DC and Marvel movie results: 1978 to present
2 2

507 posts in this topic

In analyzing by studio/franchise, I just realized two movies were missing from the Marvel combined list.

 

WnlPwGV.png

 

Since there are times where fans feel like any franchise other than Marvel Studios/Disney's latest efforts are a loss, let's take a look at the combined franchise results.

 

25Z3ciO.png

 

1. It would appear Sony's Spider-Man Franchise is just as profitable with only four movies compared to Marvel/Disney's nine movie output. Each Spider-Man movie has exceeded tripling production costs, where Marvel Studios had two movies (The Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger) fell short of this achievement.

 

2. Fox's X-Franchise is the next most profitable, but the combined results falling short of tripling production costs.

 

3. Fox's Daredevil-Elektra Franchise was the worst performing, with the combined results not even doubling production costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 big news this year.

 

The 1978-2014 period in DC and Marvel-based movies (this does not include Guardians of the Galaxy, Amazing Spider-Man 2 or X-Men: Days of Future Past yet) is comprised of 62 movies. Looking at all included movies as a whole, they had a budget of $6,574,000,000 leading to a worldwide box office take of $20,049,797,085 using USD from their given year of release. If adjusted for 2014 inflation, the overall domestic total would be $12,056,356,693 for those movies that appeared in the U.S. market.

 

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.

 

Captain America: Winter Soldier is too early to judge what the final worldwide box office take will be. Results are very positive so far, and will have to be tracked over time.

 

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 bought the movie for an additional few million dollars so it was not released, this was not accounted for in the analysis. %20really%3F%20Arad%22&f=false'>Los Angeles Magazine, March 2005

 

FiEVH9R.png

 

nb6GrCO.png

 

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

 

It was Superman and Batman from DC that really started the comic book movie genre. Then came Fox's X-men that rejuvenated the genre. After that, it was The Dark Knight that really showed the potential of comic book characters in terms of realism and box office due to it being the first "comic book" movie to eclipse the billion dollar mark and although it was mostly snubbed at the Oscars, I believe it's still the only movie form the genre to have won an award with Heath Ledger winning BSA posthumously. Most recently, it was the Avengers that changed the game with bringing together several characters and is now dictating where the genre is headed with characters and story arcs spanning different movies eventually tying into one movie. With all that being said, my question to everyone is what do you believe is the most historically significant comic book movie of all-time? Not necessarily the best or your favorite but the most historically significant.

 

P.S. The first Spider-Man shouldn't be overlooked because it was an excellent movie and the box office take was highest to date but I don't know where it would fit in within these movies.

Edited by Kal-El
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Superman and Batman from DC that really started the comic book movie genre. Then came Fox's X-men that rejuvenated the genre. After that, it was The Dark Knight that really showed the potential of comic book characters in terms of realism and box office due to it being the first "comic book" movie to eclipse the billion dollar mark and although it was mostly snubbed at the Oscars, I believe it's still the only movie form the genre to have won an award with Heath Ledger winning BSA posthumously. Most recently, it was the Avengers that changed the game with bringing together several characters and is now dictating where the genre is headed with characters and story arcs spanning different movies eventually tying into one movie. With all that being said, my question to everyone is what do you believe is the most historically significant comic book movie of all-time? Not necessarily the best or your favorite but the most historically significant.

 

P.S. The first Spider-Man shouldn't be overlooked because it was an excellent movie and the box office take was highest to date but I don't know where it would fit in within these movies.

 

I updated that post with the two missing movies from Fox, including the combined budget and worldwide results. If you can update your post with that information so people do not get confused, it is greatly appreciated.

 

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Superman and Batman from DC that really started the comic book movie genre. Then came Fox's X-men that rejuvenated the genre. After that, it was The Dark Knight that really showed the potential of comic book characters in terms of realism and box office due to it being the first "comic book" movie to eclipse the billion dollar mark and although it was mostly snubbed at the Oscars, I believe it's still the only movie form the genre to have won an award with Heath Ledger winning BSA posthumously. Most recently, it was the Avengers that changed the game with bringing together several characters and is now dictating where the genre is headed with characters and story arcs spanning different movies eventually tying into one movie. With all that being said, my question to everyone is what do you believe is the most historically significant comic book movie of all-time? Not necessarily the best or your favorite but the most historically significant.

 

P.S. The first Spider-Man shouldn't be overlooked because it was an excellent movie and the box office take was highest to date but I don't know where it would fit in within these movies.

 

I updated that post with the two missing movies from Fox, including the combined budget and worldwide results. If you can update your post with that information so people do not get confused, it is greatly appreciated.

 

:foryou:

 

Done (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Men in Black a DC property?

 

Nope I was mixed up- Marvel. Does that count in this scenerio?

 

I have noted this before, since Marvel acquired this former Aircel property through its purchase of Malibu Comics back in 1994. I was just unclear on what the movie arrangement was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_in_Black_(comics)

 

Since after the success of the first movie Marvel published a prequel and one-shot, it has to be considered a Marvel property. But let me read further.

 

It would definitely expand Marvel's non-superhero focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Men in Black a DC property?

 

Nope I was mixed up- Marvel. Does that count in this scenerio?

 

I have noted this before, since Marvel acquired this former Aircel property through its purchase of Malibu Comics back in 1994. I was just unclear on what the movie arrangement was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_in_Black_(comics)

 

Since after the success of the first movie Marvel published a prequel and one-shot, it has to be considered a Marvel property. But let me read further.

 

It would definitely expand Marvel's non-superhero focus.

 

Even though Marvel has published the last comics based on Men In Black, the rights to the series and films are slightly confusing. All three movies have been produced by Columbia/Sony, but it is never clearly stated as co-produced with Marvel like other movies have been noted. Even the 'Men In Black IV' early details do not seem to mention Marvel.

 

Add to this attractions like Universal Studios' 'Men In Black Alien Attack' and it gets a little more confusing. You would think Disney would want something like this at its own theme parks.

 

MEN IN BLACK Alien Attack

 

If someone finds out something clear on this, it would be interesting to clarify the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great work and all but there are huge holes in these numbers...

 

DVD, VIdeo, Blu Ray sales?

 

RDJ took a chunk from the Avengers film because he nogotiated his salary from the money it earned

 

also, it says nothing of quality, i've yet to find someone who thinks Iron Man 3 is better than Dark Knight

 

the theatre's take out money from profits too

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great work and all but there are huge holes in these numbers...

 

DVD, VIdeo, Blu Ray sales?

 

RDJ took a chunk from the Avengers film because he nogotiated his salary from the money it earned

 

also, it says nothing of quality, i've yet to find someone who thinks Iron Man 3 is better than Dark Knight

 

the theatre's take out money from profits too

 

As far as 'holes' in the numbers, I would say with VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray sales this would be another analysis point that captures post-cinema revenue results. But the details are not always clear, depending on how much per-title tracking was in place at a given point in time. So my current analysis focused on what could be a common comparison - cinema results.

 

With taking the approach of subtracting special profit-sharing arrangements, it would be interesting but also tricky. We would have to know all arrangements that involved DC and Marvel movies to make it fair.

 

And what about advertising revenue like 'Man of Steel' and its $170 MM success? Again, it would be interesting. But not all movies reveal this information clearly. But it must have had an impact, as now 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is going like gangbusters with its Carl's Jr/Hardees TV and print ads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great work and all but there are huge holes in these numbers...

 

DVD, VIdeo, Blu Ray sales?

 

RDJ took a chunk from the Avengers film because he nogotiated his salary from the money it earned

 

also, it says nothing of quality, i've yet to find someone who thinks Iron Man 3 is better than Dark Knight

 

the theatre's take out money from profits too

 

As far as 'holes' in the numbers, I would say with VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray sales this would be another analysis point that captures post-cinema revenue results. But the details are not always clear, depending on how much per-title tracking was in place at a given point in time. So my current analysis focused on what could be a common comparison - cinema results.

 

With taking the approach of subtracting special profit-sharing arrangements, it would be interesting but also tricky. We would have to know all arrangements that involved DC and Marvel movies to make it fair.

 

And what about advertising revenue like 'Man of Steel' and its $170 MM success? Again, it would be interesting. But not all movies reveal this information clearly. But it must have had an impact, as now 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is going like gangbusters with its Carl's Jr/Hardees TV and print ads.

 

and MoS got 190 million from product placement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great work and all but there are huge holes in these numbers...

 

DVD, VIdeo, Blu Ray sales?

 

RDJ took a chunk from the Avengers film because he nogotiated his salary from the money it earned

 

also, it says nothing of quality, i've yet to find someone who thinks Iron Man 3 is better than Dark Knight

 

the theatre's take out money from profits too

 

As far as 'holes' in the numbers, I would say with VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray sales this would be another analysis point that captures post-cinema revenue results. But the details are not always clear, depending on how much per-title tracking was in place at a given point in time. So my current analysis focused on what could be a common comparison - cinema results.

 

With taking the approach of subtracting special profit-sharing arrangements, it would be interesting but also tricky. We would have to know all arrangements that involved DC and Marvel movies to make it fair.

 

And what about advertising revenue like 'Man of Steel' and its $170 MM success? Again, it would be interesting. But not all movies reveal this information clearly. But it must have had an impact, as now 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is going like gangbusters with its Carl's Jr/Hardees TV and print ads.

 

and MoS got 190 million from product placement

 

I'm not surprised by that at all and feel much better about the movie now if in fact they actually did get that much. Although I would have preferred not to have those obnoxious signs for IHOP and Sears keep appearing, 190 million (which is almost as much the estimated budget of $250 million, which doesn't include advertisement, I believe) would be pretty hard to turn down. Especially considering that Supes wasn't a sure thing and coming of a rather underwhelming appearance in Superman Returns both critically and financially.

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 3X WW for breakeven is somewhat misleading, as the studios cut from domestic box office is somewhere around 50% and from international box office averages around 20-30% IIRC. This is why these are almost always broken out in charts.

 

Thus, for a movie like 2012's ASM or 2013's Wolverine where international BO was basically double that of domestic, the actual studio profits were probably much less than something like 2013's Man of Steel, which saw a nearly even BO between domestic and international.

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 3X WW for breakeven is somewhat misleading, as the studios cut from domestic box office is somewhere around 50% and from international box office averages around 20-30% IIRC. This is why these are almost always broken out in charts.

 

Thus, for a movie like 2012's ASM or 2013's Wolverine where international BO was basically double that of domestic, the actual studio profits were probably much less than something like 2013's Man of Steel, which saw a nearly even BO between domestic and international.

 

I would agree that charts breaking out profit share from the total would be a fantastic next step in order to show the details of what goes to Marvel Studios/Disney versus their movie rights partners. But unfortunately that is not a common chart you see around. If you have found deep analysis on this topic, I'd love to read up on it as I have wondered about that information as well.

 

1) Profit share financials with joint studio partners.

 

2) Profit share financials with other parties (e.g. actors, special co-creator relationships, family estates, legal ventures).

 

I went for the initial obvious, which is total domestic, domestic adjusted for 2014 inflation, and worldwide box office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and MoS got 190 million from product placement

 

Let me look into this further. When this first was published, total was $170 MM for brand placement revenue.

 

Superman is already a $170m brand superhero as Man of Steel tops the product placement charts

 

There may have been an additional $20 MM captured from other advertising that wasn't captured at that point in time.

 

An article published seven days earlier said it was $160 MM

Edited by Bosco685
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 3X WW for breakeven is somewhat misleading, as the studios cut from domestic box office is somewhere around 50% and from international box office averages around 20-30% IIRC. This is why these are almost always broken out in charts.

 

Thus, for a movie like 2012's ASM or 2013's Wolverine where international BO was basically double that of domestic, the actual studio profits were probably much less than something like 2013's Man of Steel, which saw a nearly even BO between domestic and international.

 

I would agree that charts breaking out profit share from the total would be a fantastic next step in order to show the details of what goes to Marvel Studios/Disney versus their movie rights partners. But unfortunately that is not a common chart you see around. If you have found deep analysis on this topic, I'd love to read up on it as I have wondered about that information as well.

 

1) Profit share financials with joint studio partners.

 

2) Profit share financials with other parties (e.g. actors, special co-creator relationships, family estates, legal ventures).

 

I went for the initial obvious, which is total domestic, domestic adjusted for 2014 inflation, and worldwide box office.

 

I wasn't considering profit sharing numbers. Just pointing out the largest "hole" in the numbers is in equating domestic box office with international in the use of WWBO as the proxy for profitability. Since international BO is significantly less profitable for the studios than domestic it can significantly skew the numbers by combining them equally into a WW total and basing profitability on that total.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and MoS got 190 million from product placement

 

Let me look into this further. When this first was published, total was $170 MM for brand placement revenue.

 

Superman is already a $170m brand superhero as Man of Steel tops the product placement charts

 

There may have been an additional $20 MM captured from other advertising that wasn't captured at that point in time.

 

An article published seven days earlier said it was $160 MM

 

i knew it was around there (thumbs u

 

also Dark Knight Rises probabily lost alot of box office money after the events on opening day

 

i see the point of the thread but 10 years down the line nobody cares about box office and judge the films as they should be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also Dark Knight Rises probabily lost alot of box office money after the events on opening day

 

I've wondered that as well. Especially when some reporters had to go a step further and point out how the villain was a terrorist, which may encourage such violence. That definitely would have made people think twice about attending a showing.

 

Yet the movie still exceeded a billion dollars USD, even with that horrible situation.

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