Apocalypse X-Men: Apocalypse Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

[MadVillainy]

Im very afraid if they reboot that FOX will make things worse.

They'd get a talented small time director and bully/micromanage them to make silly decisions

 

[DavidHaller]

We know Disney is a soulless corporate entity only interested in profit. Unlike Fox and their humanist and charitable ways.

hahaha, I did not want to imply that at all.

But I think there is a different logic at play when a company makes more money with merchandise and toys than with the actual movie! Fox need to make a movie work to make its money while Disney's Marvel property can theoretically still make money even when the movie fails...children seem to be an more important targeted audience for Disney than it is for Fox's X-Men franchise.

(p.s. just remember the latest leak that producers could force the Iron Man movie team to change the gender of their movie villain because allegedly female superhero toys don't sell...this is only one example how the "merchandise lobby" has influence on the creative team)

 

[Spiderine]

I don't see why everyone thinks that being closer to the source material is gonna solve all the problems this franchise has.

It's deeper than that, but I don't know a solution

I don't get this thinking either. Just because they get them right the next go around isn't going to reverse fortune. And "getting them right" is subjective anyways for a movie studio.

 

[Flint Marko]

Business Insider reported the budget at $234 million. Honestly the movie looked pretty cheap, with some of the worse VFX in a recent blockbuster, so I'm not sure what I believe.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Disney are not happy with alice 2

It's a staggering fall for a sequel that returned Depp — one of Hollywood's biggest stars, albeit with a recently checkered box-office history — as the Mad Hatter. "Alice in Wonderland," featuring then-novel 3-D, made more than $1 billion worldwide in 2010 after opening with $116 million domestically.

"It's a disappointing result," said Dave Hollis, distribution chief for Disney. "We have embarked on a branded tent-pole strategy that makes big bets. But when you make big bets, there are times when you have results that are disappointing."

 

[Flint Marko]

Alice 2 being a commercial failure should surprise no one. The hype/anticipation for that movie was basically nonexistent.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't get this thinking either. Just because they get them right the next go around isn't going to reverse fortune. And "getting them right" is subjective anyways for a movie studio.

It's just part of fan who want to see the comic come to life, which isnt necessarily a bad thing.

But they have to realize it's naive and it wont help in the long run.

 

[RLAAMJR.]

Alice 2 being a commercial failure should surprise no one. The hype/anticipation for that movie was basically nonexistent.

I was surprised that the first Alice movie made it to a billion dollars.

 

[MadVillainy]

Business Insider reported the budget at $234 million. Honestly the movie looked pretty cheap, with some of the worse VFX in a recent blockbuster, so I'm not sure what I believe.

Really?

I thought the SFX looked pretty good to me. Every shot practically oozed money to me.

Im not sure if I believe the 234 but for sure it's closer to 200 mill than $178m

 

[kevork89]

Business Insider reported the budget at $234 million. Honestly the movie looked pretty cheap, with some of the worse VFX in a recent blockbuster, so I'm not sure what I believe.

I don't think it was that much. Only because when DoFP was being made there was such a big deal about how much it cost as it was the second most expensive movie Fox ever made after Avatar. And the Avatar budget was around $237 million. So if Apocalypse had that budget then they would've had articles about it.

DoFP had a $220 million budget because at least $50 million went to salaries. But take away that and then you can end up with $170-$190 million which is what I think Apocalypse cost.

 

[Alison Blaire]

Business Insider reported the budget at $234 million. Honestly the movie looked pretty cheap, with some of the worse VFX in a recent blockbuster, so I'm not sure what I believe.

$234 millon Apocalypse?

 

[Neno_Kos]

I don't see why everyone thinks that being closer to the source material is gonna solve all the problems this franchise has.

It maybe wont. But you offering something new and fresh. It's good try. Nothing really cost you when everything you have is currently stale. And that's main critcism with this movie.

 

[kevork89]

Really?

I thought the SFX looked pretty good to me. Every shot practically oozed money to me.

Im not sure if I believe the 234 but for sure it's closer to 200 mill than $178m

Agreed I thought the effects were awesome.

 

[MadVillainy]

It maybe wont. But you offering something new and fresh. It's good try. Nothing really cost you when everything you have is currently stale. And that's main critcism with this movie.

It's not that new or fresh. It's just giving it a different paintjob.

They have to keep things fresh storytelling wise to be successful and as I said, unfortunately that's very difficult when they (or someone else) has just about done every SH movie plot already.

Agreed I thought the effects were awesome.

Eh I wouldnt go so far to say awesome lol. But for sure i don't think it looked cheap.

I don't think it was that much. Only because when DoFP was being made there was such a big deal about how much it cost as it was the second most expensive movie Fox ever made after Avatar. And the Avatar budget was around $237 million. So if Apocalypse had that budget then they would've had articles about it.

DoFP had a $220 million budget because at least $50 million went to salaries. But take away that and then you can end up with $170-$190 million which is what I think Apocalypse cost.

I think $190 seems like a good number. That would be my guess

 

[marvelrobbins]

You guys are right. The x-men have basically zero support outside of the films and comics nowadays. There is basically no merchandise at all. You can't go grab an x-men shirt for the new movie, or get any toys or costumes. And all the other major superhero films have party supplies themed after them, but not x-men. And then there's no animated series or major video games out right now either.

In 2015 when they reproduced covers for 1980's secret wars for t-shirt they
removed X-men to put other marvel characters not in the origin marvel super heroes secret wars limited series.

The pettyness of eather disney or marvel because fox bought X-men film
rights In early 1990's,before marvel filled for bankruptcy in 1996 by the way,
fair and square Is hurting X-Men attracting new fans.It doesn't real affect
old time fans like me who first came to X-Men as kid In early 1980's,and
have tons of comic books from when marvel cared about X-men up to mid 2000's.I was reguly buy the age of apocalypse comics when they were new.

 

[Docker2.0]

In 2015 when they reproduced covers for 1980's secret wars for t-shirt they
removed X-men to put other marvel characters not in the origin marvel super heroes secret wars limited series.

The pettyness of eather disney or marvel because fox bought X-men film
rights In early 1990's,before marvel filled for bankruptcy in 1996 by the way,
fair and square Is hurting X-Men attracting new fans.It doesn't real affect
old time fans like me who first came to X-Men as kid In early 1980's,and
have tons of comic books from when marvel cared about X-men up to mid 2000's.I was reguly buy the age of apocalypse comics when they were new.

How is it pettiness? Fox is a direct competitor of Disney so why would they help them when Fox has shown they are not willing to work with Disney. Remember Marvel wanted to trade SS and Galactus for DD and Fox gave them the finger? Characters Fox has no plans on using. I don't think it's pettiness at all. They are increasing their profits by using characters that they flat out own. What you call pettiness, I call smart business.

 

[Flint Marko]

Really?

I thought the SFX looked pretty good to me. Every shot practically oozed money to me.

Im not sure if I believe the 234 but for sure it's closer to 200 mill than $178m

There were so many moments where I was taken out of the film because of how poor the effects were. I'm not an effects snob and I'm not going to hold it against the movie too much, but it was extremely noticeable.
Just off the top of my head:

Spoiler

the tree that Cyclops split, Jean rebuilding the X-mansion, a good majority of the Quicksilver sequence especially the shot where he's "surfing", a good majority of the final battle, a lot of different Mystique transitions, and the worst one of all, the scene of the shipyard when Magneto is causing the tremors around the world. I actually can't believe they let the shots with the shipyard into the final movie, if those aren't unfinished then I don't know what is.

Again, I'm not an effects snob and there are plenty of movies that I love which feature unpolished CG (hello Tony's floating head and every Spider-man action sequence in Civil War), but this was a big step down.

$234 millon Apocalypse?

That's what Business Insider reported, but Hollywood accounting is a strange, fickle beast. One day it could've been $234 million, the next it could have been $178 with some clever book-keeping or some marketing tie-in.

I don't think it was that much. Only because when DoFP was being made there was such a big deal about how much it cost as it was the second most expensive movie Fox ever made after Avatar. And the Avatar budget was around $237 million. So if Apocalypse had that budget then they would've had articles about it.

DoFP had a $220 million budget because at least $50 million went to salaries. But take away that and then you can end up with $170-$190 million which is what I think Apocalypse cost.

That's a good point.

How is it pettiness? Fox is a direct competitor of Disney so why would they help them when Fox has shown they are not willing to work with Disney. Remember Marvel wanted to trade SS and Galactus for DD and Fox gave them the finger? Characters Fox has no plans on using. I don't think it's pettiness at all. They are increasing their profits by using characters that they flat out own. What you call pettiness, I call smart business.

I've said exactly this, and brought up the bolded point specifically, on numerous occasions and have never received a rebuttal. Some people just want to paint Disney/Marvel as the big bad business trying to hurt X-men fans without considering the full picture.

 

[2kt09]

Didn't know this site also held 4 year old grudges.

 

[Zarex]

hahaha, I did not want to imply that at all.

But I think there is a different logic at play when a company makes more money with merchandise and toys than with the actual movie! Fox need to make a movie work to make its money while Disney's Marvel property can theoretically still make money even when the movie fails...children seem to be an more important targeted audience for Disney than it is for Fox's X-Men franchise.

(p.s. just remember the latest leak that producers could force the Iron Man movie team to change the gender of their movie villain because allegedly female superhero toys don't sell...this is only one example how the "merchandise lobby" has influence on the creative team)

That was indeed a problem and has been addressed with the internal restructuring in which Kevin Feige reports directly to Walt Disney Studios head Alan Horn.

 

[nightwing06]

Business Insider reported the budget at $234 million. Honestly the movie looked pretty cheap, with some of the worse VFX in a recent blockbuster, so I'm not sure what I believe.

WOW I guess CGI doesnt come cheap

 

[RLAAMJR.]

Disney vs Fox?

XA is still doing well than Alice 2.

I wanna know though if Alice 2 deserves a loe RT too.

 

[Sithborg]

I think Marvel have let the X-Men slowly wither on the vine for the last decade. There have been bright spots in the comics but it is pretty clear the brand is less of a priority for them these days and has thus become less popular.

The nineties X-Men boom and the post 2000 runs of Morrison and Whedon seem to be over. Everything is circular so eventually the X-Men will probably be huge again but it definitely feels like the overall X-Men brand has fallen out of fashion a little bit in recent years.

I fail to see how putting one of their biggest writers on 2 X-books is them letting it wither on the vine. Dislike Bendis all you want, but giving him the main X-books is not exactly letting the books falter.

Good points about the over all appeal of the X-men.
Fox and Marvel are not on good terms though so I don't see either working together, though it would be nice.

Yet, they have just worked out a deal to get live action X-men shows made. One that gives the appearance of cooperation.

How is it pettiness? Fox is a direct competitor of Disney so why would they help them when Fox has shown they are not willing to work with Disney. Remember Marvel wanted to trade SS and Galactus for DD and Fox gave them the finger? Characters Fox has no plans on using. I don't think it's pettiness at all. They are increasing their profits by using characters that they flat out own. What you call pettiness, I call smart business.

Considering that they were working FF as well, I can very much see why it wasn't in their interest to give up rights to 2 big FF characters for a one time extension on Daredevil. And there isn't that much bitterness in Marvel's decisions. When you have to spend some money on merch, would you rather spend it on something that will is kind of stand alone or spend it on something that has synergy with your big movie release. Corporate synergy is not evil.

And to bring it back around, we are still not anywhere near reboot territory. Singer was already gone. And people place way too much importance on Kinberg.

 

[superweirdo87]

Casting big names is not necessarily a solution, and it's important to remember that business is about the net not the gross. Big names demand big paychecks, especially for work that is not a drama/passion project. Let's say that casting a big name for a few roles raised costs 5 million more per actor. That would be 15 million more in straight up costs. But, it doesn't end there because of back end deals. That also tacks on costs when it comes to the bottom line. Let's say they demand 1% more of final gross each. That would be like 5-7M per actor and another 15-21 million. So, the net impact would be at least 30 million most in costs and higher potentially like 36 million more, depending on gross.

They also play a role in the movie's quality itself. What if the plausible big names for a role do not actually fit the character or do good work? This is not just a pie in the sky thing, remember Halle as Storm. Would more of that really boost box office?

You could try and choose characters to insert them and focus on them based on box office. A lot of people have been very critical of the focus on Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique and it did not seem to boost Apocalypse that much.

And it could also impact the story itself and result in a weaker or less appealing story.

 

[marvelrobbins]

WOW I guess CGI doesnt come cheap

for all the critism of CGI in film the 178 million budget could be true.Lawrence Is still working on the contract she signed In 2010 so she probally isn't get a huge salary.so 178 Million could be true.with DOFP I have little doudt fox claim of 200 Million budget was likely lowballing it.Last Stand cost 210 million.

anyway they are now projecting it will do 80 Million over the 4 day weekend.

 

[MadVillainy]

Jlaw definetly renegotiated that contract.