Wkd Box Office 04•01-03•16 - BvS has 'worse legs than Barbara Gordon' -- Sibersk Esto

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least WB can be glad that BvS made all it's money before Civil War released and didn't give Marvel the satisfaction of having their film eating off DC's plate.

They may still be starving but it's a moral victory.
 
3 wide openers, including one that will very likely open to $70+M, will probably spell a big theater count drop for BvS (including all its IMAX screens) and a another drop of at least 55%. Don't see more than $335M DOM total.
 
A Human Becoming said:
I just watched it early this year: not great.
Click to expand...
luke-skywalker.gif
 
Every new B.O. update of BvS just starts to read like a comical tragedy. It's like the project has gone horribly wrong but also gone horribly right at the same time.

On one hand, it's a moneysink of a film that stars three comic book icons, has a huge marketing budget, and many benefits to propel its box office intake in the first few weeks...and yet theater performance is entering freefall on a week-by-week basis.

On the other hand, Warner Bros. was willing to trust Snyder with his vision of a DCCU and gave him the keys to run the asylum. They've definitely getting what they bargained for, lmao.
 
At this rate I don't even think it's gonna make a 2x multiple of its opening weekend (166x2 = 332million), which is apparently a number people care about.

I guess it's indicative of lasting appeal and good word of mouth which this movie has none of.
 
If this thing really only ends up with 330 mil domestic, it's possible that it's only barely meeting its actual domestic budget. the $250 figure being used seems to be a pretty conservative estimate, especially considering that David Goyer went on record back in January that Man of Steel was budgeted at $260.

I don't think they got a $10mil savings going from that movie to one with Batman, Wonder Woman, and Doomsday in it.

Of course, WB is never going to let out what it actually cost now. I mean, they weren't going to do that even if it'd been a success, but now that it's disappointing this hard, I wouldnt' be surprised if they try to spin the budget back down to the $200 range somehow.
 
Do the theaters really want to run this movie a second time?
They sure as hell cannot be happy giving screen time to a 3 hour movie that's a few months old.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
If this thing really only ends up with 330 mil domestic, it's possible that it's only barely meeting its actual domestic budget. the $250 figure being used seems to be a pretty conservative estimate, especially considering that David Goyer went on record back in January that Man of Steel was budgeted at $260.

I don't think they got a $10mil savings going from that movie to one with Batman, Wonder Woman, and Doomsday in it.

Of course, WB is never going to let out what it actually cost now. I mean, they weren't going to do that even if it'd been a success, but now that it's disappointing this hard, I wouldnt' be surprised if they try to spin the budget back down to the $200 range somehow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, budget numbers for blockbusters are basically all bullshit. To give an idea of how much BS they are, Pirates 4's was original given as $250M, and a few years later Forbes reported that it was actually around $410M
 
Biggest-Geek-Ever said:
Yeah, budget numbers for blockbusters are basically all bullshit. To give an idea of how much BS they are, Pirates 4's was original given as $250M, and a few years later Forbes reported that it was actually around $410M
Click to expand...

That's because the $250 number doesn't include marketing costs. Those are typically harder to know numbers, but it's a good bet that BvS cost around $400 or so including marketing as that's typically budgeted at 50-100% above the base cost of the film. Crazy, isn't it?

The rough back-of-the-envelope number is that BvS will need $800 million world wide gross to break even for WB. It will make that and turn a small profit, most likely. Similar to MoS which was reported by an industry source as making a profit of $47M.
 
It's been amazing watching this train wreck play out. Then there was that hilarious "Support DC Films" hashtag on Twitter as if (IMO) WB has put out any DC films outside the first two Nolan Batman films (and even as disappointing as TDKR was, it still managed to break 1B WW) in the last 25 years that are worth a damn.


BTW, how much power does Jon Peters have these days? Does he still have control over the film rights for Superman?
 
PHOENIXZERO said:
It's been amazing watching this train wreck play out. Then there was that hilarious "Support DC Films" hashtag on Twitter as if (IMO) WB has put out any DC films outside the first two Nolan Batman films (and even as disappointing as TDKR was, it still managed to break 1B WW) in the last 25 years that are worth a damn.


BTW, how much power does Jon Peters have these days? Does he still have control over the film rights for Superman?
Click to expand...

He was producer for MoS according to IMDB, but not for BvS.

Does this mean he was FINALLY given the boot?
 
ringlord said:
That's because the $250 number doesn't include marketing costs..
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case with either this film or with Pirates. I think it's simply studios flat out fucking lying about how much they're spending once the dollar amount heads north of a specific line.

A lot of the marketing costs are ameliorated by merchandising/advertising deals, too. The studio often doesn't carry a lot of the burden for those expenditures, the licensing deals they cut put that off onto other companies.

I mean - think how much this thing had to actually cost in order for them to feel comfy with lying about $250. "Yeah, $250 is a good lie. We don't look totally inept at $250. Let's go with that."

To use the Man of Steel example: They reported the budget at 225. Goyer said they were given 260. That's not counting marketing. That's just to finish the film. And that was down from $300 that they were asking for.
 
ringlord said:
That's because the $250 number doesn't include marketing costs. Those are typically harder to know numbers, but it's a good bet that BvS cost around $400 or so including marketing as that's typically budgeted at 50-100% above the base cost of the film. Crazy, isn't it?

The rough back-of-the-envelope number is that BvS will need $800 million world wide gross to break even for WB. It will make that and turn a small profit, most likely. Similar to MoS which was reported by an industry source as making a profit of $47M.
Click to expand...

But even then you've got several major stars in the film compared to Man of Steel. They probably get paid a lot and may even have some kind of profit share deals.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
I don't think that's the case with either this film or with Pirates. I think it's simply studios flat out fucking lying about how much they're spending once the dollar amount heads north of a specific line.

A lot of the marketing costs are ameliorated by merchandising/advertising deals, too. The studio often doesn't carry a lot of the burden for those expenditures, the licensing deals they cut put that off onto other companies.

I mean - think how much this thing had to actually cost in order for them to feel comfy with lying about $250. "Yeah, $250 is a good lie. We don't look totally inept at $250. Let's go with that."
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Studios lie about their budgets. If it's a cheap movie, they usually inflate it to make it sound more expensive. If the budget is out of control, they round it way down so it sounds more reasonable. If the studio cops to $250 million as the budget, it's probably closer to $300, if not way past it. Thanks to Hollywood accounting, they can spin those numbers in whichever direction serves their purpose.
 
Calabi said:
But even then you've got several major stars in the film compared to Man of Steel. They probably get paid a lot and may even have some kind of profit share deals.
Click to expand...

Of the cast, Affleck is the only one that I think could ask for a % of the gross and get it.

MAYBE Amy Adams too.
 
I'm betting Eisenberg got a nice slice, as well. Remember, the only reason he got asked onto the project was as stunt casting. Once they decided to make him an actual role instead of the famous face that exits stage left in 5 minutes, I can't imagine he wasn't like "Well, now you gotta cough up what that would normally cost"
 
Bobby Roberts said:
I'm betting Eisenberg got a nice slice, as well. Remember, the only reason he got asked onto the project was as stunt casting. Once they decided to make him an actual role instead of the famous face that exits stage left in 5 minutes, I can't imagine he wasn't like "Well, now you gotta cough up what that would normally cost"
Click to expand...


which would be a shame as I don't know which character he was trying to portray but it certainly wasn't Lex Luthor. It's like he never read or watched any media on the character
 
Dunlop said:
which would be a shame as I don't know which character he was trying to portray but it certainly wasn't Lex Luthor. It's like he never read or watched any media on the character
Click to expand...

He didn't! He made it a point on the press tour to point out that he'd never really read any of the comics, or watched any of the previous movies. He had no idea what the fuck a Lex Luthor was supposed to act like. He just rolled with it.

When he was asked in to be Jimmy Olsen (the aforementioned stunt casting) I believe it had to be explained to him what a Jimmy Olsen was, and how the gimmick was supposed to work, i.e. "See, they will recognize you, and you're playing Superman's best friend in the comics, so they're gonna be like oh shit, that's awesome," and then we blow your brains out and everyone's on edge, like they don't know what's happening, right?"

And him trying to reason through that is what caused Snyder to go "This guy is weird! What if he was Lex? Let's do that!"

So yeah, I'm betting Eisenberg was like "oh, I just went from 2 days on location to the primary villain? Yeah, you're gonna PAY me."
 
Eisenberg is a 32 year old American Male. I somehow doubt that he has zero knowledge of comicbooks and comic films to the point that he doesnt know who Lex Luthor is.
 
Alexandre said:
Well the movie was indeed garbage

30min more garbage wouldnt help either but a lot of fans would at least go see it

No ideia how thats translate into $$$
Click to expand...

Seeing as how audiences are abandoning the film in close to record numbers (but NOT A RECORD!), it would not translate to much money at all.
 
Alexandre said:
Well the movie was indeed garbage

30min more garbage wouldnt help either but a lot of fans would at least go see it

No ideia how thats translate into $$$
Click to expand...

It's clear that fans of BvS like myself are the vast minority.

An extended version being released theatrically would make diddley dick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

“Better Man” bombs at the US box office
2 3 4
198
12K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Box Office: ‘Kraven the Hunter’ Aims for Weak $15 Million in Opening Weekend (Lower than Madam Web)
33
2K
Reizo Ryuu replied
My Dachshund Of 16 Years Has Gone Missing & Possibly Passed
24
1K
RJMacready73 replied
Joker 2 is bombing at the Box Office
News  4 5 6 7 8
398
36K
NeoGiffer replied
Section 31 Rottenwatch: Kurtzman makes a worse Star Trek movie than Into Darkness, Nemesis, and Final Frontier combined
2
93
5K
Fluffytheterrible replied
Top Bottom