CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 655

post #32701 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post
 

Eh...Batman Begins was apparently tracking relatively low according to a few articles I've read, although coming off a franchise killing disaster with an almost universally popular character is different to coming off a franchise almost-killing disaster with less popular character.

 

The opposite. It was tracking high and expected to pull in around $100M for its opening weekend. It did $75M. Then came the freak-outs of it all being over before it started. Until WOM kicked in and it held like glue for the rest of that summer. Batman Begins pulling in $205M off that opening was great.

 

Regarding Pine, the person in the video to suggest its over if Wonder Woman under-performs is kind of an idiot. He's the supporting character. If this flat-lines (and I do tend to think it will pay for Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad burning audiences), that will be on DC itself and Gadot.

post #32702 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
 

 

The opposite. It was tracking high and expected to pull in around $100M for its opening weekend. It did $75M. Then came the freak-outs of it all being over before it started. Until WOM kicked in and it held like glue for the rest of that summer. Batman Begins pulling in $205M off that opening was great.

 

 WB dragged that thing kicking and screaming to its final number though; it hit the $200 million mark at Week 9 and stayed in theaters for another 11 weeks after that, crawling its way to that $205 million total.  I remember a lot of debate about whether $205 million was a disappointment or not, even with it being the highest grossing Batman movie since the first Burton film.

post #32703 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

 

 WB dragged that thing kicking and screaming to its final number though; it hit the $200 million mark at Week 9 and stayed in theaters for another 11 weeks after that, crawling its way to that $205 million total.  I remember a lot of debate about whether $205 million was a disappointment or not, even with it being the highest grossing Batman movie since the first Burton film.

 

Glad I'm not the only one who remembers this. How quickly the revisionist history sets in!

 

It was perceived as a success ultimately (plus the home video sales were massive). But when WB did the exact same thing to Superman Returns the following summer, it was deemed a flat-out disappointment.

post #32704 of 34588
Yeah, but no one liked it. Everyone at least kinda liked Batman Begins.
post #32705 of 34588
Superman Returns? Pretty bad
post #32706 of 34588
Wonder Woman's budget is only listed as $120 million, compared to almost double that for BvS and 175 for Suicide Squad. A $65m opening, with $150m domestic total and $400m worldwide, while obviously disappointing for WB, would still be perfect profitable. And that isn't even considering the fact that initial tracking at anywhere between $65m and $105m. If it ends up on the higher end of that scale, it won't even be disappointing.
post #32707 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Yeah, but no one liked it. Everyone at least kinda liked Batman Begins.


Plus Warner Brothers applied the sunk costs of every aborted attempt to reboot Superman that had transpired between Superman IV and Superman Returns into the budget of the movie, so at that point anything short of a mammoth blockbuster hit would have been unsatisfactory where Superman Returns was concerned.

post #32708 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post

Wonder Woman's budget is only listed as $120 million, compared to almost double that for BvS and 175 for Suicide Squad. A $65m opening, with $150m domestic total and $400m worldwide, while obviously disappointing for WB, would still be perfect profitable. And that isn't even considering the fact that initial tracking at anywhere between $65m and $105m. If it ends up on the higher end of that scale, it won't even be disappointing.

 

On that subject, what is wrong with this picture?

 

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) 

 

Production Budget: $150 million

 

Theatrical Performance

 

Domestic Box Office $154,058,340 

International Box Office $224,800,000

Worldwide Box Office $378,858,340

post #32709 of 34588
I believe the R rating is the significant factor there. That's changing a bit, but only just recently.
post #32710 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

I believe the R rating is the significant factor there. That's changing a bit, but only just recently.

 

Ahem ... Deadpool?

post #32711 of 34588
Yeah, if Mad Max had played in China, it would have ended up in the black, probably, but the R rating precluded that. As it was, the film being nominated for and winning a whole bunch of Oscars probably made WB a bit more forgiving of its numbers.
post #32712 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post

Ahem ... Deadpool?

Yeah, and everyone was like 'Fuck! That's never happened before! Quick, make Logan R too!'
post #32713 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post


Yeah, and everyone was like 'Fuck! That's never happened before! Quick, make Logan R too!'

 

Which to be fair also was a) excellent and b) made a decent trailer load of cash too.

 

The China thing is an interesting thing, I really did wonder why Fury Road didn't get a release there apart from Hong Kong (I think) as I thought it would go down quite well there (not dialogue heavy, cars smashing stuff up). The reason I heard if true was quite depressing which is with a limited number of foreign movie slots available, Warner Bros decided to go with San Andreas instead.

 

I mean in terms of content, for Logan they just chopped a few bits out for China, they could have done that too for Fury Road for a Chinese release if needed, you'd think?

post #32714 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post

Wonder Woman's budget is only listed as $120 million, compared to almost double that for BvS and 175 for Suicide Squad. A $65m opening, with $150m domestic total and $400m worldwide, while obviously disappointing for WB, would still be perfect profitable. And that isn't even considering the fact that initial tracking at anywhere between $65m and $105m. If it ends up on the higher end of that scale, it won't even be disappointing.

They don't report the marketing budget. Marketing sometimes goes as high as $100 million alone.

Although in Wonder Woman's case it looks like they've spent nothing on marketing so far.
post #32715 of 34588
65M is fine for WW. It's right in line with how the first Thor and Captain America opened.
post #32716 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by catartik View Post

They don't report the marketing budget. Marketing sometimes goes as high as $100 million alone.

Although in Wonder Woman's case it looks like they've spent nothing on marketing so far.

Tripling the production budget worldwide generally covers the marketing budget. The general rule of thumb is that tripling the production budget means you have broke even on everything. Doesn't always mean that, and it doesn't guarantee a sequel or anything, but it is a decent conclusion.
post #32717 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by catartik View Post


They don't report the marketing budget. Marketing sometimes goes as high as $100 million alone.

Although in Wonder Woman's case it looks like they've spent nothing on marketing so far.

No idea how valid or accurate this article is...

 

http://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-marketing-solo-posters/

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
 

 

The opposite. It was tracking high and expected to pull in around $100M for its opening weekend. It did $75M. Then came the freak-outs of it all being over before it started. Until WOM kicked in and it held like glue for the rest of that summer. Batman Begins pulling in $205M off that opening was great.

 

 

 

I stand corrected!

post #32718 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

65M is fine for WW. It's right in line with how the first Thor and Captain America opened.

 

Those are movies from six years ago. WB won't be hoping that their latest big budget superhero movie does as well as one from six years ago, they'll be looking at something like Doctor Strange which should have been an equally tough sell and yet opened with $85m.

post #32719 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

 

Those are movies from six years ago. WB won't be hoping that their latest big budget superhero movie does as well as one from six years ago, they'll be looking at something like Doctor Strange which should have been an equally tough sell and yet opened with $85m.

 

True but Marvel put in the hard yards building up their brand which is why even Ant-Man now can make $519+ million and Doctor Strange did even better. It also paid off massively with them building up to The Avengers like they did.

 

The DCU or DCEU or whatever they're calling it has been somewhat more of a mess (having said that, how did Suicide Squad make so much money, I hear it was ... not so good) and seems to be trying to take shortcuts to their Avengers equivalent.

 

Having said all that, Wonder Woman is the very first of these films I'm going to see when it comes out (and first to see in any form at all, I haven't seen any of the others).

post #32720 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post
Tripling the production budget worldwide generally covers the marketing budget. The general rule of thumb is that tripling the production budget means you have broke even on everything. 

 

Tell that to the people still waiting on their back end for (pick your successful franchise movie).  Hollywood accounting does not follow basic math.

post #32721 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

how did Suicide Squad make so much money

 

1. Harley Quinn is one of the most popular characters in DC comics now. Like, seriously; she's MASSIVE.

 

2. People wanted to see what Leto Joker was all about. 

 

3. GREAT marketing. In terms of putting asses on seats, the Suicide Squad trailer guys deserved any bonuses they received for their work, even if they totally mis-sold it as Guardians Of The Galaxy: DC Edition.


Edited by MrSaxon - 5/12/17 at 4:13pm
post #32722 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

Tell that to the people still waiting on their back end for (pick your successful franchise movie).  Hollywood accounting does not follow basic math.

 

I think they're meaning in relation to profit/loss in reality in relation to the studio as opposed to what numbers they report. Like you said about Hollywood accounting, it's getting just a bit silly when they tell David Prowse that Return of the Jedi isn't profitable yet or Winston Groom that Forrest Gump lost money (it's why he didn't sell rights to the sequel, he said he couldn't have the studio making another loss on his conscience /burn).

post #32723 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Tell that to the people still waiting on their back end for (pick your successful franchise movie).  Hollywood accounting does not follow basic math.

Well of course Hollywood is going to dick people over with back-end deals. But they will do that on movies that make a billion dollars, so actual profitability is irrelevant in that regard.
post #32724 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

 

1. Harley Quinn is one of the most popular character in DC comics now. Like, seriously; she's MASSIVE.

 

2. People wanted to see what Leto Joker was all about. 

 

3. GREAT marketing. In terms of putting asses on seats, the Suicide Squad trailer guys deserved any bonuses they received for their work, even if they totally mis-sold it as Guardians Of The Galaxy: DC Edition.

 

4. Equally GREAT concept.

 

5. It was the last big "Event" film that summer (WB's ever-reliable mid/late July opener) with zero competition for weeks. It won those subsequent weekends by default, even when the film itself was so divisive. 

post #32725 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post

Tripling the production budget worldwide generally covers the marketing budget. The general rule of thumb is that tripling the production budget means you have broke even on everything. Doesn't always mean that, and it doesn't guarantee a sequel or anything, but it is a decent conclusion.

These aren't $15 million horror movies. They are massive undertakings. They don't want to break even. They don't want to spend $200 million dollars to make $10 million in return.

WB wants to make massive cash on these movies. A lukewarm reception to Wonder Woman is going to have a ripple effect (no pun intended) on Aquaman's production. They'll cram Batman into it somehow.
post #32726 of 34588

Hollywood is predicting that there could be as much as a 5-10% dropoff in the BO this summer (leading to the lowest summer BO in a decade), due to franchise fatigue.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-summer-box-office-20170505-story,amp.html

post #32727 of 34588

I wouldn't count on Aquaman being affected if Wonder Woman is lukewarm (except perhaps in terms of less marketing being devoted to it).

 

1.  We said the same thing about BvS and Wonder Woman/Justice League.  It didn't really happen.

 

2.  Based on that Justice League Trailer, I'm pretty sure WB execs are banking on Aquaman being the breakout character of Justice League, WW's box office be damned.

 

3.  By the time Justice League hits Aquaman will be in the can save for post-production and reshoots.

 

Aquaman's safe.  It's what comes after that may well be borked if the underperformance continues.

 

That being said, I don't think any of these movies have been quite as "disappointing" monetarily as some of the pearl-clutchers make out.  They'd never have started filming on Aquaman if that were truly the case.  WB's probably raking in the dough on Merch even if they're not making it back solely at the box office.

post #32728 of 34588
James Wan has been very profitable for WB. I'm sure any project he is involved with is safe.
post #32729 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by catartik View Post

These aren't $15 million horror movies. They are massive undertakings. They don't want to break even. They don't want to spend $200 million dollars to make $10 million in return.

WB wants to make massive cash on these movies. A lukewarm reception to Wonder Woman is going to have a ripple effect (no pun intended) on Aquaman's production. They'll cram Batman into it somehow.

I'm not saying WB won't be disappointed if Wonder Woman only does like 400-500 million. I'm just saying that line of thinking is stupid. It is how you end up with garbage like Suicide Squad, where the studio neuters anything interesting about the movie in order to chase trends and maximize its box office...when a Suicide Squad people actually liked would have been much better for WB long term. I'm not saying Wonder Woman will be good, but expecting every blockbuster to make a billion dollars is how you end up making a whole bunch of crap that poisons the well long-term.

Thor and Captain America cost about the same amount to make as Wonder Woman and only grossed in that 400-500 million range, but they had much greater value to Marvel/Disney long term because people generally liked them. That should be a lot more important to WB than hitting some arbitrary number. The fact that it isn't is whythe entire DCU thing will probably fail.
post #32730 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post


I'm not saying WB won't be disappointed if Wonder Woman only does like 400-500 million. I'm just saying that line of thinking is stupid. It is how you end up with garbage like Suicide Squad, where the studio neuters anything interesting about the movie in order to chase trends and maximize its box office...when a Suicide Squad people actually liked would have been much better for WB long term. I'm not saying Wonder Woman will be good, but expecting every blockbuster to make a billion dollars is how you end up making a whole bunch of crap that poisons the well long-term.

Thor and Captain America cost about the same amount to make as Wonder Woman and only grossed in that 400-500 million range, but they had much greater value to Marvel/Disney long term because people generally liked them. That should be a lot more important to WB than hitting some arbitrary number. The fact that it isn't is whythe entire DCU thing will probably fail.

 

Also, each successive Thor and Captain America movie is making more money as people are both seeing the makers are overall in the MCU putting some effort into things (bar a relative stumble or two) plus the increasing integration of the shared universe is really working out as it becomes increasingly clear that they're setting up pieces for the next Avengers films. I didn't see Thor 1 or 2 in the theatre but thanks to that insanely great teaser for Thor 3, I'm there.

post #32731 of 34588

Re: who'll take the blame if WW doesn't set the world on fire. Look no further than the cinematic mastermind behind the script and in charge of the DC overall tone:

 

post #32732 of 34588
I hope Wonder Woman kills everyone with flamethrowers and necksnaps.
post #32733 of 34588

If the Aquaman movie fails it'll be because it's a flippin Aquaman movie.

post #32734 of 34588

KING ARTHUR opens to only a 14.4 million weekend.

 

Think some Studio Execs will get the chop for this?

post #32735 of 34588

I'm wondering whether it will affect Ritchie's deal to direct Aladdin. Disney's got to be kind of worried, right?

post #32736 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

KING ARTHUR opens to only a 14.4 million weekend.

 

Think some Studio Execs will get the chop for this?

 

Who seriously couldn't have seen this coming when this was on the concept stage even at the point of not yet having spent any money on it?

post #32737 of 34588
It was invisioned as a SIX PART series, with the potential for Merlin and Gawain spin offs, stuff like that.
post #32738 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post

I'm not saying WB won't be disappointed if Wonder Woman only does like 400-500 million. I'm just saying that line of thinking is stupid. It is how you end up with garbage like Suicide Squad, where the studio neuters anything interesting about the movie in order to chase trends and maximize its box office...when a Suicide Squad people actually liked would have been much better for WB long term. I'm not saying Wonder Woman will be good, but expecting every blockbuster to make a billion dollars is how you end up making a whole bunch of crap that poisons the well long-term.

Thor and Captain America cost about the same amount to make as Wonder Woman and only grossed in that 400-500 million range, but they had much greater value to Marvel/Disney long term because people generally liked them. That should be a lot more important to WB than hitting some arbitrary number. The fact that it isn't is whythe entire DCU thing will probably fail.

Pretty much all of this.
post #32739 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

It was invisioned as a SIX PART series, with the potential for Merlin and Gawain spin offs, stuff like that.

Hollywood needs to stop trying to develop franchasises before the first film has even been released.
post #32740 of 34588

Looks like POWER RANGERS didn't do as well as they hoped.

 

Which is a pity. The new cast were interesting and worked well together.

post #32741 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmurdoch View Post


Hollywood needs to stop trying to develop franchasises before the first film has even been released.

 

Let's not forget the Divergent Series debacle. Stop trying to split the last book in a series into two movies! Especially when the box office is trending down as much as it is in this case!

post #32742 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

 

Let's not forget the Divergent Series debacle. Stop trying to split the last book in a series into two movies! Especially when the box office is trending down as much as it is in this case!


There are rare instances where splitting a book could certainly be warranted.  But this was not one of them.  Nor was the Hobbit (MAYBE two, but definitely not THREE), the Hunger Games, and it's really freakin' borderline on Harry Potter.

post #32743 of 34588
I almost feel as if this upcoming It movie could benefit from a shorter first film that really talks about Its history going back, so you feel its influence on this town.

Unlike the shit that is apparently happening in this new Alien movie, Its backstory is talked about in the book, and you get a feel for how wide-reaching his terror is. It wouldnt be shoehorned in.
post #32744 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

If the Aquaman movie fails it'll be because it's a flippin Aquaman movie.

Aquaman and Black Panther are the only SH films I'm looking forward to based on the filmmaking chops.

 

I'm super, super curious to see Coogler's take on this.  

post #32745 of 34588
Apparently Coogler insisted on filming BP his own way with his own crew, and Marvel is thrilled with what they've seen so far. A completely different type of film.
post #32746 of 34588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

Apparently Coogler insisted on filming BP his own way with his own crew, and Marvel is thrilled with what they've seen so far. A completely different type of film.

I figured that because he wouldn't do it any other way.  

 

It's not like he was desperate for work coming off of Creed.

post #32747 of 34588

Oh, I'm totally onboard with Black Panther. But Aquaman? Sorry.

post #32748 of 34588
There's no way that WB can do anything but print money with WW, despite how much the movie pulls in. WW is the lynch-pin for DC girl's comic merch, which also includes Harley Quinn, Batgirl, and Supergirl. WW is an actual PRINCESS and they have Marvel beat here by a country mile. My 2 year old even knows who Bumblebee is. Any WW visibility is good visibility, and they vould do a lot worse than Gal Gadot and this movie.
post #32749 of 34588

Maybe it's about time they started merchandising WW then. I mean, in a way that isn't totally insulting:

 

https://www.eater.com/2017/5/11/15624308/wonder-woman-think-thin

post #32750 of 34588
Meanwhile, the Guardians of the Galaxy are shilling Doritos.

I don't know what's more offensive!

Neither, actually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread