X-MEN: APOCALYPSE | 388.5 M overseas | 543.9 M worldwide

[superweirdo87]

2 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

That is outdated thinking.

 

5-6 years ago 

 

Superhero Origin films did 300-500 million WW and the XMen films did similar.

 

Now a film like Ant Man does half a billion. 

 

Times have changed 

 

 The international market has grown a lot and Fox over-budgeted on this movie, but Scott Mendelson notes that Marvel had lower expectations running up to the Avengers and that was a big advantage. He also wonders whether the DCEU was meant to become another Avengers.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/04/08/batman-v-superman-box-office-a-better-justice-league-might-not-lead-to-avengers-like-grosses/#29eb753d3a38

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/04/15/box-office-as-batman-v-superman-tops-800m-global-a-look-at-one-big-advantage-marvel-had-over-dc/#cbf757b54f97

 

I do think that given Captain America: The First Avenger made 376 when X-Men First Class made 353, that in light of Thor and The Winter Soldier, failing to make it into the mid-600s is a disaster. And the bottom line matters, and this movie could be losing over 100M.

 

 

There is a serious problem with grossing 500-600M on a budget like this. Fox needs to re-consider their plans big time.

[superweirdo87]

According to business insider, the budget is 234 million. That was too much. Quigley, a lot of movies do not break even with theater revenues. Like The Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, and others do not. The thing is low 600s is not enough with *every* source of revenue considered.

 

Here is a breakdown of how the bottom line might work out.

235 production budget

145 marketing

60 residuals/interest/overhead

70 participation

70 home entertainment

 

590 million in cost. 

 

The revenues for Ant-Man were 439 on a 519M performance. You can dig around at Deadline to get a sense of revenues. It seems as though high 600s or 700 is the breakeven.

 

 

 

[Hermia]

Deadline reported that DOFP with 200ml Budget had total cost 576 ml and with 747 global box office the studio had 77 mil profit.

 

http://deadline.com/2015/03/x-men-days-of-future-past-profit-box-office-2014-1201389620/

 

I guess this needs 700 mil to break even.

[superweirdo87]

The movie didn't do well in India.

 

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/art_detail.php?articalid=2036#.V0CIHL7uOC5

[grim22]

10 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

The movie didn't do well in India.

 

http://www.boxofficeindia.com/art_detail.php?articalid=2036#.V0CIHL7uOC5

 

Actually it did as well as can be expected. Looks like a 1M OD and around a 3M OW, about 10% lower than DOFP with worse exchange rates.  X-Men is 2nd tier in India behind the Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Avengers.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Wolverine needs to play a bigger part in the next film for sure, he still brings in crowds.

[Muzdt]

[CJohn]

I saw it in a sold out show today here. Seems like it is opening a bit below DoFP here but I will know for sure on Monday.

[moviesRus]

9 hours ago, superweirdo87 said:

According to business insider, the budget is 234 million. That was too much. Quigley, a lot of movies do not break even with theater revenues. Like The Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, and others do not. The thing is low 600s is not enough with *every* source of revenue considered.

 

Here is a breakdown of how the bottom line might work out.

235 production budget

145 marketing

60 residuals/interest/overhead

70 participation

70 home entertainment

 

590 million in cost. 

 

The revenues for Ant-Man were 439 on a 519M performance. You can dig around at Deadline to get a sense of revenues. It seems as though high 600s or 700 is the breakeven.

 

 

 

 

Winter Soldier definitely did. It's budget was only $170m and made over $700m WW. DOFP may have been a little iffy because its budget was over $200m and by most accounts went even higher up to $225m.

 

The Marvel standalones all do fine theatrically because they keep the budgets under control (thanks Perlmutter!). Ant-Man was made for a measly $130m. I think the first Cap and The Incredible Hulk were probably their only movies that didn't at least break even theatrically. 

[superweirdo87]

Production on Winter Soldier cost 170, but marketing raised costs to over 300 and there is interest and overhead. It made ~295 theatrically because of the take to exhibitors, especially abroad.

 

http://deadline.com/2015/03/captain-america-winter-soldier-profit-box-office-2014-1201390799/

 

It made a healthy profit when all revenues are taken into account.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by superweirdo87

[terrestrial]

40 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

Production on Winter Soldier cost 170, but marketing raised costs to over 300 and there is interest and overhead. It made ~295 theatrically because of the take to exhibitors, especially abroad.

 

http://deadline.com/2015/03/captain-america-winter-soldier-profit-box-office-2014-1201390799/

 

It made a healthy profit when all revenues are taken into account.

 

Only jumping in (no time at all) to give some hints:

1. In general: Deadline doesn't know more than e.g. Variety, EW,.... often enough rather a lot less than those

2. Those charts are not based on actual costs, real details... but on calculations based on ~ models

 

What those calculated models (out of averages...) does not include:

some movies get more advertising (percentage based on production) than others, especilally if a studio has plans / aims for a reason for a certain impact. In Oscar season that might not even be based on money and so on.

Some studios tend to spend in genral more than other for advertising. At least in 2015 WB as an example spend more than e.g. Disney in average percentages in the US.

Some studios are able to use more in-house / possibilities they own for advertising than others. Like e.g. Disney used Disneyland for a new version of advertising for GotG. Those might cheapen the costs, how far they account that between departments....

 

Why different budgets can circle around and still can be true:

there is the costs what a production did cost in reality and there is the budget a studio agreed on to pay.

Possibilities like

1. tax examptions/relief... can exists and calculated in to still match the agreed on budget by the studio beside bein higher than on paper

Example UK (see also Pinewood Studio UK - how many of the Disney movies get/got filmes there, see also Pinewood Atlanta,..)

 

Quote

Value of UK Film Tax Relief

• For films of all budget levels, the Film Production Company (FPC) can claim a payable cash rebate of up to 25% of UK qualifying film production expenditure.
• For films with a core expenditure of more than £20m, which completed principal photography before 1 April 2015, the FPC can claim a payable cash rebate of up to 25% on the first £20m of qualifying UK expenditure, with the remaining qualifying UK expenditure receiving a 20% tax rebate.

 

Then there is the

2. percentages some actors... get after the BO reaches a certain ammount or in complete.... Not all movies do have such kind of contracts, not all include the possibility for

3. additional ~ 'income' via product placement....

I think it was Man of Stell that reached a new height then, there should be an article or two to find in the net.

And....

 

 

And then there are sometimes huge differences for additiotnal income.

Like merchandise possible movies do not always have the movie rights holder as the merchandise holder, see e.g. X-Men.

FOX only owns the rights for live-action, not for the merchandise (as in 2015, haven't have the time to read up on possible changes)

And....

 

I think in the HV thread of Baumer in the US/domestic area there are some additional details to find (including posts by myself, so happy about finding those articles at deadline, that I missed too the details given being only calculated)

 

 

Have a lot of fun!

[scoobysaurus]

13 hours ago, CaptainJackSparrow said:

Wolverine needs to play a bigger part in the next film for sure, he still brings in crowds.

 

+1. There were cheers when he showed up. At least here in Dubai, X-Men = Wolverine. They can try to build other characters and make them more relevant but I think OS audiences will always want more of wolverine. 

[A District 3 Engineer]

A new Wolverine. 

 

It's time to let Hugh go. 

[superweirdo87]

       The thing about Wolverine is that these movies already have a quality/quantity problem. They are team movies, but it's always important to focus on a couple of characters to get a meaningful arc in for them. Giving Wolverine a big role takes screen time away from other characters that could make their stories more satisfying and complete. Like, let's say there's Scott, Jean, Storm, and Nightcrawler. Professor X would be supporting. Then, Mr. Sinister. That's six characters already. With Wolverine, it's 7. With 120 minutes for a movie, you wind up with less than 20 minutes for each character.

 

      Another potential issue is novelty. A lot of critics have lamented how this movie was too much of the same. Of course, given the limited Wolverine, he is not the only thing that feels like more of the same. Sticking him in just for audience appeal might be more of the same. And audiences seem to want freshness.

 

      

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by superweirdo87

[superweirdo87]

Someone mentioned Apocalypse did less than 94M because it came in under Angry Birds. DoFP did 120 in the same territories at the same point.

[Blaze Heatnix]

No official numbers yet, though rentrak says X-Men got at the top 10...

 

https://twitter.com/RentrakBrazil

 

https://twitter.com/Rentrak_Italia

 

https://twitter.com/RentrakBolivia

 

https://twitter.com/RentrakChile

 

 

Angry Birds might have made more, because it also has a domestic release, while X-Men doesn't have one yet.

[superweirdo87]

Right, but given that Angry Birds made 94, that means XM:A made less than that and DoFP got 120 from similar territories at a similar point.

[Blackout]

I never liked Wolverine but I guess he's the most known one to the GA

[Blaze Heatnix]

19 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

Right, but given that Angry Birds made 94, that means XM:A made less than that and DoFP got 120 from similar territories at a similar point.

 

 

Not really, because when DOFP got released overseas, its numbers already included China's grosses.

 

Remember, this time there isn't a China release. China's release date is June 8th, if I'm correct.

[moviesRus]

2 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

 

Not really, because when DOFP got released overseas, its numbers already included China's grosses.

 

Remember, this time there isn't a China release. China's release date is June 8th, if I'm correct.

 

Similar territories. $120m number removes China from it. Its total OW was actually $172m