thismeinteil
Member
And Superman was there for Jurassic Park's 3rd weekend.
Madflavor
Member
Again, who was saying 32% drop. Who? I want names.
A 41% drop for JW in it's third weekned was great, and also expected because Dinosaurs rule the box office.
Revolutionary
Member
It was this guy:
It's no wonder why Universal keeps shitting out those Jurassic sequels with no care for quality: the international audience still shows up in droves.
Madflavor
Member
It was this guy:
I mean let's be honest, he's definitely one of those guys that once read a film needs to make 2.5x it's budget to break even, and then thinks he knows how the Box Office works.
thismeinteil
Member
Yes, let's just ignore the standard 2.5x-3x used and reported by everyone just so you can desperately make your fave movie look like a hit instead of what it's actually doing, losing money for the studio.
VulcanRaven
Member
Screenrant article says that close to $600 million is the break even point and it will hit that. My prediction was that it will do around the same as Man of Steel. A bit more and less. There is no reason to expect anything else from a Superman movie.
Last edited:
Madflavor
Member
Yes, let's just ignore the standard 2.5x-3x used and reported by everyone just so you can desperately make your fave movie look like a hit instead of what it's actually doing, losing money for the studio.
So you aren't content with how you looked like a clown with that 32% claim you made earlier, you want to expose yourself as being even more clueless? K.
The 2.5x baseline is, and always has been a rough estimate. Nobody, not even professional trackers know exactly how much a studio spent on the film. Nor do we know how much a studio recoups part of it's budget through cross promotion, foreign deals, product placement, and brand partnerships. This isn't even going into how much money they've already been making, and will continue to make, through merchanise and VOD sales.
But you know another reason citing 2.5x is flawed? It's generally because it assumes the film is having the typical 40/60 split between Domestic and Overseas that most blockbusters have. Only Superman isn't at 40/60. It's at 60/40, in the Domestic favor. So the studio is actually earning more revenue from ticket sales than the average blockbuster would, because the cut from domestic is larger than international.
Like I said, you're just a guy that read 2.5x one day and think you know how this shit works. But throw me another laugh emoji if it makes you feel smarter.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
No the 2.5x-3x assumes a 50/50 split. That's because foreign box office takes more of the revenue, it's usually already starting out at 50/50 or less for the studios. The 60/40 split for domestic is only for the opening weeks. After that it begins to drop and within weeks will be the same 40/60 split that the foreign box office will drop to. That is the incentive movie studios use to keep their movies in theaters even when the revenue starts to go down.
Also you mock the 2.5x multiplier but then just thumbs up someone siting an article that used a 2.67x multiplier? And you claim to have some kind of behind the scenes info that Superman is collecting more revenue than any other blockbuster before it, 60/40 split worldwide? Who looks like the clown now?
There's a reason they tried to debunk the $700M story that it needs to hit to be considered a success. And why they stated a number so low that no one believes that they break even at, $500M. WB jumped all in to this Gunnverse, with a ton of projects already in production, so they're going to continue for a year or two, before pulling the plug, if need be. They need this to seem like a success no matter what the results.
As a reminder, The Batman and Joker came out around the collapsing Zynderverse, with flop after flop, yet were able to pull in $772M and $1.08B WW, respectively. There's no excuse for this film not to hit $700M+, other than people didn't like it as much as you guys did.
Last edited:
Madflavor
Member
No, it assumes a 40/60 split. You even answered why that is yourself:
40/60 is the more common scenario for big blockbusters. But it also doesn't always happen, which is part of the flaw of the 2.5x multiplier. You can't apply the same 2.5x rule to a $100m movie that makes $300m WW at a 40/60 split, and another similarly budgeted film that makes the exact same amount, but does a 60/40, or anything different. It's simple math.
In this case Superman is tracking to finish 60/40. Domestically it started way ahead of Overseas, and it's legs have been stronger over here. It would need to start suddenly having much stronger legs OS, not to mention Asia (which the film is completely dead in) to start showing up to see the film, to tip the scales to 40/60. It's not happening. So I don't know where you got that from.
That's not the gotcha you think it is.
I don't know man, you're the one who keeps saying stupid things, laughing all the time, and not content with the first couple of times you looked like a fool. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Not the gotcha you think, indeed.
"Last year, documents filed by the Superman production team with the Ohio government seeking incentives listed the gross budget of the highly anticipated July film as $363.8 million. When that number was reported, director James Gunn — who also runs DC Studios — lambasted the article. "How in the world do they think they know what our budget is?" he wrote on social media. In recent days, DC suggested the budget is a net $225 million after incentives and tax breaks.
Yet one longtime financier says the $363 million figure isn't incorrect. And sources say DC and its parent could spend as much as $200 million on the global marketing campaign, compared with the usual $150 million for an all-audience summer tentpole. It wouldn't be a surprise, since Superman kicks off the Gunn era and needs to work at the box office. Either way, between the production budget and marketing, it's certain to land in the $400 million club.
According to a veteran studio source, Superman, which opens July 11 in North America, is exploding on social media, with the first full trailer raking in 250 million-plus views, the most in Warners/DC history. Based on such metrics, a domestic debt of $175 million or thereabouts is within the realm of possibility; it even has a shot at finishing with $1 billion-plus globally. "There's no way to defend these budgets, because when you get into the $700 million to $900 million break-even point in regards to box office and ancillary revenue, it doesn't make any sense," says a veteran financier." - via The Hollywood Reporter
Even using the lowball of $100M for marketing estimate that was floating around, which probably isn't accurate, this film's absolute bottom for breaking even is $650M.
Also, I think you're talking about the cut the markets represent. I'm talking about the cut of revenue the studio sees. Regardless of what countries its revenue comes from, in the end, the studio is only going to see ~50% of the revenue overall. In the best case scenario, it may see 55% if the vast majority of the revenue is from the domestic market. But it's not going to be any where near a 60/40 split, even if 55% of its revenue comes from the domestic market.
"Last year, documents filed by the Superman production team with the Ohio government seeking incentives listed the gross budget of the highly anticipated July film as $363.8 million. When that number was reported, director James Gunn — who also runs DC Studios — lambasted the article. "How in the world do they think they know what our budget is?" he wrote on social media. In recent days, DC suggested the budget is a net $225 million after incentives and tax breaks.
Yet one longtime financier says the $363 million figure isn't incorrect. And sources say DC and its parent could spend as much as $200 million on the global marketing campaign, compared with the usual $150 million for an all-audience summer tentpole. It wouldn't be a surprise, since Superman kicks off the Gunn era and needs to work at the box office. Either way, between the production budget and marketing, it's certain to land in the $400 million club.
According to a veteran studio source, Superman, which opens July 11 in North America, is exploding on social media, with the first full trailer raking in 250 million-plus views, the most in Warners/DC history. Based on such metrics, a domestic debt of $175 million or thereabouts is within the realm of possibility; it even has a shot at finishing with $1 billion-plus globally. "There's no way to defend these budgets, because when you get into the $700 million to $900 million break-even point in regards to box office and ancillary revenue, it doesn't make any sense," says a veteran financier." - via The Hollywood Reporter
Even using the lowball of $100M for marketing estimate that was floating around, which probably isn't accurate, this film's absolute bottom for breaking even is $650M.
Also, I think you're talking about the cut the markets represent. I'm talking about the cut of revenue the studio sees. Regardless of what countries its revenue comes from, in the end, the studio is only going to see ~50% of the revenue overall. In the best case scenario, it may see 55% if the vast majority of the revenue is from the domestic market. But it's not going to be any where near a 60/40 split, even if 55% of its revenue comes from the domestic market.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
If you ignore all the discussion around why in hell Superman always did poorly around the world in comparison with other heroes, sure.
Not to mention Batman is the most popular DC hero.
Madflavor
Member
Not the gotcha you think, indeed.
"Last year, documents filed by the Superman production team with the Ohio government seeking incentives listed the gross budget of the highly anticipated July film as $363.8 million. When that number was reported, director James Gunn — who also runs DC Studios — lambasted the article. "How in the world do they think they know what our budget is?" he wrote on social media. In recent days, DC suggested the budget is a net $225 million after incentives and tax breaks.
Yet one longtime financier says the $363 million figure isn't incorrect. And sources say DC and its parent could spend as much as $200 million on the global marketing campaign, compared with the usual $150 million for an all-audience summer tentpole. It wouldn't be a surprise, since Superman kicks off the Gunn era and needs to work at the box office. Either way, between the production budget and marketing, it's certain to land in the $400 million club.
According to a veteran studio source, Superman, which opens July 11 in North America, is exploding on social media, with the first full trailer raking in 250 million-plus views, the most in Warners/DC history. Based on such metrics, a domestic debt of $175 million or thereabouts is within the realm of possibility; it even has a shot at finishing with $1 billion-plus globally. "There's no way to defend these budgets, because when you get into the $700 million to $900 million break-even point in regards to box office and ancillary revenue, it doesn't make any sense," says a veteran financier." - via The Hollywood Reporter
Even using the lowball of $100M for marketing estimate that was floating around, which probably isn't accurate, this film's absolute bottom for breaking even is $650M.
Wow dude, you definitely aren't using ChatGPT to help you win an argument at this point.
And it looks like you or it pulled info from That Park Place? A well known right winged bias and click bait driven site? Whoa better watch out, this guy isn't fucking around anymore!
thismeinteil
Member
Don't use ChatGPT. Are you? I'm guessing I should take your response as you having no more rebuttal and have to resort to attacking the messenger. And never heard of That Park Place.Wow dude, you definitely aren't using ChatGPT to help you win an argument at this point.
And it looks like you or it pulled info from That Park Place? A well known right winged bias and click bait driven site? Whoa better watch out, this guy isn't fucking around anymore!
Though, I'm glad my responses come off as intelligent enough to be mistaken for an AI. Can't say the same for you.
DKehoe
Member
Superman being in italics and the use of em dashes does very much make it feel like it was written by ChatGPT. There are a few other things about how it's written but those are the two that really stand out.Don't use ChatGPT. Are you? I'm guessing I should take your response as you having no more rebuttal and have to resort to attacking the messenger. And never heard of That Park Place.
Though, I'm glad my responses come off as intelligent enough to be mistaken for an AI. Can't say the same for you.
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that there is no way to really know how much $$$ was spent, even the WB accountants probably don't know. They want to claim a high number for tax rebates from locations, but a low number for pay-outs to the folks able to negotiate back end points. Who knows how much of the $$$ spent really went into another project, paying for WB buildings, was siphoned off for crypto speculation or real estate deals, or who knows what. Marketing money spent that went to another WB owned advertiser and thus they are just paying themselves inflated costs.
In the end the only metric is if/when they greenlight the next film and if Gunn stays in charge.
In the end the only metric is if/when they greenlight the next film and if Gunn stays in charge.
Madflavor
Member
Not to mention he posted "Not the gotcha you think, indeed.
" and then edited it a few minutes later with that whole entry from That Park Place.
Reizo Ryuu
Gold Member
He literally just quoted the hollywood reporter, which is why it's in quotes and why he closed it with "- via the hollywood reporter"...
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Would You Pay $400 Million for This Movie?
Between delays, reshoots and rising costs, this year's summer blockbusters are racking up astronomically high price tags when factoring in marketing costs. Can the box office keep up?
www.hollywoodreporter.com
thismeinteil
Member
Let's not kid ourselves. If this movie was more focused on telling a good Superman story, as opposed to being an obvious excuse to pump in as many characters for their upcoming DCU, this movie would have been more well received by the movie going public and would have performed much better. Even in the Hollywood Reporter article, they cited a studio insider expecting something around $175 million domestic opening weekend. And a possibility to do $1 billion worldwide.
Now, I agree those are probably a little far-fetched, but with a great focused movie instead of a mid movie that's stuffed with too much tone-killing humor and characters, who knows. Then you have the fact that Man of Steel, which wasn't the most well received Superman movie, either, ended up doing $670M WW, before taking into consideration ticket price inflation (which would put it at $800M+), something this movie isn't going to match.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
Doesn't matter if the movie is good or not.
You keep ignoring that the movie did poorly outside USA dude. There are countries that hate USA, so of course an american super hero with use an american flag colors in his suit would do poorly as well.
DKehoe
Member
The constant focus on break-even points, marketing budgets etc. has gotten pretty dull to me. It feels like this kind of discussion has become more common lately, maybe because people can just look at box office numbers or Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic score and say "the number is X, but it needs to be Y" and engage with "the discourse" without needing to actually watch the film.
Like you say, what matters is if they're going to be making more of these and we already know that they are.
thismeinteil
Member
Red, blue, and...yellow? America hate is just a poor excuse. How did Captain America, a character who has America in his name and actually does use red, white, and blue become so popular?
Fake
Member
Avengers?
And I don't think countries hating USA is a poor excuse, in fact is the new hotness. And I'm not saying this is the only 'excuse'.
But feel free to explain why Superman always do poorly outside of USA.
Very true. In the Woke Wars(TM) trying to ascertain revenue was more important, because studios would claim victory for their slop but you had to follow the money to see if they really succeeded (and now we know they did not as that stuff is getting rolled back extensively). In basically fanbase competition the amount made is less relevant to subsequent content. Is Supes enough to get us more DC stuff? Is FF4 successful enough to let Marvel carry on with their release schedule?
I gotta think we are seeing budgets being slashed for films still in early production and that's good. The heavy over reliance on post-production effects is killing these films. The inability to have a solid script and figure out all the shots you need to avoid costly reshoots is another. Either these studios are rushing to meet release dates set before the filming even starts, they have become so unwieldy that the directors can't manage them well, or the execs micromanage the final product based on test screenings to the tune of millions in reshoots, something has gotta change.
Actor salaries need to come down. Cartoon final battles need to stop. Execs need to read the damned script, make their notes at that time, then LET THE DIRECTOR DO THEIR JOB and deliver a film. Of course they gotta hire a director who knows WTF they are doing, not these trendy auteur directors with social media presence but just 2 shorts made on an iphone to their name. Somewhere along the line we lost the pipeline for directors to hone their talent and learn their craft, now they get yanked from obscurity, given 250 million, and its sink or swim.
Madflavor
Member
The most important thing is that people like the film and that it does well enough at the BO, which it has. DC was coming from a pretty low place leading into this film. The fact that it's have such strong legs and WOM bolds well for future films. Not everyone likes him, but Gunn knows how to make crowd pleasers.
thismeinteil
Member
Uh, they don't. The first ever Superman movie made 55% of its revenue outside of America, and that's the most American Superman movie ever. And while the next 2 entries' foreign take percentage dropped, surprisely Superman IV made 60% of its revenue overseas.
Superman Returns, also not well received, still made nearly half, 49% to be exact, of its revenue outside of America. Man of Steel made 56% of its revenue in the foreign market.
Again, American hate is just a piss poor excuse. If they released a good Captain America movie right now, with Chris Evans returning to reprise his role, it would still do great in the foreign box office. Key takeaway is that it actually has to be a good film.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
The hall of justice mural ,I was not into DC comics growing up so I could not name one of them
I like that they filmed this in Cincinnati at the train station that was the inspiration for the original hall of justice. I really enjoy the art deco design of that building. And if you haven't been there it has some great museums in it now.
DKehoe
Member
Yeh, I think it definitely gets used a lot by people who are really into identity politics. They don't need to watch the film but it can still be the latest battle line of the never ending culture war. The film goes from being something you can discuss on its own merits to being part of some grand societal narrative. "This film wasn't male/female/black/white/straight/gay enough and it not hitting this number is proof of that." So the numbers being in their favour is moral vindication for them. Because identity politics becomes a fixation for those who are into it then that alone must be the main reason for the film's success or failure. The big focus on identity politics has made discussing films online far less interesting to me in recent years. So I don't talk about them online as much as I used to because the culture warriors really shat the bed.
I do think they need to try and make these superhero films feel more distinct from each other. One that really stuck out to me was Wandavision, which was going for something a bit different in terms of its presentation and a bit more of a personal story. But in the end it just turns into the hero and the villain floating around throwing glowing energy at each other. It felt like they didn't know how to conclude the story without resorting to the standard big final battle like you said. It's probably not a coincidence that was around the time I stopped keeping up with every new MCU release. Given the nature of these stories, it's understandable that many will end in that kind of climactic showdown and when done well they can be fun . But when the structure starts to feel repetitive across every entry people are going to get worn out. They should figure out what makes each hero and the story they are telling about them distinct and lean into those elements.
As for the directors, I think that a big problem with these franchises is you have far more meddling from above because the execs want to make sure that this fits into the overarching direction franchise and doesn't feel too jarring tonally. There's obviously a need for that when you are doing this kind of cinematic universe because you don't want something going too far from what feels consistent for that universe. But you then also don't want everything feeling the same. Being a director on one of those projects isn't the same as being the director on most films and they even have sections being filmed outside of the oversight of the director.
FullMetalx117
Member
Hard to reconcile the $300 million+ budget and sub $1 million acting salaries. Not like this had the best fx ever or anything groundbreaking of sorts...can only think a lot of that money indeed went to reusable props, buildings, etc. There are benefits of showing a loss
Nah, it's SUPER easy to figure out that actors demanding multi-million dollar payouts for a month or two of work is gonna lead to AI eliminating 95% of them. There will be cheaply paid mo-cap actors with AI skins, imagine a Sydney Sweeny that never ages, doesn't complain about taking off her clothes, and can do all of her own stunts because they are virtual. We are really close to that kind of hellscape for a broad portion of our entertainment because it's just too expensive otherwise and most folks won't care.
Idleyes
Gold Member
Because box office charts aren't one country vs. one country. 'Domestic' is just the U.S. and Canada. 'International' is dozens of countries combined, so of course that total is bigger. I'd wager that Per person, Cap sells way more tickets here than anywhere else.
thismeinteil
Member
With official numbers out, Superman has now fallen $17M WW behind Man of Steel for the same timeframe.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
This is actually common practice for a lot of these big budget movies and tv shows. I remember for Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down they purposefully went out and go unknown actors so they didnt have to pay them a lot. Thjey used the rest of sets and explosions.
nowadays the CG budget for these movies is insanely high because of the amount of CG being used for literally every single shot. Even shots you think you shot on location get a lot of post effects added in.
Saw a tweet today about how the movie Waterloo (1970) spent $25 million just to secure 20,000 russian soldiers and other props and sets to recreate the big battle. That's $250 million in todays dollars on one scene alone. They HAVE to use CG for these big movies nowadays. It's cheaper or you are not getting these action packed setpiece heavy super hero movies.
VulcanRaven
Member
That sounds pretty good then if they are following very similar pattern. There shouldn't be any reason to expect a solo Superman movie to do much better.
Madflavor
Member
Well here's the thing, OS numbers are just not what they used to be. Man of Steel made $100m in Asia alone back in 2013. Nowadays Asia gives zero fucks about CBMs. F4 just opened lower than even Superman did.
They're both Superman films, but they were released during much different times. Man of Steel came out when DC was riding off the success and goodwill of TDK Trilogy, and when the CBM genre was seriously heating up. Superman 25 came out in a Post Covid era, when theatre attendance overall is lower, and the CBM genre in general is dying Overseas. You can look at all three MCU films this year doing poorly internationally, despite getting good reviews and wom.
If international interest in Superhero films was anywhere near where it was in 2012 - 2019, I guarantee you Superman would comfortably pass Man of Steel.
HRK69
Banned
thismeinteil
Member
Has the intelligence of humanity dropped this low? Have you guys ever heard of a quote? Boy, the stupidity.
Smelled like AI to me
HRK69
Banned
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings over a quote, man. It just read a bit sterile, like a press release with flairHas the intelligence of humanity dropped this low? Have you guys ever heard of a quote? Boy, the stupidity.
Easy mistake in 2025.
thismeinteil
Member
Hurt my feelings? I'm laughing my ass off. It has quotation marks and says "- via Hollywood Reporter" at the bottom.
HRK69
Banned
You're right
The Holy Quotation Marks and the sacred "via Hollywood Reporter" seal of truth. Clearly, no AI could ever pass such divine authentication
Forgive me for doubting the gospel of modern journalism
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
I mean if you want to accuse Hollywood Reporter of using AI, go right ahead. However, the people before you were accusing me of using it because they were too dumb to realize it was a qoute. Personally, it reads no different than any articles I've read from before AI was a thing. But, hey, that's just me.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Well, it's definitely going to beat MOS domestically, as it only has a couple mil to go to pass it. By how much it passes it is yet to be seen. Of course, the foreign market is going to be a miss by a lot. I'd imagine at least $100M.
Last edited:
Donald mac Ronald
Member
If the rest of the world is boycotting American products, including American symbolisms of freedom such as superman.
The it's up to us. If you're a true blooded American, you will buy American and go watch superman a 2nd or 3rd time. This way superman will do big numbers at the domestic box office and show America always prevails.
The it's up to us. If you're a true blooded American, you will buy American and go watch superman a 2nd or 3rd time. This way superman will do big numbers at the domestic box office and show America always prevails.
TheAtomicPile
Member
There have been previous depictions of him de-powered that worked well (Superman TAS and John Byrne's Man of Steel) so it wasn't that off-putting to me, but yeah even my kid picked up on the power difference between Reeve and Corenswet right away.
Maybe down the road they'll give him an "I've been holding back" moment like when Superman fought Darkseid in the Justice League show.
We both liked 78 more, but I liked 2025 enough to go see it at least one more time.
Fake
Member
What was the cost between those two.
thismeinteil
Member
Reportedly, the same. $225M.
Fake
Member
Its a shame the inflation is not the same
thismeinteil
Member
True. MOS cost ~$310M at today's monetary value. Of course, that also means it took ~$925M adjusted for inflation. Even without inflation added, I'm guessing it still beats Superman '25.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
There's one thing y'all are forgetting... Superman made money before it was released...
