What was the most profitable Marvel movie of 2014?

[Flint Marko]

Apocalypse is a giant question mark to me. I truly couldn't tell you either way how it will turn out, but given that the "biggest, best" X-men movie yet could not top X3's domestic gross, I don't have a lot of optimism for this sequel.

 

[Zarex]

Days Of Future Past boosted the X-Men's rep, plus that film relied on Jackman, Fassbender, Lawerence, Hoult and McAcoy. All of which are appearing here.

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 tril with the second film boosting the thirds. If Apocalypse is actually good on top of it I think it will easily best DOFP.

It should do fine, but I don't see it topping Days. The outing has much stronger competition, and is coming after two superhero mega franchises in B v S and CA: CW.

And while fan favorite characters are returning, they are all recasts from the very popular OT cast. I don't see the new guys bringing in new fans. Unlike the DC and Marvel films, FOX doesn't appear to be introducing any new heroes.

 

[Mr.M]

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.

I think they should take the extra year. Even if Fox is on schedule, it would make for better positioning. I would just use the FF sequel as a place holder for Apocalypse in 2017. They already have ID4 and Ice Age due out that summer. No need for an X-Men, plus the proper three year gap.

 

[def28]

It should do fine, but I don't see it topping Days. The outing has much stronger competition, and is coming after two superhero mega franchises in B v S and CA: CW.

And while fan favorite characters are returning, they are all recasts from the very popular OT cast. I don't see the new guys bringing in new fans. Unlike the DC and Marvel films, FOX doesn't appear to be introducing any new heroes.

This is where I completely disagree. The new crew is already set up and the main draw from the OT (Wolverine) is gonna show as well. Fans will want to see them regardless. Audiences will be fine realizing these are younger characters, the main thing is that these characters will actually have a role after all these years and be advertised. Personally I think people overestimate the appeal with alot of the OT based on the actors, and underestimate the appeal of the characters themselves. Storm, Colossus and Iceman barely did anything and were there only for powers. The franchise doesn't rely on them.

While I don't see it making over a billion right now, 800-900m is completely reasonable imo given the appeal of these characters and the reception of the previous film. We know the series can go higher domestically for sure.

 

[Flint Marko]

Said it before and I'll say it again, I think the X-franchise in it's current form is on the steady decline. Hugh Jackman could very well be the only thing keeping this franchise chugging along. We'll really know in a few years, but for now I'm standing by that. I don't see AoA outgrossing DOFP by a lot to be honest. A billion is almost out of the question, barring a miracle.

 

[BMM]

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.

Don't get me wrong. You raise some good points, even though I don't agree with all of them, and I'm obviously not going to complain if Apocalypse outgrosses Days of Future Past, but I also think it's reasonable to expect that it won't.

Said it before and I'll say it again, I think the X-franchise in it's current form is on the steady decline. Hugh Jackman could very well be the only thing keeping this franchise chugging along. We'll really know in a few years, but for now I'm standing by that. I don't see AoA outgrossing DOFP by a lot to be honest. A billion is almost out of the question, barring a miracle.

Domestically maybe, but the same can't be said for the overseas market. Also, Apocalypse doesn't need to make a billion dollars, as though that's the standard. It just needs to do solid business to turn a nice profit--something that might actually be easier to do now that the studio doesn't have to pay for all of the original cast members to return, too.

 

[Zarex]

This is where I completely disagree. The new crew is already set up and the main draw from the OT (Wolverine) is gonna show as well. Fans will want to see them regardless. Audiences will be fine realizing these are younger characters, the main thing is that these characters will actually have a role after all these years and be advertised. Personally I think people overestimate the appeal with alot of the OT based on the actors, and underestimate the appeal of the characters themselves. Storm, Colossus and Iceman barely did anything and were there only for powers. The franchise doesn't rely on them.

While I don't see it making over a billion right now, 800-900m is completely reasonable imo given the appeal of these characters and the reception of the previous film. We know the series can go higher domestically for sure.

Hardcore X Men fans are going to show up to see Storm, Jean, Nightcrawler and Cyclops onscreen, regardless of what actors are portraying them. But where are the new fans going to come from? Apocalypse has more competition, less star power and X Men 6 isn't an event movie like the DC and Marvel films. I see it at closer to $700 M WW, but we shall see.

 

[def28]

I think younger audiences will like the fact there are actually young actors. Very few Superhero films right now are focusing on more young adult character/teen characters. Obviously they love Lawrence as do most people, she's much more marketable nowadays then any of the OT tbh.

Could be wrong, but I really don't think the change over of cast will be that big of deal when there are so many returning from the previous two films. There's alot of well known characters here played by new and returning actors.

Don't get me wrong. You raise some good points, even though I don't agree with all of them, and I'm obviously not going to complain if Apocalypse outgrosses Days of Future Past, but I also think it's reasonable to expect that it won't.

Fair enough, time will tell.

 

[Flint Marko]

Domestically maybe, but the same can't be said for the overseas market. Also, Apocalypse doesn't need to make a billion dollars, as though that's the standard. It just needs to do solid business to turn a nice profit--something that might actually be easier to do now that the studio doesn't have to pay for all of the original cast members to return, too.

Fox does not make near as much money from the overseas market as it does stateside. So if this next film can't stop the downward spiral domestically then we could very well be seeing the end of the X-movies sooner than you might think.
And yes, getting rid of all the old stars will help Fox cut a profit. But that won't draw in as many people either, which will negatively effect their box office. And as Zarex has said, they will be facing unprecedented competition come 2016 so the future is not exactly bright for them. We'll have to see though, an incredible trailer and marketing campaign could change my tune.

 

[BMM]

Fox does not make near as much money from the overseas market as it does stateside. So if this next film can't stop the downward spiral domestically then we could very well be seeing the end of the X-movies sooner than you might think.

Doubt it. Overseas markets matter, and Fox isn't Sony.

And yes, getting rid of all the old stars will help Fox cut a profit. But that won't draw in as many people either, which will negatively effect their box office.

Hard to say what will and won't be drawing in people, at this point.

And as Zarex has said, they will be facing unprecedented competition come 2016 so the future is not exactly bright for them.

Apocalypse may face more superhero fatigue, but it won't be facing "unprecedented competition." These movies are not opening on the same weekend. Batman vs. Superman is not going to be an issue two months after its release, and Civil War will be on its fourth weekend.

 

[Flint Marko]

Doubt it. Overseas markets matter, and Fox isn't Sony.

There are cold hard numbers out there that show studios only get a fraction of every dollar for overseas money. Want to know why DOFP only made Fox 77 million off a $750 million world wide gross? Kinda like how Sony only made 70 million off of a $710 million world wide gross? I guess Fox and Sony have more in common than you'd think.

Hard to say what will and won't be drawing in people, at this point.

First Class didn't exactly light up the box office with a brand new cast, so why should that trend change? Again, let's remind ourselves that the franchise has been on a steady decline domestically since the last stand.

Apocalypse may face more superhero fatigue, but it won't be facing "unprecedented competition." These movies are not opening on the same weekend. Batman vs. Superman is not going to be an issue two months after its release, and Civil War will be on its fourth weekend.

The sequel to Alice and Wonderland, which grossed more than any X-men film to date, is being released on the same day. Plus Captain America CW will be in theaters, and then the week after will be TMNT 2....
Again, it ain't looking so bright for AoA.

 

[Spiderine]

I wasn't even talking about international numbers. That overseas market is booming right now that even Transformers mediocre domestic numbers got such a boost internationally that it hit a billion. Many action/sci-fi films are being saved by the foreign market.

I can't see how FOX would be happy with another 230 million domestic film when Bat/Supes and Civil War could very well do north of 300 million easy. This is for the same type of film in the genre. Mega villain with ensemble cast. They are still going all out for this finale in the current X trilogy. Those domestic numbers are still important and given the fact superhero films are at their peak in popularity right now FOX would like to capitalize as much as possible too.

 

[def28]

First Class didn't exactly light up the box office with a brand new cast, so why should that trend change? Again, let's remind ourselves that the franchise has been on a steady decline domestically since the last stand.

In fairness First Class had to follow up X3 and X-Men Origins. Two films that significantly brought down the X-Men franchise interest, First Class felt the audiences reaction there. It takes time but the past two X-Men films have been bringing back films that audiences, fans and critics respond well too. Which usually leads to higher box office.

Much like Batman and Spidey the lower quality of films is really what leads to the decline.

 

[Spiderine]

In fairness First Class had to follow up X3 and X-Men Origins. Two films that significantly brought down the X-Men franchise interest, First Class felt the audiences reaction there. It takes time but the past two X-Men films have been bringing back films that audiences, fans and critics respond well too. Which usually leads to higher box office.

Much like Batman and Spidey the lower quality of films is really what leads to the decline.

Yeah.....First Class had a lot of to recover from with two crap films that drug the franchise down. It did its job.

DOFP was supposed to be the biggest baddest most successful X film to date that brought the series back to glory where X2 left off. Should have left X3 in the dust domestically as well.

 

[starscream22]

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?

That's a question you've have to ask Fox if the budget is the same.

 

[starscream22]

Doubt it. Overseas markets matter, and Fox isn't Sony.

Yeah but only by $7 million.

You can doubt it all you want but Domestic number matter more than you care to admit. In the US Hollywood gets more than half of the domestic box office while overseas they'd be lucky to get a quarter of that back. So if a film underperforms too badly then foreign numbers won't even matter as far as sequels are concerned.

 

[BMM]

There are cold hard numbers out there that show studios only get a fraction of every dollar for overseas money. Want to know why DOFP only made Fox 77 million off a $750 million world wide gross? Kinda like how Sony only made 70 million off of a $710 million world wide gross? I guess Fox and Sony have more in common than you'd think.

Yes, because of the $100 million in participations to former cast members that made the difference between Days of Future Past having a profitability of $77 million and an unrealistic but potential $177 million.

Want to know why Age of Extinction is #1 and films like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier are numbers 5 and 10? I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the domestic numbers (even though the latter both outgrossed Age of Extinction in every domestic category, save for PPV/VOD, and had lower costs, too).

Also, given that Apocalypse begins shooting next month, and Andrew Garfield is out of a job, no, I don't think Fox and Sony have as much in common as you would like me to think.

First Class didn't exactly light up the box office with a brand new cast, so why should that trend change? Again, let's remind ourselves that the franchise has been on a steady decline domestically since the last stand.

Let's also remind ourselves this isn't 2011?

The sequel to Alice and Wonderland, which grossed more than any X-men film to date, is being released on the same day. Plus Captain America CW will be in theaters, and then the week after will be TMNT 2....
Again, it ain't looking so bright for AoA.

On its fourth weekend, Captain America is still going to be "unprecedented competition" to Apocalypse, because the two films target the same demographic, but Apocalypse is just going to shrivel up and die against Ninja Turtles in its second weekend because the two films target the same demographic? Also, I'm pretty sure the same thing was said about Days of Future Past and potential competition with regards to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Godzilla, Maleficent, and that Tom Cruise sci-fi movie that was a potential threat, but Days of Future Past did fine. I'm sure Apocalypse is more than capable of doing fine, too.

 

[BMM]

Yeah but only by $7 million.

And because Fox is an overall more sound company, while Sony has been riddled by rumors of bankruptcy for years, which, if remotely true, puts its properties at higher risk.

You can doubt it all you want but Domestic number matter more than you care to admit. In the US Hollywood gets more than half of the domestic box office while overseas they'd be lucky to get a quarter of that back. So if a film underperforms too badly then foreign numbers won't even matter as far as sequels are concerned.

Actually, if anything, I think it's been said that studios receive 55% domestic and 45% overseas--not 25%. Though, all of this obviously varies. Regardless, if you want to stick to the logic of the list, have fun explaining Age of Extinction's #1 spot in light of, well, everything else.

 

[spiderman2]

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

Oh I had no idea that explains a lot lol.

 

[starscream22]

And because Fox is an overall more sound company, while Sony has been riddled by rumors of bankruptcy for years, which, if remotely true, puts its properties at higher risk.



Actually, if anything, I think it's been said that studios receive 55% domestic and 45% overseas--not 25%. Though, all of this obviously varies. Regardless, if you want to stick to the logic of the list, have fun explaining Age of Extinction's #1 spot in light of, well, everything else.

I was wrong it's actually even less.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

 

[Flint Marko]

Yes, because of the $100 million in participations to former cast members that made the difference between Days of Future Past having a profitability of $77 million and an unrealistic but potential $177 million.

Want to know why Age of Extinction is #1 and films like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier are numbers 5 and 10? I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the domestic numbers (even though the latter both outgrossed Age of Extinction in every domestic category, save for PPV/VOD, and had lower costs, too).

Also, given that Apocalypse begins shooting next month, and Andrew Garfield is out of a job, no, I don't think Fox and Sony have as much in common as you would like me to think.

I could easily look at Sony's cut and say "well if they only spent less on marketing they would've made 170 million". Both companies profit is comparable, no two ways about it.
Anyways, we are straying from my original point, which is that domestic dollars get into studio pockets far easier than international ones. That is an undeniable fact. And if Fox can't stop the decline domestically then we could be seeing the end of the X-franchise sooner rather than later. I never said the international market did not matter, but it's clear to anyone willing to look that studios get most of their money stateside, so they better rejuvenate interest. The fact that DOFP grossed less than TLS, even with inflation and higher ticket prices, is not a great sign.
And let's not kid ourselves, the X-men movies aren't Transformers, so trying to compare the two is a bit disingenuous. No X-men movie will ever come close to making that much money, so it's lifespan is limited compared to that franchise.

Let's also remind ourselves this isn't 2011?

And what difference will that five years make? Only real difference is the staggering growth of the international market which, as we have already discussed, studios can only rely on so much to keep their properties going. 2011 was also the last time an X-men movie came out without the original cast, and look how that fared at the domestic box office.

On its fourth weekend, Captain America is still going to be "unprecedented competition" to Apocalypse, because the two films target the same demographic, but Apocalypse is just going to shrivel up and die against Ninja Turtles in its second weekend because the two films target the same demographic? Also, I'm pretty sure the same thing was said about Days of Future Past and potential competition with regards to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Godzilla, Maleficent, and that Tom Cruise sci-fi movie that was a potential threat, but Days of Future Past did fine. I'm sure Apocalypse is more than capable of doing fine, too.

I see you're conveniently ignoring the sequel to a billion dollar movie being released on the same day.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Want to know why Age of Extinction is #1 and films like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier are numbers 5 and 10? I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the domestic numbers (even though the latter both outgrossed Age of Extinction in every domestic category, save for PPV/VOD, and had lower costs, too).

That's because Age of Extinction grossed $320 million more worldwide than Guardians of the Galaxy did. If Apocalypse grosses $1.1 billion like Age of Extinction did, then you won't see anybody doubting its success.

But generally speaking, domestic is more important because as has been said studios keep a higher percentage of the gross (overseas varies from market to market, studios get a better return in the UK for example than China). If a studio makes a blockbuster that grosses $700 million worldwide it is going to be much more profitable if it made $500 million domestic and $200 million internationally than the other way around. Nobody is saying that overseas isn't important, but each dollar earned overseas is worth less than each dollar earned domestically.

 

[Flint Marko]

That's because Age of Extinction grossed $320 million more worldwide than Guardians of the Galaxy did. If Apolocalypse grosses $1.1 billion like Age of Extinction did, then you won't see anybody doubting its success.

And to further prove this point, Transformers grossed $320 million more than Guardians WW but the studio's profits are only $46 million apart.

 

[TalismanRing]

A larger reason why domestic box office is weighed heavier in success is the correlation to ancillary markets. The US has a far stronger DVD/Blu-Ray/VOD/Streaming/TV market than O/S and usually the more a film grosses in the US the better those ancillary markets.

Yes China which is a huge and quickly growing market in terms of gross has a 25% split that is lower than the usual foreign take but as a benefit releasing costs there are much smaller. The big drawback is that China has a miniscule ancillary market because of piracy. The ancillary market difference isn't nearly as egregious in most other foreign markets but there still remains a sizable difference.

Deadline's breakdown for Transformers 4:

Dom Theatrical Rev: $246m -> $126.12m (after theaters cut) minus $77m in releasing costs = $49.12 theatrical profit

Foreign: $545 -> $212.6m - $84.5m in releasing costs = $128.1m
China: $301m -> $75.25m
Total: $203m Foreign Theatrical profit

[This split is skewed though by the the higher releasing/marketing costs in the US but that marketing is also used to build buzz worldwide outside of any foreign expense and marketing]

In Ancillaries: After costs are deducted the U.S brought in $145m vs $174m Foreign.

Domestic Theatrical Gross was 22.5% of it's WW
Domestic Theatrical Net was about 20% of WW
Domestic Ancillaries about 45% of WW

Even if you discount China's almost non existent ancillary market the disparity is huge since non China O/S theatrical gross was still more than twice as much as the US.

 

[Mr.M]

Apocalypse will easily surpass DoFP unless it gets panned critically. I think DoFP restored a lot of good will and hype, so I am thinking around 800 million. But I don't feel that will be enough if they get a 250/550 type split. It is an improvement, but not a mega blockbuster given the likely plus 200 million dollar budget. So that's why I think the big X-films may be in the back burner for a while. I am not expecting another trilogy ensuing the FC trilogy within the next 5-6 years, although I would like to see another one obviously.