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
Soundwave said:
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). 

It doesn't go down to maximum 50-50 after a while. It starts in the favour for the studios but after weeks it's more like a "most goes to the cinema". That's why people always use this 50-50. It's probably more like a 60-40 in favour of the studios for frontloaded movies like BvS was but still...

That's why we have cinemas "specialized" in showing older movies, they get almost everything when they show them. The few people who go in these cinemas aren't really enough if it would be really a 50-50 split + popcorn and coke...

Then you have markets like China where only 25% go to the studio even on day 1 so a 50-50 WW sounds plausible. Maybe a 55-45 but probably not really more for the average movie. Heavily frontloaded movies maybe more, sure. 



Around the Network
crissindahouse said:
Soundwave said:

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). 

It doesn't go down to maximum 50-50 after a while. It starts in the favour for the studios but after weeks it's more like a "most goes to the cinema". That's why people always use this 50-50. It's probably more like a 60-40 in favour of the studios for frontloaded movies like BvS was but still...

That's why we have cinemas "specialized" in showing older movies, they get almost everything when they show them. The few people who go in these cinemas aren't really enough if it would be really a 50-50 split + popcorn and coke...

Then you have markets like China where only 25% go to the studio even on day 1 so a 50-50 WW sounds plausible. Maybe a 55-45. 

Even so, 55% would net Warner Bros. 480 million approximately. 

Man of Steel made $200 million from Blu-Ray/DVD sales alone, another $100 mill from digital/VOD, and then there's merchandise which is significant and BvS was heavily merchandised. 

I'd say a net take from all that in the range of $250 million-$300 million on the very low end. 

That's a $730 million return on $400 million (which is probably overstated to begin with as it doesn't include things like tax incentives). That's not that bad. 

If I had a bank account and you gave me something that could produce a 82+% return ... that sure as hell beats many investments. 



Soundwave said:
crissindahouse said:

It doesn't go down to maximum 50-50 after a while. It starts in the favour for the studios but after weeks it's more like a "most goes to the cinema". That's why people always use this 50-50. It's probably more like a 60-40 in favour of the studios for frontloaded movies like BvS was but still...

That's why we have cinemas "specialized" in showing older movies, they get almost everything when they show them. The few people who go in these cinemas aren't really enough if it would be really a 50-50 split + popcorn and coke...

Then you have markets like China where only 25% go to the studio even on day 1 so a 50-50 WW sounds plausible. Maybe a 55-45. 

Even so, 55% would net Warner Bros. 480 million, plus then you factor in merchandising sales (BvS had a ton of merchandise), Blu-Ray/DVD, Video on Demand, Digital ... safe to say that's another $150 million in WB's coffers, you have 630 million take home, which is an tidy profit at the end of the day and I'm probably being fairly conservative on merchandising/video sales. 

Sry wasn't really arguing about the numbers you quoted. Yes, Warner will obviously make a lot of money from it but still much less as the managers probably expected. Some hundred million profit will be easy. 



I'm going to see X-Men Apocalypse in a few hours with 5 friends. I'll let yall know how it went.



twintail said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

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. 

Okay I can understand that. I plan on going to see that X-men this weekend though. I like judging movies for myself seeing as I don't always agree with everyone lol.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

Around the Network
Soundwave said:
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). 

Yeah, could be. I'm basing all of that on what financial analysts said about the film. And while WB did distribute the film, they weren't the only company that financed it, so they're still going to have to split the profits.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #16: Exploring the World

2. Forgotten Gems #11: Uniracers/Unirally

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #15: Vocal Themes

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

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

If it was intended for kids like Civil War, this movie would have opened better



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

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

 

Just arrived after watching X-Men: Apocalypse.

+ spectacles, humor, action, storyline
- plot holes

 It made a hell of a lot more sense than Batman v Superman.

It's a pretty good movie. I like it.



I liked it. I mean it feels like they're rewriting the lore with every new entry but it remains just as entertaining. Critics were way too harsh.



It wasn't quite 'sesame street' enough for the kids. Not quite. Maybe too many adult characters in the trailer and they got confused.