Quantcast
X-Men: Apocalypse just opened to 65 million and a 15,663 per theater average- Are we going to stop badmouthing Batman VS Superman's Gross now?

Forums - Movies Discussion - X-Men: Apocalypse just opened to 65 million and a 15,663 per theater average- Are we going to stop badmouthing Batman VS Superman's Gross now?

Are you going to stop hating on Batmans box office total now?

Yes, it actually did well 29 22.83%
 
yes 7 5.51%
 
No, a billion is the magi... 19 14.96%
 
no 53 41.73%
 
see results 18 14.17%
 
other post below 1 0.79%
 
Total:127

Sad, thé best super heroe movie of thé year flopping



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Around the Network

I'll still badmouth BvS because they're trying take the movie franchise seriously yet I couldn't stop laughing from the very beginning xD

As for the X-men movie franchise, by now we already know not to take it seriously as it was also a joke from the very beginning with their whole motorcycle gang look.

And you know Fox isn't even trying and just focusing on their biggest stars. Like in what world is Mystique that important and leading the X-men loll

Must say tho, out of the two, I enjoyed watching X-men more, maybe because I knew already knew the story was eff'd up to begin with so that didn't bother me as much anymore. I guess I should feel the same with upcoming DC movies.



It's not that BvS didn't bring in a lot of money at the box office, the problem was that it needed to bring even more to actually become a huge success for the companies behind it. From what I understood, it had to make at least $800 million to actually make a profit for Warner Bros, since in addition to the 250 million used to make the film, they spent around 150 million to market it.

When you count in all the other parties that are going to take their share of the profits, WB isn't getting all that much from the film.



It had a better opening weekend than First Class and The Wolverine, and the first Thor and Captain America movies, if you want to make this a Fox vs Marvel Studios thing (which I know fanboys LOVE to do). Plus, if you include its worldwide gross, it's already at $278 million. Over a hundred million more than its budget, in a single week. It will perform just fine.

Not every super hero movie has to hit a BILLION to be successful.



Superhero fatigue and Jennifer Lawrence fatigue.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
nanarchy said:
It was an aweful movie, not really surprising. I went in with low expectations and it failed to even meet those.

Usually when you go in with low expectations you already made up your mind the movie will be crap so it actually would take the movie being great in your opinion to move the meter for you.

This is the reason I go into moives expectating nothing that way I do not tarnish my thoughts when watching a movie.  If I had made up my mind to go see a movie, I already made up my mind that I want to see it whether its good bad or ungly and just enjoy the show.

Given its ratings in most reviews it would seem a large portion of people agree that it sucked. I tried hard to find redeeming qualities in it but apart from a few amusing short sections the movie was incredibly boring.



IT was better than BvS, but worse than Civil War. The Quicksilver scenes were awesome though.



TheBlackNaruto said:
twintail said:
Xmen > civil war > superbat

What this is a first lol. Are you saying this is the order in which you liked the movies? I haven't seen X-men yet but I heard it was a horrible movie and are you saying it was better than both Civil War and SvB?

I enjoyed all 3.

But while I think superbat is clearly the worse of the 3, my GF and I just found Xmen a lot more fun overall when compared to Civil War. Honestly, without SM I feel like Civil War would be somewhat lacking. I think its the better made film, but I enjoyed Xmen more  at the end of the day. 



Darashiva said:
It's not that BvS didn't bring in a lot of money at the box office, the problem was that it needed to bring even more to actually become a huge success for the companies behind it. From what I understood, it had to make at least $800 million to actually make a profit for Warner Bros, since in addition to the 250 million used to make the film, they spent around 150 million to market it.

When you count in all the other parties that are going to take their share of the profits, WB isn't getting all that much from the film.

Not sure if I buy this, the only other significant party that takes its share of profit are the theater owners, and even the theater profit split is greatly exagerrated, the studios take home usually like 70+% of box office for the first couple of weeks (which means front loaded films are actually good in a sense for studios). After that it becomes a 50-50 split. Overseas splits are even more favorable for studios. 

This is why you popcorn and drink costs $10 at the theater, because concessions are where theater chains make real money, not off the actual movies. 

But other than that, WB owns DC Comics so they're not splitting that with anyone. 

And there's a metric asston of Batman Vs. Superman merchandise and forthcoming Blu-Ray/Digital/Cable On Demand/TV rights for Batman Vs. Superman to come, they will easily make a profit on this film. 

Studios also often inflate production costs because they want profits to appear as small as possible to avoid paying out large point deals for actors/directors (ie: many big actors/directors often structure their salary to get "points" as in a percentage of the profits). 



X-Men: Apocalypse was a jumbled protracted mess. Slight entertainment, probably intended for kids.