DC and Marvel movie results: 1978 to present
2 2

507 posts in this topic

Since there have been so many posts about who should declare cinema victory over the past few years, maybe it is worth taking a look at the production run of both companies. It doesn't take deep analysis to identify Marvel as the solid quality leader at this time, though Warner is promising large growth over the coming years.

 

The 1978 to present period in DC and Marvel-based productions is comprised of 76 movies. Looking at all included movies as a whole, they had a budget of $9,067,500,000 leading to a worldwide box office revenue total of $30.519,924,346 using USD from their given year of release. If adjusted for 2016 inflation, the overall worldwide box office revenue total is $35,081,492,263.

 

Some movies had a very limited cinema release (Captain America from 1990 mainly appeared in UK theaters and a few other limited international markets), and three movies either were a total direct to video (DTV) release with one being a partial DTV. With the Wes Craven 'Swamp Thing' movie from 1982, it is very unclear what true budget and box office results were noted for the time. Some sites like IMDb mistakenly reference numbers from 'The Return of Swamp Thing' and cannot confirm the results.

 

Suicide Squad is still actively showing in theaters as of this update, and Doctor Strange (movie #77) will be in UK theaters as of October 23.

 

Note: Movie budget and box office results were taken from either Box Office Mojo, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes or through researching interviews with creators that spoke to the final results (Roger Corman mentioning his total budget for 'The Fantastic Four' was one million dollars). In the case of 'The Fantastic Four' where Marvel purchased the movie for an additional few million dollars so as not to have it released to the public, this has not been included in the final analysis. %20really%3F%20Arad%22&f=false'>Los Angeles Magazine, March 2005

 

2QdrSOs.png

 

I'll be looking at this dataset from different analysis points to determine the success, failures and break-evens of both companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If judging domestic box office results by 2014 USD adjusted for inflation, the top twenty is an even split between the two companies. But you also have to consider this doesn't account for an adjusted budget impact that would detract the final results.

 

In this case, 'Marvel's The Avengers' and 'The Dark Knight' are the top two box office success stories if nothing else was factored into the final results.

 

uYFuyTn.png

 

XGVSIvc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not specifically related, but similar enough I decided not to make a separate thread.

 

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/captain-america-2-makes-marvel-the-biggest-film-franchise-ever/

 

Marvel bests Trek/Wars, Harry Potter, Bond, etc... as the highest grossing film franchise ever!!!

Takes a moment to sink in...

But then I wonder that they are counting several separate characters and aggregating results. What about Disney? How about combining all the Disney characters, like Bambi, Snow White, Mary Poppins, Frozen, etc... I wonder if Marvel would still eclipse them in the aggregate then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If judging by then-current USD for worldwide results, it's not a surpise out of the top twenty success stories, 'Marvel's The Avengers' and 'Iron Man 3' are ahead of the pack.

 

w4I5iIC.png

 

LjCLyOM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When studying the top twenty based on profit ratio (worldwide box office exceeding 3X budget to indicate exceeding break-even), Marvel and DC share in the top two success.

 

The 1989 'Batman' movie exceeds all profit expectations based on the then-USD budget and box office results. No other movie comes close to a double-digit profit success. But for current USD and largest box office-to-budget difference, 'Marvel's The Avengers' is the clear champ.

 

In combining the results of Marvel Studios, Sony and Fox, Marvel spent $1,562,000,000 leading to a $7,194,691,447 worldwide box office success compared to Warner investing $762,000,000 for a $3,602,922,370 worldwide box office success. Marvel appears to have outspent DC, yet was more profitable when analyzing the top twenty movies.

 

 

5EgLAQK.png

 

FLT4YRP.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could have swore Superman III grossed $67 million (unadjusted) in '83. Might have been Octopussy though.

 

Octopussy. hm

 

I'd love to hear differently, but Box Office Mojo and one other site had it at $59,950,623 domestic with no noted worldwide release. It was the same with Supergirl, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Disney? How about combining all the Disney characters, like Bambi, Snow White, Mary Poppins, Frozen, etc... I wonder if Marvel would still eclipse them in the aggregate then.
That's like saying Warner can add ones like The Matrix to Tequila Sunrise to their DC gross haul. lol

 

Yup, looks like Superman III grossed about $60 million and I was right about Octopussy.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman3.htm

 

Now the real question is why are these numbers in my head? :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now when it comes to least profitable results, DC clearly has thrown away more of it opportunities than Marvel. Some of the recognized loss leaders like Catwoman, Jonah Hex and Steel were known to be categorized as 'bombs' even by the actors involved.

 

The top two 'dogs' are Marvel-based productions that were also outside of its control. The only top twenty loss-leader that had heavy involvement from Marvel Studios was 'The Incredible Hulk' from 2008 which fell short of doubling the budget costs.

 

KMTAS1p.png

 

lFISOls.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catwoman's budget was $100 mill?

 

:facepalm:

 

I was just as shocked. But while researching the budget, I happened across an interview with Halle Berry where she notes this as one of her biggest mistakes. I bet with a budget like that at the same, that's not what she was thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special note on this 'bottom twenty' candidate.

 

tup76kd.png

 

This movie did have a theatrical release which didn't even make up for the budget investment. But with its final creative results, there is more positive than negative which benefitted DC Animated later on. Warner caused this situation by giving the creative team eight months to deliver, with a confusing release plan that went from direct to video to theatrical release and then back to video.

 

1) Its storyline was noted as exceeding the live-action Batman movies of the time, and still ranks high on positive critic reviews and audience feedback.

 

2) IGN has ranked this as one of the top 50 best animated movies ever produced.

 

3) Kevin Conroy as the voice of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

 

4) Directed by Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski (the creators of The Animated Series).

 

With the right marketing and creative time, this could have been a much larger success than it turned out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catwoman's budget was $100 mill?

 

:facepalm:

 

I was just as shocked. But while researching the budget, I happened across an interview with Halle Berry where she notes this as one of her biggest mistakes. I bet with a budget like that at the same, that's not what she was thinking.

I think she should've stayed with Fox's X-Men series.

Catwoman was the worst film she's ever done IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catwoman's budget was $100 mill?

 

:facepalm:

 

I was just as shocked. But while researching the budget, I happened across an interview with Halle Berry where she notes this as one of her biggest mistakes. I bet with a budget like that at the same, that's not what she was thinking.

I think she should've stayed with Fox's X-Men series.

Catwoman was the worst film she's ever done IMO.

Wow, I guess you never watched BAPS? :roflmao:

 

Lucky. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catwoman's budget was $100 mill?

 

:facepalm:

 

I was just as shocked. But while researching the budget, I happened across an interview with Halle Berry where she notes this as one of her biggest mistakes. I bet with a budget like that at the same, that's not what she was thinking.

I think she should've stayed with Fox's X-Men series.

Catwoman was the worst film she's ever done IMO.

Wow, I guess you never watched BAPS? :roflmao:

 

Lucky. :)

lol

That was before she was an Academy Award winning actress lol

She did Catwoman after her Oscar win (she no one to blame but herself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not specifically related, but similar enough I decided not to make a separate thread.

 

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/captain-america-2-makes-marvel-the-biggest-film-franchise-ever/

 

Marvel bests Trek/Wars, Harry Potter, Bond, etc... as the highest grossing film franchise ever!!!

Takes a moment to sink in...

But then I wonder that they are counting several separate characters and aggregating results. What about Disney? How about combining all the Disney characters, like Bambi, Snow White, Mary Poppins, Frozen, etc... I wonder if Marvel would still eclipse them in the aggregate then.

 

Thanks for reminding me of looking at the data for total company spend vs. box office results.

 

Although box office mojo is missing some movies when you analyze by franchise ('DC' and 'Marvel' as a combined franchise each), Marvel's combined 33 movies have had a budget of $3,842,000,000 that generated $12,887,855,656 in worldwide box office results. Compare this to DC's combined 27 movies and you are looking at a budget of $2,442,000,000 that generated $6,519,269,542 in worldwide box office results.

 

Marvel's combined production studios are outspending DC, but also exceeding DC's box office results when comparing the two franchises.

 

0pUntpX.png

 

dqCvVWS.png

 

Just think what the franchise value will be once you add Amazing Spider-Man 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-men: Days of Future Past and the final results of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Disney may not be making all of the movies. But they sure are benefitting from a very wise investment.

 

Warner needs to kick it in gear in a major way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice thread and wow $100 million for Catwoman but i guess that's how much they had to pay her.

 

do we know the % Disney/Marvel get from the movies Sony & Fox make, the reason i say this it wasn't until Marvel Studios started making their own movies from IM 1 to Cap 2 that this crazy hype train started with marvel been king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice thread and wow $100 million for Catwoman but i guess that's how much they had to pay her.

 

do we know the % Disney/Marvel get from the movies Sony & Fox make, the reason i say this it wasn't until Marvel Studios started making their own movies from IM 1 to Cap 2 that this crazy hype train started with marvel been king.

 

If you were to look up historic filings under Marvel's old ticker symbol, MVL, profit share information may be noted. And now that Marvel is part of the Disney family, you could check under its DIS ticker symbol filings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted in another thread:

Between the success of Sony's Spider-man franchise, Fox's X-Men franchise and Marvel Studio's series of well-connected movies, Marvel has had a heck of a solid run for a few years now. Making it sound like non-Marvel Studio movies are failures would be less than reality.

 

DC's successes usually tie in with Batman or Superman. Though 'V For Vendetta' and 'Constantine' more than doubled production costs. If DC can move quickly on the non-superhero productions in cinema and TV (Constantine, Justice League Dark, Preacher, Sandman, Y the Last Man), it may be much better off.

 

LpJprK5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2