What was the most profitable Marvel movie of 2014?

[starscream22]

How do they measure these numbers ? TWS says 166 but its total BO was 714 and usually they measure profit total BO minus budgetx2 so shouldn't its profit be around 360m ? excluding bluray/dvd etc. sales which is a lot more.

Foreign countries get a much bigger cut of the box office over seas. Which is why Domestic BO is still important to Hollywood.

 

[starscream22]

A few thoughts. Didn't asm2 only make a profit of like 15 million? I think the 70.377 was before over head so these must all be before over head. Second guardians made like 2.75 times has much has days of futures past. 3erd if asm2 only made like 15 million after over head and with interstellar make like 23 million less then asm2 before over head dose that mean that interstellar didn't really make like any thing?

Interstellar had a lower budget and a lower marketing plan. Sony was said to have spent as much as $200M-$250M on ASM2's marketing expecting to hit the Billion dollar mark but didn't come close.

 

[TalismanRing]

This is always a fun breakdown by Deadline and I like how they break down different revenue streams of profit and cost but most of the numbers are guesswork and projection. Like the Media sales - some of which aren't even being sold yet like Sniper and Hobbit and of which the studios are very closed mouth about to keep the talent and the unions from getting a fair share. Also for franchises every new film sells old back catalog and these films can keep selling well for years or if it's Bond - decades.

The numbers for a lot of merchandise and profit participation though seem to be pulled out of a hat.

Last year Deadline had Thor: The Dark World pegged for $12m in profit participation with $7m in merchandise and Iron Man 3 was at $40m for merchandise.

TWS though is pegged with $40m in profit participation (more than three times TDW's amount - maybe Evans, SJ and SLJ have better agents than CH, TH and NP) and the same $7m in merchandise when CA sells far more than Thor merchandise.

It was recently reported that last year Disney in 2014 sold three times as much Avengers related merchandise than it did in 2013, totaling $1 billion with Iron Man and Captain America products selling the most.

As for the X-Men movie percentage that goes to Disney. I believe it's been documented at 5%.

 

[TalismanRing]

Interstellar had a lower budget and a lower marketing plan. Sony was said to have spent as much as $200M-$250M on ASM2's marketing expecting to hit the Billion dollar mark but didn't come close.

Interstellar was also expected to make more, probably $800m at least since it's profitability was weighed under the $20m against 20% of the gross for Nolan. Paramount also only got domestic where the numbers were probably about half what they expected WB got Overseas. In the end Nolan made $90m or twice the profit of both studios combined and Paramount's part of that was most likely less than Warners even with the better US/DVD/VOD/Streaming market.

 

[Sithborg]

A few thoughts. Didn't asm2 only make a profit of like 15 million? I think the 70.377 was before over head so these must all be before over head. Second guardians made like 2.75 times has much has days of futures past. 3erd if asm2 only made like 15 million after over head and with interstellar make like 23 million less then asm2 before over head dose that mean that interstellar didn't really make like any thing?

Accounting is a tricky, tricky thing. Much like statistics, you can use it to tell the story you want to tell.

 

[starscream22]

Accounting is a tricky, tricky thing. Much like statistics, you can use it to tell the story you want to tell.

True but if ASM2 and DOFP's numbers are evidence of embellishing then God help'em!

And by help'em I mean have Disney write them both a check for a feasible amount for the rights of all the Marvel Franchises in question and then all will be fair in the world.

 

[BatsDC]

Well deserved, Guardians was brilliant.

 

[Spiderine]

I think Apocalypse will do just fine, but I've said before and I'll say again that I don't think the X-franchise (at least in it's current form) has as much steam left as some might hope. These box office results don't do much to change my mind.

Should be interesting come May 2016. I expect Civil War to show some strong legs going into June. Three colossal superhero films early next year with Bats/Supes. Next year is going to be huge with all the competition.

 

[Flint Marko]

True but if ASM2 and DOFP's numbers are evidence of embellishing then God help'em!

And by help'em I mean have Disney write them both a check for a feasible amount for the rights of all the Marvel Franchises in question and then all will be fair in the world.

*drops mic*

Should be interesting come May 2016. I expect Civil War to show some strong legs going into June. Three colossal superhero films early next year with Bats/Supes. Next year is going to be huge with all the competition.

I could easily see Civil War/BvS completely devouring the market to the point where AoA is left with nothing but scraps. I'm predicting it to gross less domestically than DOFP.

 

[Sithborg]

True but if ASM2 and DOFP's numbers are evidence of embellishing then God help'em!

Making something look more profitable isn't the only trick there is. There are valid reasons for why you don't want to look too profitable. I mean, which number do you want to pay taxes on?

But have fun with your studio wars.

 

[Zarex]

*drops mic*

I could easily see Civil War/BvS completely devouring the market to the point where AoA is left with nothing but scraps. I'm predicting it to gross less domestically than DOFP.

Agreed. As you've mentioned, Apocalypse is the third superhero team film of the year, and the previous two are going to at least be flirting with $1 billion in WW BO grosses. You're also losing the very popular OT cast. And while CW and BvS are introducing a bunch of extremely popular superheroes, with the exception of Ben Hardy's character everyone else in Apocalypse is a retread.

I still think it will do well - Singer's track record with the X films is pretty great - but those profit levels are going to be getting tighter.

 

[Zarex]

Making something look more profitable isn't the only trick there is. There are valid reasons for why you don't want to look too profitable. I mean, which number do you want to pay taxes on?

But have fun with your studio wars.

These aren't audited financial figures. They're Deadline guestimates. Presumably the website took Hollywood trickery into account.

 

[Flint Marko]

Agreed. As you've mentioned, Apocalypse is the third superhero team film of the year, and the previous two are going to at least be flirting with $1 billion in WW BO grosses. You're also losing the very popular OT cast. And while CW and BvS are introducing a bunch of extremely popular superheroes, with the exception of Ben Hardy's character everyone else in Apocalypse is a retread.

I still think it will do well - Singer's track record with the X films is pretty great - but those profit levels are going to be getting tighter.

Agreed, I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

 

[spiderman2]

Interstellar had a lower budget and a lower marketing plan. Sony was said to have spent as much as $200M-$250M on ASM2's marketing expecting to hit the Billion dollar mark but didn't come close.

Yeah I know that is my point. I don't think you where understanding what I was saying. I was saying how with interstellar having a budget of I think 180 million compared to asm2 250 and with spending less on marketing did interstellar make less money? Interstellar made about 34 million less in box office but asm2 cost like 70 million more in budget and probly like another 70 or so more in marketing as while so that means that asm2 cost like 140 million more to make and only made about 34 million more but yet it had a bigger profit? That doesn't added up.

 

[starscream22]

Making something look more profitable isn't the only trick there is. There are valid reasons for why you don't want to look too profitable. I mean, which number do you want to pay taxes on?

But have fun with your studio wars.

Quit reaching, that last people a studio would want war with is the IRS. Finding legal loopholes is one thing but flat out lying about how much you've earned to evade getting taxed won't end well. And since you wont get a company with half a brain to admit to something like that nor can you prove it, it's safe to say we can all strike it from the record.

But have fun regrouping from your apparent disappointment with these numbers and try again.

 

[TalismanRing]

Yeah I know that is my point. I don't think you where understanding what I was saying. I was saying how with interstellar having a budget of I think 180 million compared to asm2 250 and with spending less on marketing did interstellar make less money? Interstellar made about 34 million less in box office but asm2 cost like 70 million more in budget and probly like another 70 or so more in marketing as while so that means that asm2 cost like 140 million more to make and only made about 34 million more but yet it had a bigger profit? That doesn't added up.

Nolan got $90m which severely cut into the studio profits. It's listed in the calculations as "Participation".

 

[starscream22]

Agreed. As you've mentioned, Apocalypse is the third superhero team film of the year, and the previous two are going to at least be flirting with $1 billion in WW BO grosses. You're also losing the very popular OT cast. And while CW and BvS are introducing a bunch of extremely popular superheroes, with the exception of Ben Hardy's character everyone else in Apocalypse is a retread.

I still think it will do well - Singer's track record with the X films is pretty great - but those profit levels are going to be getting tighter.

Bias aside I'd be worried if Bat vs Sup or Civil War was on that release date instead of Fox-pocalypse facing the same or similar competition (obviously Marvel and Disney wouldn't release films on the same date so simular).

The first Wonderland film made a billion releasing in March and as crappy as Platinum Dunes films are (Bay) they still manage to turn a nice profit. So Turtles 2 will definitely be a problem for them.

In May of 2016 for me personally, Civil War is a definite and Nieghbors 2 is a high maybe. But people could fine themselves watching at least 8 different June releases in 2016 (TMNT2, Conjuring 2, Uncharted, Finding Dori, Independence Day 2, Central Intelligence, etc.)

Long story short I don't see Fox-men making more than the last one. Heck I'll probably be watching Cap3 again that weekend.

 

[Solaire]

I told someone that I didn't think DOFP did so well despite making over 750 million. Mainly because it's the 5th film in the franchise and it was a big event. It's probably a silly comparison but Iron Man became a billion dollar film after 4 films( 3 solo). I just felt that X-Men should be around there.

I always thought the X-Men were the most popular team in Marvel. Never thought the Avengers would clearly become that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

X-Men were the most popular team in Marvel, but things change.

But I definitely overestimated how well DOFP was going to do. I thought it would gross in the $900 million-$1 billion range. The one key difference between X-Men and Spider-Man though is that the fortunes of X-Men are getting better and DOFP was widely well-liked so they should continue to improve, whereas the Spider-Man series is grossing less and less and people didn't really like TASM2 very much so TASM3 almost certainly would have done even worse.

 

[Flint Marko]

Making something look more profitable isn't the only trick there is. There are valid reasons for why you don't want to look too profitable. I mean, which number do you want to pay taxes on?

But have fun with your studio wars.

Lol.

 

[Spiderine]

I totally forgot Alice in Wonderland opens that same weekend as Xmen. I had DOFP making at least 250 mill domestic on the low end. It was an ensemble flick with the old cast too. I was surprised when it didn't make it. Anything less than DOFP for Apocalypse would be disappointing but like I said, Civil War is gonna have some strong legs.

 

[starscream22]

I told someone that I didn't think DOFP did so well despite making over 750 million. Mainly because it's the 5th film in the franchise and it was a big event. It's probably a silly comparison but Iron Man became a billion dollar film after 4 films( 3 solo). I just felt that X-Men should be around there.

I always thought the X-Men were the most popular team in Marvel. Never thought the Avengers would clearly become that.

That's not silly at all, people have been saying this for years. X-men.. Correction a real X-men movie done by the company who actually created them would've hit the billion dollar mark by now. At one point F4 was a bigger name than both Avengers and X-men as hard as that is to believe nowadays. But I don't expect this trend to change any time soon. The domestic numbers peaked at X3.

Now Deadpool will likely do better than 4stic but I don't expect Fox-pocalyse to make any leaps and bounds next year due to steep competition.

So they'll be lucky to do the same numbers as DOFP.

 

[starscream22]

I totally forgot Alice in Wonderland opens that same weekend as Xmen. I had DOFP making at least 250 mill domestic on the low end. It was an ensemble flick with the old cast too. I was surprised when it didn't make it. Anything less than DOFP for Apocalypse would be disappointing but like I said, Civil War is gonna have some strong legs.

Cap, Ironman, Spidey, Black Panther and Falcon to name a few could possibly rival Avengers if handled right. I'm psyched for Bat vs Sup but i honestly don't think it'll do more than $900M. But if I'm wrong it'll be because it was beyond epic which would make us all winners.

Wonderland 2 would have to be God awful or move their date altogether for Fox-men to do bigger numbers than DOFP.

 

[BMM]

I totally forgot Alice in Wonderland opens that same weekend as Xmen. I had DOFP making at least 250 mill domestic on the low end. It was an ensemble flick with the old cast too. I was surprised when it didn't make it. Anything less than DOFP for Apocalypse would be disappointing.

Reasonable is more like it. Apocalypse does not have the draw of the original cast, nor does it have stars like Fan Bingbing and Omar Sy to help sell it overseas. Plus, it follows Civil War and Batman vs. Superman. Knowing that, why would the expectation be that Apocalypse is going to outgross more than the film that seemingly had more going for it?

 

[def28]

How are the ones who lead DOFP not the draw? That film relied heavily on Jackman, Fassbender, Lawrence, Peters, Hoult and McAcoy's characters. Those are pretty much the series stars right now with audiences. I know Jackman is only rumored but all of them are more then likely appearing. Fox will probably shove in a new group of mutants for minor background roles as well for that international appeal as well.

Fan favs like Storm, Cyclops, Jean and Nightcrawler are also here with a rumored Mckellen plus an extra hyped up supervillain. Why wouldn't people expect X-Men Apocalypse to outgross DOFP? Audiences have a bigger interst in the frnachise now and this is likely to play much like the first trilogy with the second film boosting the thirds box office. If Apocalypse is actually good on top of it I think it will easily best DOFP. The character line up alone is much stronger.