2013 another series of comic book-based movies

[Bosco685]

Another Thor: The Dark World update.

 

12/5 UPDATE

 

- Bullet to the Head (2/1/13) : $9,489,829 worldwide as of 3/14

 

- Oblivion (4/19/13): $286,168,572 as of 6/27 (2.4 X production costs)

 

- Iron Man 3 (5/3/13): $1,214,583,156 as of 7/11 (6.1 X of production costs)

 

- Man of Steel (6/14/13):$662,845,518 as of 9/19 (3.0 X of production costs)

 

- Pacific Rim (7/12/13):$407,454,805 as of 10/2 (2.2 X production costs)

 

- R.I.P.D. (7/19/13): $73,118,855 as of 9/26 (.56 X production costs)

 

- Red 2 (8/2/13 7/19/13):$129,104,457 as of 10/2 (1.5 X production costs)

 

- The Wolverine (7/26/13):$373,077,235 as of 10/2 (3.1 X production costs)

 

- 2 Guns (8/2/13):$104,351,649 as of 10/2 (1.7 X production costs)

 

- Elysium (8/9/13): $263,701,666 as of 10/2 (2.3 x production costs)

 

- Kick-AZZ 2 (8/16/13): $59,556,104 worldwide as of 9/26 (2.1 X production costs)

 

- Thor: The Dark World (11/8/13): $592,291,632 worldwide as of 12/3 (3.5 x production costs)

 

Unfortunately, Thor didn't break a billion dollars yet. So it must be a bust.

[paperheart]

Another Thor: The Dark World update.

 

12/5 UPDATE

 

- Bullet to the Head (2/1/13) : $9,489,829 worldwide as of 3/14

 

- Oblivion (4/19/13): $286,168,572 as of 6/27 (2.4 X production costs)

 

- Iron Man 3 (5/3/13): $1,214,583,156 as of 7/11 (6.1 X of production costs)

 

- Man of Steel (6/14/13):$662,845,518 as of 9/19 (3.0 X of production costs)

 

- Pacific Rim (7/12/13):$407,454,805 as of 10/2 (2.2 X production costs)

 

- R.I.P.D. (7/19/13): $73,118,855 as of 9/26 (.56 X production costs)

 

- Red 2 (8/2/13 7/19/13):$129,104,457 as of 10/2 (1.5 X production costs)

 

- The Wolverine (7/26/13):$373,077,235 as of 10/2 (3.1 X production costs)

 

- 2 Guns (8/2/13):$104,351,649 as of 10/2 (1.7 X production costs)

 

- Elysium (8/9/13): $263,701,666 as of 10/2 (2.3 x production costs)

 

- Kick-AZZ 2 (8/16/13): $59,556,104 worldwide as of 9/26 (2.1 X production costs)

 

- Thor: The Dark World (11/8/13): $592,291,632 worldwide as of 12/3 (3.5 x production costs)

 

Unfortunately, Thor didn't break a billion dollars yet. So it must be a bust.

 

domestically, it was pretty underwhelming. pre-opening estimates were close to $300mm, it will be hard pressed to pass $210mm. given the $300mm total negative costs, like MOS, this one is a single not a home run.

[Bosco685]

The Wolverine, 2 Guns, Elysium, and Thor: The Dark World updates.

 

12/26 UPDATE

 

- Bullet to the Head (2/1/13) : $9,489,829 worldwide as of 3/14

 

- Oblivion (4/19/13): $286,168,572 as of 6/27 (2.4 X production costs)

 

- Iron Man 3 (5/3/13): $1,214,583,156 as of 7/11 (6.1 X of production costs)

 

- Man of Steel (6/14/13):$662,845,518 as of 9/19 (3.0 X of production costs)

 

- Pacific Rim (7/12/13):$407,454,805 as of 10/2 (2.2 X production costs)

 

- R.I.P.D. (7/19/13): $73,118,855 as of 9/26 (.56 X production costs)

 

- Red 2 (8/2/13 7/19/13):$129,104,457 as of 10/2 (1.5 X production costs)

 

- The Wolverine (7/26/13):$414,828,246 as of 12/5 (3.5 X production costs)

 

- 2 Guns (8/2/13):$131,940,411 as of 10/24 (2.2 X production costs)

 

- Elysium (8/9/13): $286,140,700 as of 11/24 (2.5 x production costs)

 

- Kick-AZZ 2 (8/16/13): $59,556,104 worldwide as of 9/26 (2.1 X production costs)

 

- Thor: The Dark World (11/8/13): $627,707,000 worldwide as of 12/24 (3.7 x production costs)

 

Unfortunately, Thor didn't break a billion dollars yet. So it must be a bust.

 

2013 was definitely a mix of winners, losers, and WTH candidates.

[zosocane]

domestically, it was pretty underwhelming. pre-opening estimates were close to $300mm, it will be hard pressed to pass $210mm. given the $300mm total negative costs, like MOS, this one is a single not a home run.

 

But much of the budget or "negative costs" includes global marketing efforts outside the United States ... for both films. "Success" isn't about the United States anymore in a more globalized economy with purchasing power. I would not characterize MOS or Thor2 as "singles" with the ridiculous amounts of $$$ they raked in. Triples, HRs, would be a better characterization. The new paradigm of ultimate success is Avengers and IM3, films that grossed over $1 billion each. That's grand slam territory.

 

I don't think Marvel ever thought Thor would be as wildly successful as it is -- considering Thor is far from being a well-recognized character globally ... unlike Spidey or Superman. Now you see kids dressed as Thor for Halloween ... never would have seen that before 2010.

[paperheart]

domestically, it was pretty underwhelming. pre-opening estimates were close to $300mm, it will be hard pressed to pass $210mm. given the $300mm total negative costs, like MOS, this one is a single not a home run.

 

But much of the budget or "negative costs" includes global marketing efforts outside the United States ... for both films. "Success" isn't about the United States anymore in a more globalized economy with purchasing power. I would not characterize MOS or Thor2 as "singles" with the ridiculous amounts of $$$ they raked in. Triples, HRs, would be a better characterization. The new paradigm of ultimate success is Avengers and IM3, films that grossed over $1 billion each. That's grand slam territory.

 

I don't think Marvel ever thought Thor would be as wildly successful as it is -- considering Thor is far from being a well-recognized character globally ... unlike Spidey or Superman. Now you see kids dressed as Thor for Halloween ... never would have seen that before 2010.

 

$650mm WW box office, the theater owners take at least half which leaves $325mm against $300mm of negative costs. that's far from a home run.

[Maccai3]

until these figures factor in the profits of toy sales/merchandise then they dont really paint a full picture of how happy the companies are

[DeliBebek]

domestically, it was pretty underwhelming. pre-opening estimates were close to $300mm, it will be hard pressed to pass $210mm. given the $300mm total negative costs, like MOS, this one is a single not a home run.

 

But much of the budget or "negative costs" includes global marketing efforts outside the United States ... for both films. "Success" isn't about the United States anymore in a more globalized economy with purchasing power. I would not characterize MOS or Thor2 as "singles" with the ridiculous amounts of $$$ they raked in. Triples, HRs, would be a better characterization. The new paradigm of ultimate success is Avengers and IM3, films that grossed over $1 billion each. That's grand slam territory.

 

I don't think Marvel ever thought Thor would be as wildly successful as it is -- considering Thor is far from being a well-recognized character globally ... unlike Spidey or Superman. Now you see kids dressed as Thor for Halloween ... never would have seen that before 2010.

 

$650mm WW box office, the theater owners take at least half which leaves $325mm against $300mm of negative costs. that's far from a home run.

Do theaters get half or more of the box office? I have read that many distributors keep 100% of ticket sales on the opening weekend. The theater gets its money on overpriced concessions. I have no firsthand experience with the economics of popular cinema, but your math makes the distributors look stupid.

[Bosco685]

An article on the topic of how The Avengers would become a billion dollar movie before it was a billion dollar movie.

 

How `The Avengers' broke the box-office record

 

Making that happen, he says, is a combination of factors – a strong fan base, an epic story, global marketing. And, not incidentally, 3D.

 

Although “The Avengers” audience was 61% male, it was split evenly between under- and over-25. Adding to the film’s take? Repeat sales. According to one Fandango.com poll, long before the opening, two-thirds of fans already planned on seeing it multiple times.

 

Between the buildup from the pre-movies, and the excitement of seeing all the characters combined with the same actors (other than Hulk), this was what fans had begged for over the years and assumed may not happen any time soon.

 

Iron Man 3 becoming a billion dollar movie when the story was not up to caliber with the previous movies was most probably timing after The Avengers. If the Mandarin had been the actual character and not an actor, this could have clearly proved out why it was so successful with Ben Kingsley in the role.

 

[zosocane]

$650mm WW box office, the theater owners take at least half which leaves $325mm against $300mm of negative costs.

 

I don't think that's correct. The text below is from a blog entry published in 2007, so take it for what it is . . . (Source: http://themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/)

 

"1) Who Gets What From Your $10 Ticket?

Ok, so you walk up to the box office and drop down your $10 to buy your ticket. Who gets that money? A lot of people assume (as did I at one point) that the movie theater keeps 50% of it, and the rest goes off to the studios. That’s not really true.

 

Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% – 25% of the green. * * * Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales. There is an obvious inherent problem with this arrangement. I don’t know about you, but when I finally get around to seeing a film that’s already been in the theatres for 4 or 5 weeks, I’m usually one of the only people in the place. * * * * Movie theaters are then forced to really make their money off concessions. One theater manager said “We’re not in the movie business… we’re in the candy business”. "