Captain America: Civil War official movie thread (5/6/16)

[Hawkman]

It was a 39.4% drop, which at Week 8 when comparing to other Marvel Studios movies is not a bad place to be.

 

 

 

 

fizzled fairly quickly after the huge opening. can't see it getting to IM3 #'s domestically. #1 in US until Dory swims past. A- box office performance.

it's still pulling in 1.4 million a week, and from Marvel's history, it's got 4 weeks left in theaters. i think it has a chance to collect another 5 million. at worst it will be 1-2 million short.

[cloud cloddie]

When IM3 came out, it was only one of 4 major comic movies of 2013. Man of Steel, IM3, wolverine and Thor. There's been 4 in the first 5 months of 2016. It's a more crowded market.

I can't imagine anybody at Marvel/Disney is upset by a billion plus, especially when you look at the competition.

[Bosco685]

When IM3 came out, it was only one of 4 major comic movies of 2013. Man of Steel, IM3, wolverine and Thor. There's been 4 in the first 5 months of 2016. It's a more crowded market.

I can't imagine anybody at Marvel/Disney is upset by a billion plus, especially when you look at the competition.

 

I realize you have said this a few times now. Unfortunately, that doesn't add up when Marvel just made its second highest investment in a movie, yet it is the fourth highest box office result so far.

 

Marvel is not comparing to the competition, because right now nobody is able to achieve what it has yet. It will compare to itself, most probably with the assumption with a larger budget and extensive cast this would end up in its Top 2 for financial results. Otherwise, why invest $250 MM but make less than the last two Big Team movies?

 

[cloud cloddie]

[Bosco685]

 

Like has been pointed out - and then you noted again yesterday - it is a much more crowded field than ever before when it comes to superhero movies.

 

Whether that means you have to spend more money to make less to surpass the crowd remains to be seen. Deadpool proved otherwise. But that was a very unique situation.

 

[cloud cloddie]

 

Like has been pointed out - and then you noted again yesterday - it is a much more crowded field than ever before when it comes to superhero movies.

 

Whether that means you have to spend more money to make less to surpass the crowd remains to be seen. Deadpool proved otherwise. But that was a very unique situation.

 

 

I was just making a point. Stop being exhausting.

[Bosco685]

 

Like has been pointed out - and then you noted again yesterday - it is a much more crowded field than ever before when it comes to superhero movies.

 

Whether that means you have to spend more money to make less to surpass the crowd remains to be seen. Deadpool proved otherwise. But that was a very unique situation.

 

 

I was just making a point. Stop being exhausting.

 

 

So when you repeat something, it is fresh and correct. When someone makes a valid point again, it is exhausting. How consistent you are.

 

[kimik]

fizzled fairly quickly after the huge opening. can't see it getting to IM3 #'s domestically. #1 in US until Dory swims past. A- box office performance.

 

What is even worse is that it will not reach AoU numbers, which was an absolute mess of a movie.

[chezmtghut]

When IM3 came out, it was only one of 4 major comic movies of 2013. Man of Steel, IM3, wolverine and Thor. There's been 4 in the first 5 months of 2016. It's a more crowded market.

I can't imagine anybody at Marvel/Disney is upset by a billion plus, especially when you look at the competition.

 

I realize you have said this a few times now. Unfortunately, that doesn't add up when Marvel just made its second highest investment in a movie, yet it is the fourth highest box office result so far.

 

Marvel is not comparing to the competition, because right now nobody is able to achieve what it has yet. It will compare to itself, most probably with the assumption with a larger budget and extensive cast this would end up in its Top 2 for financial results. Otherwise, why invest $250 MM but make less than the last two Big Team movies?

 

I totally disagree.

 

If Disney only gave Civil War a $200M budget & cut out RDJ for example, maybe they would have only pulled in $800M - $900M. Who knows. Bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office results though.

 

If Disney spent $350M on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales & they don't exceed The Avengers from 2012, doesn't mean it's a bust. If they can keep making billion+ dollar films, they are happy to spend the extra cash.

 

Those same films from just a few years ago would cost considerable more to make today. I don't think the adjusted budget you put above is accurate. All of the actors would expect more for playing the same roles. I can't imagine they could have pulled off The Avengers from 2012 today, spending any less than $250M.

[Bosco685]

I totally disagree.

 

If Disney only gave Civil War a $200M budget & cut out RDJ for example, maybe they would have only pulled in $800M - $900M. Who knows. Bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office results though.

 

If Disney spent $350M on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales & they don't exceed The Avengers from 2012, doesn't mean it's a bust. If they can keep making billion+ dollar films, they are happy to spend the extra cash.

 

Those same films from just a few years ago would cost considerable more to make today. I don't think the adjusted budget you put above is accurate. All of the actors would expect more for playing the same roles. I can't imagine they could have pulled off The Avengers from 2012 today, spending any less than $250M.

 

You can disagree. Reality is not a requirement in these discussions.

 

 

As far as Avengers costing more nowadays, maybe not. Cinema technology has leapfrogged ahead in only a few years, which is part of what Tim Miller calls out as what helped make Deadpool possible. And that movie had all of $58 MM invested.

 

Meanwhile, the trend for Marvel Studios films has been fairly clear. And part of what was called out was Feige forced a studio decision about leadership and budget surrounding Civil War. That would mean they were banking on a very large number with all these characters involved now. Since this casting was larger than Age of Ultron, go from there what may have been assumed.

[Hawkman]

fizzled fairly quickly after the huge opening. can't see it getting to IM3 #'s domestically. #1 in US until Dory swims past. A- box office performance.

 

What is even worse is that it will not reach AoU numbers, which was an absolute mess of a movie.

That isn't worse at all. it was never going to reach those numbers. the first two avengers movies were never even in the question of what it would surpass. iron man 3 was the bar to pass, and it's very close.

[Bosco685]

fizzled fairly quickly after the huge opening. can't see it getting to IM3 #'s domestically. #1 in US until Dory swims past. A- box office performance.

 

What is even worse is that it will not reach AoU numbers, which was an absolute mess of a movie.

That isn't worse at all. it was never going to reach those numbers. the first two avengers movies were never even in the question of what it would surpass. iron man 3 was the bar to pass, and it's very close.

 

I think Iron Man 3 becomes the oddball in the mix because at this point Marvel Studios got really smart with its international box office marketing. The difference in China because of that change drastically shows how smart they got.

 

Avengers (2012): $86,300,000

 

Iron Man 3 (2013): $121,200,000

 

Difference: $34,900,000

 

[thunsicker]

So, we're all in agreement that Captain America: Civil War was a colossal failure?

 

[Bosco685]

So, we're all in agreement that Captain America: Civil War was a colossal failure?

 

 

Someone said it was a colossal failure? Or is that your drama spasm kicking in again?

 

[chezmtghut]

I totally disagree.

 

If Disney only gave Civil War a $200M budget & cut out RDJ for example, maybe they would have only pulled in $800M - $900M. Who knows. Bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office results though.

 

If Disney spent $350M on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales & they don't exceed The Avengers from 2012, doesn't mean it's a bust. If they can keep making billion+ dollar films, they are happy to spend the extra cash.

 

Those same films from just a few years ago would cost considerable more to make today. I don't think the adjusted budget you put above is accurate. All of the actors would expect more for playing the same roles. I can't imagine they could have pulled off The Avengers from 2012 today, spending any less than $250M.

 

You can disagree. Reality is not a requirement in these discussions.

 

 

As far as Avengers costing more nowadays, maybe not. Cinema technology has leapfrogged ahead in only a few years, which is part of what Tim Miller calls out as what helped make Deadpool possible. And that movie had all of $58 MM invested.

 

Meanwhile, the trend for Marvel Studios films has been fairly clear. And part of what was called out was Feige forced a studio decision about leadership and budget surrounding Civil War. That would mean they were banking on a very large number with all these characters involved now. Since this casting was larger than Age of Ultron, go from there what may have been assumed.

It's not all about the tech. If that were the case, why did Fox spend $178M on Apocalypse? It's the actors that cost them more in the long run.

 

Ryan Reynolds was the only big name in Deadpool, which made a huge difference.

 

Again, bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office. If they spend $100M on the next Deadpool, doesn't mean they will bring in more than $800M. They could spend more to make less & vice versa.

 

Here's a perfect example:

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 2006

Budget $225M Gross $1,066,179,725

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 2007

Budget $300M Gross $963,420,425

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 2011

Budget $250M Gross $1,045,713,802

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales 2017

Budget $350M??? Gross $1B+/-

 

If Disney only makes a billion on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, they will still be happy. They could spend a billion on Infinity War & only make 3 billion. Doesn't mean Disney pull the plug. They'll spend whatever it takes to ensure their movies surpass all other studios.

[paperheart]

I totally disagree.

 

If Disney only gave Civil War a $200M budget & cut out RDJ for example, maybe they would have only pulled in $800M - $900M. Who knows. Bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office results though.

 

If Disney spent $350M on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales & they don't exceed The Avengers from 2012, doesn't mean it's a bust. If they can keep making billion+ dollar films, they are happy to spend the extra cash.

 

Those same films from just a few years ago would cost considerable more to make today. I don't think the adjusted budget you put above is accurate. All of the actors would expect more for playing the same roles. I can't imagine they could have pulled off The Avengers from 2012 today, spending any less than $250M.

 

You can disagree. Reality is not a requirement in these discussions.

 

 

As far as Avengers costing more nowadays, maybe not. Cinema technology has leapfrogged ahead in only a few years, which is part of what Tim Miller calls out as what helped make Deadpool possible. And that movie had all of $58 MM invested.

 

Meanwhile, the trend for Marvel Studios films has been fairly clear. And part of what was called out was Feige forced a studio decision about leadership and budget surrounding Civil War. That would mean they were banking on a very large number with all these characters involved now. Since this casting was larger than Age of Ultron, go from there what may have been assumed.

It's not all about the tech. If that were the case, why did Fox spend $178M only Apocalypse? It's the actors that cost them more in the long run.

 

Ryan Reynolds was the only big name in Deadpool, which made a huge difference.

 

Again, bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office. If they spend $100M on the next Deadpool, doesn't mean they will bring in more than $800M. They could spend more to make less & vice versa.

 

Here's a perfect example:

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 2006

Budget $225M Gross $1,066,179,725

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 2007

Budget $300M Gross $963,420,425

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 2011

Budget $250M Gross $1,045,713,802

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales 2017

Budget $350M??? Gross $1B+/-

 

If Disney only makes a billion on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, they will still be happy. They could spend a billion on Infinity War & only make 3 billion. Doesn't mean Disney pull the plug. They'll spend whatever it takes to ensure their movies surpass all other studios.

 

bingo. you aren't going to bring in an Avengers/Cap:CW movie for $58MM when RDJ & ScarJo take home $60MM+ combined.

[Bosco685]

You can disagree. Reality is not a requirement in these discussions.

 

 

As far as Avengers costing more nowadays, maybe not. Cinema technology has leapfrogged ahead in only a few years, which is part of what Tim Miller calls out as what helped make Deadpool possible. And that movie had all of $58 MM invested.

 

Meanwhile, the trend for Marvel Studios films has been fairly clear. And part of what was called out was Feige forced a studio decision about leadership and budget surrounding Civil War. That would mean they were banking on a very large number with all these characters involved now. Since this casting was larger than Age of Ultron, go from there what may have been assumed.

It's not all about the tech. If that were the case, why did Fox spend $178M on Apocalypse? It's the actors that cost them more in the long run.

 

Ryan Reynolds was the only big name in Deadpool, which made a huge difference.

 

Again, bigger budget doesn't always mean bigger box office. If they spend $100M on the next Deadpool, doesn't mean they will bring in more than $800M. They could spend more to make less & vice versa.

 

Here's a perfect example:

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 2006

Budget $225M Gross $1,066,179,725

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 2007

Budget $300M Gross $963,420,425

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 2011

Budget $250M Gross $1,045,713,802

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales 2017

Budget $350M??? Gross $1B+/-

 

If Disney only makes a billion on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, they will still be happy. They could spend a billion on Infinity War & only make 3 billion. Doesn't mean Disney pull the plug. They'll spend whatever it takes to ensure their movies surpass all other studios.

 

You are definitely right that actors can be the additional large expense. Especially with the established actors that fans now expect in these movies. Look at Robert Downey Jr's payday with these movies that now have to be factored in.

 

FORBES: The World's Highest-Paid Celebrities

 

#8 Robert Downey Jr. ($80 Million)

 

Iron Man Robert Downey Jr.'s earnings continue to skyrocket thanks to his roles in "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and the forthcoming "Captain America: Civil War," for which he is commanding a reported $40 million. This year, Downey made more than any other actor and recorded his highest ever annual payday. A large portion of his $80 million paycheck comes from the backend of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," which grossed $1.4 billion at the box office. Though Marvel has been accused of penny pinching when it comes to paying its stars, Downey has leveraged his Iron Man role into a bulletproof position in which the Disney-owned studio must give him a favorable deal on any movie the character appears in.

 

Robert Downey Jr to be paid $200 million for the next Avengers films

 

They don't have a complete plot yet, and a -script is nowhere in sight. But what the Avengers team do have is a $1 billion budget to blow on the next two films, and $200 million of it is destined for Robert Downey Jr's bank account.

 

These were the rumours going round the New York Comic Con festival yesterday. They're certain to get Marvel devotees excited. Around $400 million alone will go to the screenwriter, director, producers and principal actors.

 

When you have to factor in expenses like this to have a successful movie, shooting for one-billion (+) must be the goal or your franchise will go bust. But that's why they try and point them to back-end profits versus front-loaded salary. Then the actor must be part of the marketing team, driving fans towards the theater. And Marvel has definitely done this with RDJ a few times since Iron Man 3.

[chezmtghut]

I guess RDJ getting $200M for Infinity War is no surprise. They gave Depp $95M for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, so why not.

[Bosco685]

I guess RDJ getting $200M for Infinity War is no surprise. They gave Depp $95M for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, so why not.

 

There is no comparison between a 13-film franchise and a 5-film franchise. Other than they had a lot of films between them.

 

What your comparison does validate though is Marvel Studios had to shoot high because in the end to pull off a Civil War with all those actors (some being long-standing franchise members), there was going to be a large expense. Just beating out the competition's numbers would not be enough.

[Chip Cataldo]

All I know is that Thanos better be killin' folks.

 

Lots of folks.