explosions, very systematic.


Point being is that it is obvious as far as production budget is concerned, that MOS is in a different league then Thor.

I've seen all of the special features on the Thor's Blu-Ray, and I'm 100% aware of what they built and what they didn't. I wasn't suggesting they built ALL of Asgard or anything. My entire point was, Thor LOOKED way cheaper than it cost - and I'm chalking it up to Branagh's inexperience with blockbuster filmmaking. Maybe it wasn't wasted on costumes and sets, that was pure conjecture on my part. But it sure as hell wasn't used to full effect for an action blockbuster.

For example, some pretty recent movies that cost the same $150m (or in some cases, less) but looked and felt like bigger, proper blockbusters: Star Trek, Iron Man, Batman Begins, The Matrix sequels (I didn't like 'em, but they certainly seemed way more expensive than Thor), Transformers (ditto), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ($113m in 2005; $125m adjusted for inflation), Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Next to them, Thor seemed like a smaller endeavor, even though it wasn't. Hell, even the first Matrix movie seemed more expensive than Thor to me, and that cost $85m in 1999, which would be about $110m now, adjusted for inflation.

My point in bring up the town was not to suggest that MoS wouldn't build a set like that, but that it did nothing for the scope of the movie - making it seem like a waste of money. I barely even noticed the Destroyer blew up more than about 2 buildings in the movie because his assault lasted on screen for all of a minute before The Warriors Three and Thor faced him. Snyder has much more experience in milking a budget for exciting action sequences. And I'd say in his hands, a budget around $50 million more than Thor's budget WOULD easily put it in a different league financially. No need to go beyond that.

I guess this is a super long-winded way of saying Thor is so NOT the movie to use as an example of what $150m gets you. And when a mega-blockbuster like TDK cost 185m (with a guy like Nolan who raises his budgets due to his insistence on doing things practically instead of digitally), a boost from a successful first installment, why would you expect the first installment of an already struggling brand name to get much more?

 

[flickchick85]

I don't disagree that the raw numbers played a part, I'm just saying that if the movie was beloved and sold better on DVD (DVD wasn't dying like it is today) WB would have gotten over that disappointment and forked over cash for a sequel. Do you think that Paramount wasn't a little disappointed by the overseas numbers for Star Trek? I mean it did as well as you could expect for a franchise that was never popular overseas but do think that they didn't want 200mil instead of 128mil?

I'm not ready to predict MOS's box office until I see some footage but I do think that if, the good footage reports turn into good movie reports, than the movie could be in a good position to do well. I'm also not ready to give it huge numbers because all of the comic book movies underperformed last year (3D ticket sales propped up both Thor and Captain America, they were like 150-165mil grossers in reality) and with the exception of the big guns like Spidey, Bats and aberrations like Iron Man I think that the golden age of comic book movies box office is winding down as every fad in Hollywood does. Movies like (that were sequels I admit) like Fast Five and MI4 all did better domestic and international numbers than all of the comic book movies. And Rise of the Planet of the Apes sold more tickets domestically and made more money internationally.

I'm sure more comic book movies are coming but the trend isn't going to last forever.

I haven't truly liked one Superman movie so I just hope that MOS is good and usually I root for good movies to be successful.

Honestly, I agree with this whole post. Especially that last sentence. I'm rooting for MoS to be the very first Superman movie I actually like. And for some strange reason, I actually think it will be, despite the franchise's 0-5 track record with me and my general dislike of the director's previous work. Maybe I'm blinded by Nolan's name or something, but I honestly just love pretty much everything I've seen and heard about the project thus far.

 

[KingKane88]

I've seen all of the special features on the Thor's Blu-Ray, and I'm 100% aware of what they built and what they didn't. I wasn't suggesting they built ALL of Asgard or anything. My entire point was, Thor LOOKED way cheaper than it cost - and I'm chalking it up to Branagh's inexperience with blockbuster filmmaking. Maybe it wasn't wasted on costumes and sets, that was pure conjecture on my part. But it sure as hell wasn't used to full effect for an action blockbuster.

For example, some pretty recent movies that cost the same $150m (or in some cases, less) but looked and felt like bigger, proper blockbusters: Star Trek, Iron Man, Batman Begins, The Matrix sequels (I didn't like 'em, but they certainly seemed way more expensive than Thor), Transformers (ditto), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ($113m in 2005; $125m adjusted for inflation), Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Next to them, Thor seemed like a smaller endeavor, even though it wasn't. Hell, even the first Matrix movie seemed more expensive than Thor to me, and that cost $85m in 1999, which would be about $110m now, adjusted for inflation.

My point in bring up the town was not to suggest that MoS wouldn't build a set like that, but that it did nothing for the scope of the movie - making it seem like a waste of money. I barely even noticed the Destroyer blew up more than about 2 buildings in the movie because his assault lasted on screen for all of a minute before The Warriors Three and Thor faced him. Snyder has much more experience in milking a budget for exciting action sequences. And I'd say in his hands, a budget around $50 million more than Thor's budget WOULD easily put it in a different league financially. No need to go beyond that.

I guess this is a super long-winded way of saying Thor is so NOT the movie to use as an example of what $150m gets you. And when a mega-blockbuster like TDK cost 185m (with a guy like Nolan who raises his budgets due to his insistence on doing things practically instead of digitally), a boost from a successful first installment, why would you expect the first installment of an already struggling brand name to get much more?

I get ya now! Well said

 

[mclay18]

I just don't get the company's line of thoughts; nothing against Superman, since he's my favorite comic book hero, but given the lack of financial success with previous films, and the consistent success of the LOTR franchise, it would have made more sense to put the Hobbit into the Summer Spot where there's guaranteed to be a lot of strong competition since the Hobbit, unless super super super crappy..is guaranteed to make lots of money.

A very good point. I agree.

There's definitely a market for big-budget tentpoles in December. I can name several movies that intersect with MOS' target demographic that did well with a mid- to late-December release. Plus, they have impressive legs throughout Christmas and New Year's as well as January.