Originally posted by playa1258They already proved they did an excellent job on cap 2. Snyder didn't. Snyder has a much bigger job in taking this thing off the ground than the Russos who already have the benefit of a proven marvel cinematic universe. Trust me I'll be right.
Russos need to prove they can handle CW.They have a much bigger task ahead of them.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no single other factor that stands out for the 2nd Noland movie to suddenly almost triple the first movie's take in. The Joker being included is no reason either, since fans of his are most likely going to be fans of Batman in the first place, so he sells to the same crowd.
It's not unheard of for a sequel to more than double the box office take of the Original due to great WOM of the Original. Just look at First Class and Days of Future Past. Or look at Iron Man 3.
But you're right there were multiple factors involved in TDK's mega success and one of them clearly was Heath's death. But also remember in today's terms TDK's box office was well over a Billion. It's not only about inflation, but about a massively expanded international market.
Just as Schumacher's Batman did massive damage to the franchise which Nolan had to pick up, similarly Nolan's Batman has massively boosted the franchise. So as long as the next solo Batman film is any good, I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't at least make close to a Billion.
Forbes just did an article about how product placements, DVD+Blue Ray, and other factors will help BVS NOT FLOP.
Relax, Fans: 'Batman V Superman' Won't Flop, Despite Rumors
The bottom line is this: Batman v Superman has tax incentives, presales, and tie-ins, as well as lucrative merchandising, that all help offset costs for Warner, and the studio is expert at reducing their risks and exposure on huge investments like this. Whatever else we can say about the future health of the DC cinematic universe — which we’ll address shortly, be patient – from a financial point of view, nobody needs to think Batman v Superman has to top $800 million to $1 billion in order for Warner to really avoid failure and make a couple of dimes on the project.
Oh, and I and a few others have been saying this for a while.
Next, look at Man of Steel, a movie that was only about Superman, that got mixed reviews and mixed fan reactions, and which is generally considered to have underperformed at the box office. It took $668 million in global receipts, and then — as we’ve seen already — probably $300 million in total home entertainment sales and rentals around the world. Audiences gave it a Cinemascore of “A-”, which is pretty good and which helps account for the healthy home entertainment numbers despite its somewhat misleading reputation as a film rejected by a lot of viewers. The truth is, yes the film had mixed reactions and yes it had some flaws, but also yes it was overall popular with most audiences, and yes it made a healthy amount at the box office and on home entertainment.How healthy? Well, since fans love comparisons, try this on for size: Man of Steel made more money than any of the solo character Marvel films up to that point, except for Iron Man 3. To date, only three of the entire non-Avengers slate of Marvel films have made more box office than Man of Steel — Iron Man 3, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy. The other seven Marvel solo character films all took less than Man of Steel, and that’s despite the advantage of having an entire universe built up and sequels and Avengers coattails. I’m not trash-talking Marvel, as I love Marvel and they clearly are the champs of superhero cinema right now, and they’re success is phenomenal. I’m just saying, for anyone who likes to imagine Man of Steel was just some failure upon which no success could be built, that’s nothing but a fantasy.
A movie with an “A-” audience rating, $668 million in box office, and $300+ million on home entertainment, involving a character whose merchandise was already taking $277 million per year in licensing fees, is a movie that has good prospects for public interest in a sequel, generally speaking.
300 million in DVD/rentals? Pretty good. And wow, Batman and Robin's adjusted gross north of 500 million? Some interesting numbers there.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Interesting because I was under the impression that studios don't care much about home entertainment figures anymore because they're negligible. But MOS seems to have made almost a third of its total gross that way.
Nah, they do, it's just not as big as it once was from what I understand.
This part of the article is also reassuring.
Just for the record, I’ve personally heard mostly positive feedback about the film. The only time I’ve personally heard any negative feedback was from other people who were repeating negative feedback they heard from someone else, and that was rare. However, I’ve not spoken to more than a small number of people who saw the film or who talked to people who saw the film. Take that for what it’s worth, and understand my arguments regarding the potential quality of the film are not based on my having seen the film. This is just “what do we know that could be useful in setting our expectations, and in deciding how much weight to give to the negative rumors at this time” discussion, so keep that in mind. We’ll only know for sure when we see it with our own eyes.