REVIEW: Wonder Woman Can't Save Dull "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

[Osiris-Rex]

BvS v Marvel:

Marvel's The Avengers = Worldwide $1,519,557,910
Avengers: Age of Ultron = Worldwide $1,405,413,868
Iron Man 3 = Worldwide $1,215,439,994

Batman v Superman = Worldwide $836,561,603

Guardians of the Galaxy = Worldwide $773,312,399
Iron Man = Worldwide $585,174,222
Iron Man 2 = Worldwide $623,933,331
Captain America: The Winter Soldier = Worldwide $714,421,503
Thor: The Dark World = Worldwide $644,602,516
Thor = Worldwide $449,326,618
Ant-Man = Worldwide $519,445,163
Captain America: The First Avenger = Worldwide $370,569,774
The Incredible Hulk: Worldwide $263,427,551
.

Interestingly all of the movie listed had positive to very positive reviews except Batman v Superman.
I think positive reviews plus expected box office is more likely to sustain a franchise than bad reviews plus a less than expected box office.

[dragonmp93]

BvS v Marvel:

Marvel's The Avengers = Worldwide $1,519,557,910
Avengers: Age of Ultron = Worldwide $1,405,413,868
Iron Man 3 = Worldwide $1,215,439,994

Batman v Superman = Worldwide $836,561,603

Guardians of the Galaxy = Worldwide $773,312,399
Iron Man = Worldwide $585,174,222
Iron Man 2 = Worldwide $623,933,331
Captain America: The Winter Soldier = Worldwide $714,421,503
Thor: The Dark World = Worldwide $644,602,516
Thor = Worldwide $449,326,618
Ant-Man = Worldwide $519,445,163
Captain America: The First Avenger = Worldwide $370,569,774
The Incredible Hulk: Worldwide $263,427,551

Sure, Marvel has 3 movies (so far) that made more than money than BvS, but it's not like Marvel built their "successful brand" on all billion dollar movies. BvS could have done better, but I don't think it's going to keep a lot of people from seeing other DC movies. Iron Man 1&2, Incredible Hulk, both Captain Ameerican movies, etc all made less than BvS, and it didn't keep people from seeing all the other Marvel movies.



As others have said, if you are going to include marketing costs, you also have to include the revenue from licensing (which is likely a pretty big number).

Well, the MCU wasnt built in billon dollars movies, that just the results; they were built in what most people consider fun movies.

You would also have to go back and add in the marketing costs to the budget of every other movie (Marvel or otherwise) that BvS is being compared to, in order to level the playing field.

Well, you get the same conclusion, either way.

[Awonder]

I don't think anyone ever said that box office results would be keeping people away from future movies.

Critical reaction might. Bad word of mouth might.

For me personally, I'm all for Suicide Squad, but I don't think I'll be seeing a Zack Snyder movie in a theater ever again.

I'm certain that BvS made money. Did it make as much as WB wanted? Probably not. The last 2 Batman movies made over a billion each. This should have been a slam dunk.

Marvel certainly didn't build their successful brand on billion dollar movies. They built it from the ground up on critical success, positive audience reactions, repeat business, and general good will. Marvel had so much audience good will that a piece of garbage like Thor The Dark World made over 600 million worldwide. BvS got savaged critically and it's box office results were the definition of front loaded. Word of mouth wasn't great, and generally the most positive things people can say about it were that it wasn't as bad as people say. What chance does a Cyborg movie have with a foundation like this? Is anyone expecting Aquaman to do Guardians of the Galaxy level business? How are audiences gonna react to a Flash movie when there's already a successful and beloved Flash tv show with a completely different cast?

DC's "bad word of mouth" = $800+ million.

Marvel's "general good will" = 9 of their 12 movies making significantly LESS. Compared to BvS, Marvel isn't even batting 50%, and that includes movies after their HUGE home run in Avengers.

"Let's go see 'Cyborg,' the previews look cool." "No, that other movie four years ago by a different director about different characters got bad critical reviews, so I can't go see this no matter how good the previews are." I just don't picture that conversation taking place.

Marvel's success varies quite a bit; even with the Marvel brand at an all-time high, Ant-Man didn't come close to Iron Man 3 and the Avengers movies. All that good will is $300 million and counting behind the bad word of BvS. Civil War will likely crush BvS, but I doubt Thor 3 will do as well. People pick and choose individual movies to go to; they don't go to all Marvel, and they likely won't skip all DC. I suspect Suicide Squad will do just fine.

Now, I'm not arguing that BvS couldn't have done better. But, all the doom and gloom is rather funny. I wish my "failures" made that much money.

Interestingly all of the movie listed had positive to very positive reviews except Batman v Superman.
I think positive reviews plus expected box office is more likely to sustain a franchise than bad reviews plus a less than expected box office.

Yes, because Thor's better reviews have led to a such a successful franchise that makes more money. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. But everyone loved Ant-Man. Not enough for it to make more money either. Neither did Cap (so far). Nor Iron Man 2 out of 3 times.

Well, the MCU wasnt built in billon dollars movies, that just the results; they were built in what most people consider fun movies..

So fun that 9 out of 12 movies made significantly less than BvS. Where, oh where, were all the people having fun? Seems more of them were at BvS.

[Awonder]

I am prepared to include that in the data, if someone can provide the number

Or, we could assume that licensing cancels out promotional costs, which could make things a good deal simpler.

If that were the case, then the film in and of itself would begin making a profit at about $620M, and would make 40c on the dollar for all box office revenue after that.

Base on that the movie would have made about $50M in profit for the studio so far.

It would also mean that Ultron netted Marvel about $320M in profit.

'Tis always good to see you, good sir. And it's always fun to play arm-chair executive. Sadly, they don't share all their numbers with me, and I'm too lazy to comb through their public financials.

Seems kind of odd to compare it just to Age of Ultron given that very few movies in the entire history of cinema have made as much money as Age of Ultron. Good thing Marvel didn't give up when their movies weren't making over $800 mil, right?

[Vworp Vworp]

But, all the doom and gloom is rather funny...

Unlike Batman vs Superman.

[People Of The Earth]

DC's "bad word of mouth" = $800+ million.

Marvel's "general good will" = 9 of their 12 movies making significantly LESS. Compared to BvS, Marvel isn't even batting 50%, and that includes movies after their HUGE home run in Avengers.

"Let's go see 'Cyborg,' the previews look cool." "No, that other movie four years ago by a different director about different characters got bad critical reviews, so I can't go see this no matter how good the previews are." I just don't picture that conversation taking place.

Marvel's success varies quite a bit; even with the Marvel brand at an all-time high, Ant-Man didn't come close to Iron Man 3 and the Avengers movies. All that good will is $300 million and counting behind the bad word of BvS. Civil War will likely crush BvS, but I doubt Thor 3 will do as well. People pick and choose individual movies to go to; they don't go to all Marvel, and they likely won't skip all DC. I suspect Suicide Squad will do just fine.

Now, I'm not arguing that BvS couldn't have done better. But, all the doom and gloom is rather funny. I wish my "failures" made that much money.



Yes, because Thor's better reviews have led to a such a successful franchise that makes more money. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. But everyone loved Ant-Man. Not enough for it to make more money either. Neither did Cap (so far). Nor Iron Man 2 out of 3 times.



So fun that 9 out of 12 movies made significantly less than BvS. Where, oh where, were all the people having fun? Seems more of them were at BvS.

Heh, DC was aligning his three biggest characters in BvS, three pop culture icon known worldwide, two of them who had been starring in their own movies only a few years before, one of them straight out of a successful billions++ trilogy of films...

Of course BvS was going to make money for its studio, that was never in question, no matter how people slice it today.

However, we all know it didn't make as much money as it should have been doing, all because of how mediocre the movie in itself actually is.
A movie this big shouldn't have been mediocre or okay-ish at all - GOOD to EXCELLENT should have been the general consensus around it.
Instead, the majority of people who've seen it are navigating in mediocre - okay-ish waters when it comes to it.
How is that satisfying for DC and WB ?
Of course it's not.
Studios only care about the money they make, and it's obvious money was left on the table with this movie. Right now, it litterally is making money despite being so flawed it was universally panned for it: can't get more frustrating to know a GOOD movie would have reached who knows what numbers for WB...
Especially when your direct concurrence just managed to do it (Deadpool/Fox), or seems to be taking that road (CW/Marvel) right before or after your own movie.

Yes, Marvel made less money with Thor, Captain America, or Iron Man or Ant-Man.
So what ? Since when Batman and Superman shouldn't make more money than the three of them, or Ant-man ?
Thor, Captain America or Iron Man were nowhere near the level of public recognition and appeal when their movies came out than BATMAN and SUPERMAN. None of them were pop culture icons like those and WONDER WOMAN either.
Let alone Ant-Man...
They had a launching pad way steeper than the Trinity had here, yet they still made a lot of money, and their movies were well received by moviegoers and critics.
Because of how entertaining and generally good they were.
Which is all that matters to someone who just paid her/his ticket for a movie: whether or not the movie will deliver and actually be GOOD.

At the end of the day, a bad movie is still a bad movie, all the money in the world won't change that.
F4ntastic could have cracked a billion, this movie would still be a massive disappointement, plagued as it was.
Of course BvS is not F4ntastic level of bad, or Green Lantern level of bad, but it's not what I would call a good movie either: I personnally took issue with the pacing of the movie and its general structure, some jarring creative decisions regarding the characters' adaptations and some of the acting performances that were honestly underwhelming.
All this threw this movie off and that's why it sits between mediocre and okay-ish for a lot of people, me included: it should have been so much more. Overall, it disappointed me. I knew the moment I stepped out from the theater there was no way I was going to go see it again. Some of my friends felt actually cheated once out !
And at some point, studios can't serve subpar movies to the audience and expect said audience to come back afterward. Which is the goal here for them, after all. Get the audience to come back to see the next movie, so they can snatch those €/$/£ again and keep the ball rolling...
A lot of people are from the "fool me once..." category, so neglecting quality or, at the very least, entertainement, is not really an option when investing this much money in a project.
Brushing people pointing that out as a doomy and gloomy crowd, or as a bunch of haters, unappreciative of Snyder's talent as I've seen way too many times since this movie came out, is not really compelling.

[Ace Venom]

The problem with the talk of the film's profits forgets one, crucial fact—this movie is supposed to kick off the DCEU franchise. The film's underperformance at the box office combined with the massive audience drop-off and the critical mauling it's received weakens the DCEU brand. Yes, WB can get big openings and make a profit off a film with Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. But what's the down-ticket effect?

Let's take a step back and put it in perspective. We'll ignore discussions of what one person thinks is good vs what another person thinks. A lot gets made of the money and the down-ticket effect. What was the down ticket effect of Iron Man 2? The brand survived just fine on the way to the first Avengers film despite the fact that Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger didn't come close to IM2's worldwide gross. It's purely hypothetical at this point and I suspect Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman will do fine. Most people don't spend time on the internet talking about these movies and I suspect Justice League Part 1 will surprise a lot of people.

The reason Marvel has been able to take chances with very risky properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man is that they established a successful brand that turns a massive profit and keeps audiences coming back. The drop-off for BvS is bad for the rest of the DCEU. People will always line up to see a Batman movie. But will they come back for another Superman movie? Will they even bother watching The Flash or Cyborg or Aquaman? Particularly the Flash, when there's a very successful (and extremely fun) version they can watch on TV for free.

Fair enough, but the MCU has also been around for nearly a decade. That's hard to believe, right? We also don't know what they're going to do with the Flash, but his outfit in BvS was a nice tip of the hat to his suit in Injustice. I've said it once and I'll say it again. It's better to just watch the movie first. Not everyone likes the Flash television series and, with certain writing choices, has predictably annoyed some hardcore fans.

BvS needed to be a hit not only in terms of profits but also with audiences. People needed to feel like it was The Avengers or Iron Man of the DCEU. They need to see that DC logo on the screen and have the same kind of faith in it that they have in the Marvel logo. But they don't. And that's going to hurt WB in the long run. Now there's a lot more pressure on them to get it right with Justice League. Although given that they're sticking with Snyder, it's doubtful that they've learned their lesson.

I've supposedly heard of a lot of people who didn't like Star Wars: The Force Awakens (I register a mild dislike), but it didn't stop it from being the highest grossing Star Wars film of all time. I've supposedly heard that everyone hated BvS, but I've heard a lot of enthusiastic people out there over the movie. We tend to forget that we live in a bubble on the internet where we interact with a lot of people with similar interests. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who like the Transformers movies. Studios are in the business of making money. Since by all indications the movie is a success for Warner, why wouldn't they put Zack Snyder back in the director's chair? Forbes projected a very healthy profit for WB. For every internet poster that talks about not going to Zack Snyder's movies, enough people are going to drive up the box office value. Ever wondered why Michael Bay can keep making Transformers movies? It's the same idea.

[Username taken]

Unfortunately some people are taking the criticism of this movie way too far.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman...itics-a140871P

How one can send death threats over a movie is beyond me.

[Username taken]

Why are people comparing BvS to the solo Marvel movies? Thats not a straight forward comparison at all.

This was the DCEU big first time team up movie and it was basically an Avengers 0.5. Marvel's first full on team up movie was the Avengers. Most of Marvel's characters were C to D-listers at best even Hollywood knows this (Sony's boss stated this explicitly in the leaked e-mails and Snyder himself said that Batman and Superman were above the recent superhero movie craze). No one expects a Thor or Captain America movie to make as much as a Batman movie and certainly not as much as a Batman and Superman team-up movie, the same way no one will expect Aquaman to make as much as Civil War.

It all boils down to expectations, the Amazing Spider-man series and the character is being moved into the MCU even though the movies made MUCH MORE than most MCU movies. Spider-man (and Batman and Superman) is an A-list character the movies are supposed to be making a whole lot more than Thor and Captain America however a Spider-man movie shouldn't be grossing less than $300m domestic considering how popular he is and how the Raimi movies performed (which is staggering consider in the International market hasn't exploded the way it has now and those movies weren't in 3D or IMAX).

Batman and Superman are pop culture icons that have received dozens of film adaptations between them. Most of the first MCU (with the exception of Hulk) had never even had movies released in theaters (the old Captain America movie never received a cinema release). Comparing BvS to much smaller projects in scale and budget doesn't really reveal much. BvS isn't a flop but most people on this board expected it to gross a lot more than it did. WB probably felt so too. The controversy around BvS isn't so much it's box office as much as it's extremely poor critical reception and unusually large box office drops.

[AcesX1X]

Why are people comparing BvS to the solo Marvel movies? Thats not a straight forward comparison at all.

This was the DCEU big first time team up movie and it was basically an Avengers 0.5. Marvel's first full on team up movie was the Avengers. Most of Marvel's characters were C to D-listers at best even Hollywood knows this (Sony's boss stated this explicitly in the leaked e-mails and Snyder himself said that Batman and Superman were above the recent superhero movie craze). No one expects a Thor or Captain America movie to make as much as a Batman movie and certainly not as much as a Batman and Superman team-up movie, the same way no one will expect Aquaman to make as much as Civil War.

It all boils down to expectations, the Amazing Spider-man series and the character is being moved into the MCU even though the movies made MUCH MORE than most MCU movies. Spider-man (and Batman and Superman) is an A-list character the movies are supposed to be making a whole lot more than Thor and Captain America however a Spider-man movie shouldn't be grossing less than $300m domestic considering how popular he is and how the Raimi movies performed (which is staggering consider in the International market hasn't exploded the way it has now and those movies weren't in 3D or IMAX).

Batman and Superman are pop culture icons that have received dozens of film adaptations between them. Most of the first MCU (with the exception of Hulk) had never even had movies released in theaters (the old Captain America movie never received a cinema release). Comparing BvS to much smaller projects in scale and budget doesn't really reveal much. BvS isn't a flop but most people on this board expected it to gross a lot more than it did. WB probably felt so too. The controversy around BvS isn't so much it's box office as much as it's extremely poor critical reception and unusually large box office drops.

the closest marvel movie you could compare it to would be iron man 2 which starred iron man and war machine and introduced black widow to the silver screen.

those three fought off whiplash while also having to deal with justin hammer.

at the end, they enacted the avenger protocols.

if you try to compare it to anything else, you are either being dishonest in your assessments or you are confused as to the plot and purpose of the movie.

[CliffHanger2]

So what you're telling me here is if somebody gave you $160m you'd knock it back?

Nah I'm just saying that's a very small profit margin. If studios are judging success of movies like that there's really no reason for them to keep making them. But it's clear they aren't judging it like that so why should we.

[CliffHanger2]

When was I wrong? I predicted it would hit 800mm to within 24 hours.
P.S. Actually I had it correct because I said it would hit 800mm at some point that weekend. It passed that mark only at the end of Thursday night. So nobody knew it was past the 800mm mark until Friday. so pffffffffffffft!

pfffttt..really? Now who's getting emotional?lol.

[Phil Clark]

DC's "bad word of mouth" = $800+ million.

Marvel's "general good will" = 9 of their 12 movies making significantly LESS. Compared to BvS, Marvel isn't even batting 50%, and that includes movies after their HUGE home run in Avengers.

It isn't the total box office that counts, it is the profitability. Yes, those 9 films were less than BvS, but since most of their budgets for those were also smaller, they were likely more profitable. In addition, Marvel has an end game, so if one film is less profitable, they have others that will potentially be more profitable.

BvS as a start to Warners End Game scenario may not be the starting point they were hoping for.

[Username taken]

the closest marvel movie you could compare it to would be iron man 2 which starred iron man and war machine and introduced black widow to the silver screen.

those three fought off whiplash while also having to deal with justin hammer.

at the end, they enacted the avenger protocols.

if you try to compare it to anything else, you are either being dishonest in your assessments or you are confused as to the plot and purpose of the movie.

Oh most people understood the plot of BvS, audiences and critics just felt it was stupid hence the massive drops at the box office and poor ratings.

Iron Man 2 still can't be compared with BvS because neither Iron Man nor Black Widow nor War Machine are pop culture icons (at least Iron Man wasn't at the time). Heck, all the other characters you mentioned debuted in that movie.Not to mention the fact that Iron Man 2 didn't cost as much as BvS in budget and marketing. Iron Man 2 was a smaller project that BvS. BvS was intended to be an Avengers 0.5 (hence the name Dawn of Justice) and the addition of the Justice League members (Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg) pretty much confirmed that. Iron Man 2 didn't have as many Avengers members popping up in it, heck there was no Avengers yet at the time.

It's funny how people are applying some severe mental gymnastics and are completely walking back and what they said before. There were polls here and arguments here saying that BvS would make more than Civil War but now that BvS didn't perform as well as we thought it would, people are waking back their comments. I think it's better to own up to one being wrong than completely changing the argument to fit their point of view.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Which does not answer my question - what was the promotional budget?

WB can say they are happy with whatever they like. This is a subjective point. Facts are what I need. Concrete, numerical facts

.

The promotional budget was estimated to be $150 million for this.

WB if they weren't happy wouldn't be doing Justice League honestly. This has been said before , if there was problems they would have halted Justice League and removed Snyder. Instead they have pushed ahead and did more casting for it. That should tell you all you need to know.