How is the DCEU doing financially?

For a change, let's not argue the subjective. Let's look at the true test of whether the DCEU will stick around, or whether it will have a few more entries and then get put away as a disappointing experiment should thing continue.

Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad. Did they make a profit? A loss? Either way, by how much? How about merchandising?

Because just to try and 'compete' with Marvel, I don't see them stopping this train unless they are making an actual loss. If there is a whiff of profit, and a chance at making a killing down the road, I think they will hold their ground.

The only true sucess is SS.

While MOS and BvS made their money back, they are way bellow the expectations of the investidors. For example they wanted BvS to have Avengers numbers - but ended up with less than Iron Man.
This raised some red flags, and made the studio change a lot some of their plans, like giving more power for Johns and Afleck and removing Snyder's influence.

One of the higher ups of WB even had to ensure their investidors that things would change and they would manage to make the public and critics actually enjoy the movies, and even Johns basically said "sorry guys, Superman shouldnt have the same feel as Batman".

If these things will work? I have no idea, but so far economically they are "making a little bit of profit, but not as much that we expected, and we fear that it might hurt the brand and make the stabelishment of this cinematic universe waaay harder and less profitabble than we thought".

If you want confirmation for this last part, I recomend you to check DVD sales. The movie with Batman, Superman and WW on screem together, and seeling less than DEADPOOL, and this make the higher ups afraid.

For a film to be considered profitable by Hollywood accounting, it has to take in twice its production costs (including advertising). Yes, this is an actual principle and you can look it up on Wikipedia. ANYWAY - according to Box Office Mojo:

* Man of Steel - $225 million production budget - $668 million worldwide box office
* BvS:DoJ - $250 million production budget - $873 million worldwide box office
* Suicide Squad - $175 million production budget - $745 million worldwide box office

In comparison:

* Captain America: Civil War - $250 million production budget - $1.15 billion worldwide box office
* Doctor Strange - $165 million - $208 million worldwide box office (to date)
* Deadpool - $58 million production budget - $363 million worldwide box office

DC is going to force out more movies and eventually hope that one of them sticks around enough to become a franchise and maybe start a movie universe from there on.

I personally don't think any of what has been released so far is enough to start a "real" universe. It's just movies so far. They're trying WAY too hard, and movie viewers actually can feel that when they see DC movies.

Marvel just did it, and not really cared if it was any good, example Thor franchise. Other times it was really good, example being The Avengers. Or even mostly average, hence Iron Man.

Looking at it as a comparison, it looks like Marvel is utterly humiliating them. But it does look like they are making the money, if only just, on each release to justify moving forwards. Suicide Squad may have been exactly what they needed, as that's pretty much 'Marvel numbers'.

Does that mean Leto, Margot, Afleck and Smith are here to stay?

I wish we could tell what individual toys sold best. Because you know that's something they'll be looking at when planning stand alone movies.

DC is doing fine, not marvel levels of financial success, but they aint in any danger

given how many people showed up to watch SS, and people are cautiously optimistic that WW might win back the crowd, they certainly have a lot of fight left in them

>Marvel just did it

Actually, I think that what is PRIMORDIAL and was negligected, is the fact that Marvel planned way back what they wanted to do and what feel they wanted on their movies.

This is something that WB lacks, while they rushed the productions to try to:

1- catch to the cinematic super hero universe that Marvel started, before the fad end.
2 -hold the rights with MOS - because the movie was done initially JUST because of problems involving the rights to Superman - and only later they decided to use it as a jump start for a cinematic universe.

The problem with tone and the lack of planning is so obvious, that they didnt knew if their Captain Marvel and Blue&Gold movie would take place on the DCEU, because they stabelished their universe as too dark.

Even now I dont know if Shazam and B&G will be part of the same universe as MOS and BvS.

Solidly, but not as much as WB shareholders want.

They're not flops, like some people say. But WB don't just want good returns, they want these films to go over a billion. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that WB were hoping for BvS to nab the biggest (non-James Cameron, at least) box office of all time.

Basically what everyone else has said- they're doing OK but considering the caliber of characters they are using (Joker, Harley, Batman, Superman etc), they are performing below expectations.

The rule for BO is that studios now only get half the take (theatres take the other half) but have to pay the production and marketing costs. Marketing can be as much as the film's production budget.

SS is the only unqualified success but even there the film probably would have made way more money if it had actually been good. I myself only know 3 people who have seen the film but I know at least 5 who would have seen it, if it had had better reviews.

Imagine if either DC or Marvel could get both their movies and comics in line. They would be doing so well, but as of right now if you like comics go to DC if you want movies go to Marvel.

The first three MCU films took in 1.4 (nearly 1.5) bn$ at the box office.

The first three DCEU films has so far made 2.2bn$ at the box office.

On a side note, the Nolanbats movies took in 2.4bn$ at the box office in total.

Does that mean DC is doing better compared to the MCU at its start? I don't know, we're deep in the Superhero-film craze, one could argue that DC should be doing far, far better.

Ironman 1, the incredible hulk, and ironman 2
did not have anywhere near the amount of marketing that any of those films made

The difference is that the MCU spent way less, and used characters like Hulk and Iron Man.

While DC used Superman, Batman and Wonder Womanin a single movie to try get the Avengers numbers.

BvS is more comparable with any of the Avenger movies or Civil War.

Yup, also, these are just raw numbers, none of the balance them against production costs and marketing costs.

It is interesting to me howevere, that a Superman films, a superhero many consider unpopular, unrelatable, icon of the past, takes in more money than a Star Trek movie. A franchise which hipsters and various other nerd-wannabees has taken liking to.

as of 2014, superman is just under the avengers in sales, so he is still considered a big gun, although batman is still the biggest DC brand

as of sales it seems to be
>spiderman>batman>avengers>superman

Unfortunately this is also subjective. You'll have people saying it bombed people saying it made tons of money and people saying it made enough to live another day. Nobody actually knows what WB's target goals were well enough to make an objective statement.

I don't know. I see what you are saying, but while Man of Steel 'only' making three times it's production budget might have been disappointing because of advertising, BvS was still a massive success they could be satisfied with (even if not thrilled because it didn't bit the billion mark), and Suicide Squad is practically a Guardians of the Galaxy type success that has guaranteed Leto and Robbie will be on our screens for years to come.

Objectively none of them bombed, and only Superman underperformed, and even then because it's Superman.

>Nobody actually knows what WB's target goals were well enough to make an objective statement.

Except we know WB thought BvS was a disappointment, that's the whole reason they butchered Suicide Squad in the editing room.

A disappointment isn't the same thing as a flop, under-performance, ect, though. It means they were stupid for expecting to get Marvel numbers, when even Marvel probably don't understand what Mouse voodoo makes them such a hit.

Scarily, though, it worked. Suicide Squad is now basically the Guardians of the Galaxy of DC. They may even have more staying power.

DC has the added bonus of having the most recognizable and easy to sell characters ever.
You call a movie Batman V Superman and that shit is guaranteed a billion dollars.
Look at TFA, its a mediocre movie that broke like every record ever simply because its Star Wars.
Outside Spiderman Marvel does not have that luxury. Most people laughed at the name Antman.

That's also why WB went in and improved BvS in post-production: MoS was considered "underwhelming" on the average and lots of people went "NOT MUH SUPES" in response to all the (necessary!) destruction and death.

>Marvel probably don't understand what Mouse voodoo makes them such a hit

Bull-fucking-shit. Marvel understands it to the point where it has a goddamned formula.

>A disappointment isn't the same thing as a flop

I never said it was. My own personal opinions about BvS aside, I'm not going to try and pretend it was a flop.

> It means they were stupid for expecting to get Marvel numbers, when even Marvel probably don't understand what Mouse voodoo makes them such a hit.

Marvel knows exactly what makes their films hits. Basic three-act structures heavy on humor and characterization and light on plot. Whether or not you like their formula, it's pretty clear they have a basic MCU outline for their films that individual people get to play with.

> in response to all the (necessary!) destruction and death.

Give me a break. Watching graham cracker buildings fall apart does not somehow make your story have more weight. Watching Faora rape all those Air Force guys and ground troops with super-speed was ten times exciting and impactful then the Seventeen 9/11's finale.

>Watching Faora rape all those Air Force guys and ground troops

...when did this happen and where can I watch it, because holy goddamn that sounds hot.

It's more complex than that. 50% of gross on distribution is a general rule; distribution has unavoidably high labor and associated costs (ie theaters need paying, need to pay staff and rent, are generally empty because rent is 24/7/52 but crowds are usually in work/school/doing other things). It's not always dead on 50% but that's a good ballpark.

From what's left, you take production budget (the headline figure) and marketing budget (usually between $40m and $80m, but sometimes north of $100m). This latter depends entirely on what you spent and where you advertised - it's not fixed. Even taking out a 30-second spot on the same channel at the same time a day later could be twice as expensive (or half the price). In the last weeks up to release, spends of $7m on domestic tv spots alone are common - but these represent peak spending on tv.

Then you take out people's gross points. These are contractual, and usually not made public. Big stars get them, directors get them - Zack Snyder got 10% of the Man of Steel gross, for example, making him the highest paid director of 2013. They're dependent not just on the gross but on the level the gross reaches - they may go up or down as a percentage the more the movie makes.

For WB vs Marvel there's an additional complication: Marvel exists to make superhero movies. WB does not. WB has a long history of making other things, and could easily invest in other things - if they're likely to be more profitable, that's what will be the decider for WB, regardless of whether the DCEU as a whole or on keystone projects is in profit.

>Bull-fucking-shit. Marvel understands it to the point where it has a goddamned formula.

Yeah, fair point. To clarify, I mean that they hit on gold, and it's something DC can't really mimic. Even SS is at the end a pretty dark film.

When it comes to adult merch BvS was a huge huge hit, it sold more clothes than any marvel movie, but it was easy the s shield and bat logo make better normie t-shirts than anything marvel has

BvS and Mos product placement were in the 8 zeros area

God, you still try to post this shit?

> I mean that they hit on gold, and it's something DC can't really mimic

If they were smart they wouldn't try to mimic it. That's what Harry Potter and their 17 Fantastic Beasts movies are for.

DC going hard in the other direction and giving weird, dark directors carte blanche to make whatever the fuck they wanted was a great idea in concept, it just got poisoned because the first crack at the bat was Zack "Sucker Punch" Snyder, who should never ever be given free reign to make something.

If they had given it to an actual director like Alfonso Cuaron or Guy Ritchie or George Miller or Matthew Vaughn any of the large roster of talent WB has on fucking call this would have been a great step forward that would bring real diversity to the genre and lit a fire under Marvel's ass to experiment more.

But we got Snyder.

There is hope. I think Suicide Squad likely restored hope in the 'brand'. We'll have to see as we go forward. I'm worried about Wonder Woman, it could be the straw to break that camels toe, but I suppose she needs a film.

Isn't this massively outdated and only counted toy sales?

>For a change, let's not argue the subjective
Yeah, that's not happening

>Does that mean Leto, Margot, Afleck and Smith are here to stay?
Leto, Margot and Affleck? Definitely. I don't know about Smith desu.

It kind of did, barring . Even if this post invites the old arguments, or shitposters, we've had a pretty constructive and nice discussion.