AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM Is The First DCEU Movie Since AQUAMAN To Pass $400 Million Worldwide

AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM Is The First DCEU Movie Since AQUAMAN To Pass $400 Million Worldwide

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom's box office run is starting to wind down, but after passing $400 million globally this weekend, it's reached a benchmark no DCEU title has managed since its 2018 predecessor.

News
By JoshWilding - Jan 28, 2024 12:01 PM EST

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom splashed down on Digital platforms in the U.S. earlier this week, but the movie is still making money overseas. In fact, with this weekend taking its global cume to $412.7 million, the final DCEU movie has achieved a feat not a single other release in this franchise has managed in half a decade.

Yes, not since 2018's Aquaman has a DCEU title managed to pass $400 million worldwide!

Even taking the pandemic into account, that's a staggering statistic and one which better explains why Warner Bros. is now starting from scratch with DC Studios and the DCU.

As far as we're aware, Jason Momoa's Arthur Curry won't have a place in that shared world, though the actor might get to play Lobo instead. James Gunn and Peter Safran might want to find a place for the actor somewhere as he's clearly a box office draw (the same could perhaps also be said for Aquaman himself at this point too).

Here's how each DCEU movie has performed since Aquaman's $1.1 billion success five years ago:

Shazam! (2019) - $363.5 million

Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey (2020) - $201 million

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - $166.3 million

The Suicide Squad (2021) - $167 million

Black Adam (2022) - $390.4 million

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023) - $132.2 million

The Flash (2023) - $266.5 million

Blue Beetle (2023) - $128.7 million

Both Joker and The Batman were vastly more successful than all these movies, suggesting the DCEU is the issue and not the DC brand or characters. That may bode well for DC Studios' reboot plans.

Director James Wan and Aquaman himself, Jason Momoa - along with Patrick Wilson, Amber Heard, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Nicole Kidman - return in the sequel to the highest-grossing DC film of all time: Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.

Having failed to defeat Aquaman the first time, Black Manta, still driven by the need to avenge his father’s death, will stop at nothing to take Aquaman down once and for all. This time Black Manta is more formidable than ever before, wielding the power of the mythic Black Trident, which unleashes an ancient and malevolent force. To defeat him, Aquaman will turn to his imprisoned brother Orm, the former King of Atlantis, to forge an unlikely alliance. Together, they must set aside their differences in order to protect their kingdom and save Aquaman’s family, and the world, from irreversible destruction.

The screenplay is by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, from a story by James Wan & David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Jason Momoa & Thomas Pa'a Sibbett.

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is now playing in theaters. 

AQUAMAN & THE LOST KINGDOM Concept Art Spotlights Alternate Mera Costume Designs
Related:

AQUAMAN & THE LOST KINGDOM Concept Art Spotlights Alternate Mera Costume Designs
When Will AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM Arrive On Max? Streaming Premiere Date Officially Revealed
Recommended For You:

When Will AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM Arrive On Max? Streaming Premiere Date Officially Revealed

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
Feralwookiee
Feralwookiee - 1/28/2024, 1:01 PM
Aquaman 2 budget $205 million.
Ww boxoffice $412 million.

$205 x 2.5 = $512 million to break even.

It's still a flop no matter how you word the article.
GeneralZod
GeneralZod - 1/28/2024, 2:01 PM
@Feralwookiee - But the real story here is how Aqua 2 DOUBLED the box office of The Marvels with comparatively little marketing effort. I'm pretty sure Zaslav reigned in the marketing spend. A marketing campaign like the one The Marvels had and maybe this film does $600MM.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/28/2024, 2:06 PM
@Feralwookiee - I heard somewhere that they spent $200 mil on marketing, which would mean that the movie would need over $600 million to get anywhere close to breaking even.

I don't know how they spent $200 million on marketing, but that's what they're saying. Maybe that somehow includes the three round of reshoots they did? Probably not. That's probably yet another additional cost.
Feralwookiee
Feralwookiee - 1/28/2024, 2:23 PM
@GeneralZod - Possibly, but the first movie made $1.1 Billion.
There's no way to spin a sequel bringing in only $400 million as a success.
Comicmoviejunki
Comicmoviejunki - 1/28/2024, 2:41 PM
@GeneralZod - some idiots bring up The Marvels on every Aquaman thread. Get off Snyder's dick sometimes.
Deadinside
Deadinside - 1/29/2024, 10:12 AM
@Comicmoviejunki - Hey, it out grossed Thomas and the Magic Railroad, which only did $19,748,009.00 WW...☮😜
DocSpock
DocSpock - 1/28/2024, 1:01 PM
It's still a bad movie and a flop.
LSHF
LSHF - 1/28/2024, 2:25 PM
@DocSpock - I enjoyed it. But then I enjoyed Ishtar (true story), so it's complicated.
DocSpock
DocSpock - 1/28/2024, 4:47 PM
@LSHF -

Yeah. There are many movies I liked that few other people did.

Then when you figure in how drunk I usually am, it's pretty uncomplicated.

Cheers!
rkshuttleworth
rkshuttleworth - 1/29/2024, 12:19 AM
@DocSpock - If it's so bad why are people watching it? Oh sorry, I forgot for a moment how people comment on social media a lot of the time.
kylo0607
kylo0607 - 1/28/2024, 1:05 PM
Massive flop and a 3rd (thurd too) of what the first Aquaman made at the box office worldwide.

Good riddance of this whole universe.
KWilly
KWilly - 1/28/2024, 1:06 PM
Welp... It's official. Jason Momoa is a box office name.
GeneralZod
GeneralZod - 1/28/2024, 3:25 PM
@KWilly - This.
lazlodaytona
lazlodaytona - 1/28/2024, 1:07 PM
The Flash was 2nd best and Blue Beatle takes the top selection. The rest...? 'eh'
Kindzadza147
Kindzadza147 - 1/28/2024, 1:15 PM
Not very surprised tbh, Momoa has a very strong international appeal and considering nobody outside USA cares about A.Turd anymore it was expected the movie to avoid the catastrophic flopbuster territory and to land in merely a financially disappointing waters.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/28/2024, 2:08 PM
@Kindzadza147 - This is a catastrophic flop.
Kindzadza147
Kindzadza147 - 1/28/2024, 2:34 PM
@ObserverIO - The Marvels, The Flash, Wish and Indy 5 were catastrophic flops, this is merely an underperformer. Not exactly a success, of course, but far cry from the worst we have seen last year.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/28/2024, 3:03 PM
@Kindzadza147 - The Marvels, The Flash, Wish and Indy 5 were also catastrophic flops. Does it matter which one made the most or which one lost the most? They all flopped. Catastrophically.

The fact that they made Aquaman 2 at all is now going to cost the studio nine figures. And I don't mean action figures. That is a catastrophic amount of money to lose, just because you made a thing.
JDL
JDL - 1/28/2024, 8:38 PM
@ObserverIO - You are exaggerating somewhat. If Aquaman 1 were released when 2 was it would not have done anything close to the 1.1 billion it got in 2018. So stop comaparing apples and oranges. Covid has changed what kind of movies people will pay to see in theaters and the DCEU going belly up has killed a lot of enthusiasm as well.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/29/2024, 3:52 AM
@JDL - And those are all possible reasons why it has flopped. But to say it has flopped is not an exaggeration, that's just what's happened.
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2024, 1:20 PM
@ObserverIO - I'm pretty sure your definition of flop and mine are different. OK, answer these; what B.O. would Aquaman 2 have to have had in 2023/24 to; 1) be neither a success or failure, 2) be a modest hit, or 3) be a major hit given the demise of the DCEU and Covid ?
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/29/2024, 1:47 PM
@JDL - I hear it needs to make over $600 million to break even.

That means that they spent $600 million on the movie (budget, marketing, distribution, etc.) in the hopes that the movie would make money. If it only makes $400 million, then they've basically spent $200 million on a waste of time.

Making the movie has not earnt them one penny, but has instead lost them $200 million.
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2024, 2:34 PM
@ObserverIO - They did NOT spend $600M on the movie. They spent $215M on production and at most $85M on P&A and probably less. That makes the BEP $300M net, tops. ATM I calculate they are about $35M short of covering production costs. By the time you add in post B.O. revenue streams like PPV and disc sales they wil be close to covering production costs. Given the headwinds that's an underperform in my book, not a flop.

Also please answer my question from above.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/29/2024, 3:02 PM
@JDL - I did answer the question. $600 million.

Aquaman had an initial budget of $215 million dollars. Then they did extensive test-screening, the reshoots happened (nor pick-ups, reshoots), then more test screenings, then more reshoots happened again, then more test screenings, then a final round of reshoots. So they've spent way more than $215 and that's before marketing, which some are saying is actually $200 million. Then there's distribution, the cinemas take 10% in the US but overseas can take 50% or more.

The movie has not broken even yet. At the moment WBD need to recoup $200 million dollars to break even.

Therefore the answer to "What B.O. would Aquaman 2 have to have had in 2023/24 to; 1) be neither a success or failure" is $600 million.

"2) be a modest hit" anything between $650 million and a billion.

"3) be a major hit given the demise of the DCEU and Covid ?" A Barbillion.
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2024, 12:46 AM
@ObserverIO - "I did answer the question. $600 million"

That wasn't the question. What you addressed in the bottom half of your reply was the question I actually was asking about and as I suspected we do not agree at all.

It seems to me you are applying the same standards to the 2023 Aquaman as you would to the 2018 Aquaman and that's ridiculous. The environment is vastly different and to be fair and accurate expectations need to be realistic. Your's are not. Frankly if the first movie had been the one to open in 2023 it would not have done much better than this one.

As for costs what I'm seeing in the trades is that $215M is the production cost after reshoots. If they are lying I can't prove it and I doubt you can either.

Moving on. It's been a long time since any movie got 90% of the first week's domestic b.o.. You did know it was only the first week right ? After that the percentage decreases each week. Further, only a very few movies in a normal year, which this is not, were able to bargain for that rate so you can forget about that number. The normal rate of 50% domestic is what applies. Overseas the theaters and government grab 60% except for China where the percentage is 75%.

Where you really screwed up though was P&A. WBD does not have $200M to spend on such and sure as hell would not have spent it on this film if they did.

Finally let's to go back to the $600M number. The cost was not $600M, rather $600M was the number being used by many for a BEP assuming a $215M production cost and a realistic $50-$60M ish P&A. That said if in fact as you have suggested the production cost was higher than that 215M then the BEP of course goes higher at a rate slightly more than double the increased costs.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/30/2024, 4:20 AM
@JDL - I didn't "Screw up" with the $200 million, I'm just telling you what I've heard.

Also, if the cutback is only 50% US, 25% China and 40% everywhere else, then surely they are even further away from breaking even.

Lets be fair and say it's 50% internationally (worldwide), then that means that WBD has only recouped $200 million, right? So they've not even got their budget back.

Also, I don't know about $215 million including the extensive reshoots, test screenings etc. There were three major rounds at completely separate times. That's costly.
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2024, 9:00 PM
@ObserverIO - "I didn't "Screw up" with the $200 million, I'm just telling you what I've heard."

That number was terribad. Totally unbelievable and you should have known it ! We Pundits of the MCU have an obligation to be not look ridiculous when we get it wrong.

"Also, if the cutback is only 50% US, 25% China and 40% everywhere else, then surely they are even further away from breaking even."

Correct.

"Lets be fair and say it's 50% internationally (worldwide), then that means that WBD has only recouped $200 million, right? So they've not even got their budget back."

Correct. By my calculation they are about $35M short

"Also, I don't know about $215 million including the extensive reshoots, test screenings etc. There were three major rounds at completely separate times. That's costly."

The reshoots were budgeted. That's normal practice these days. As for the $215M number here's a source.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/aquaman-2-jason-momoa-drunk-claims-amber-heard-cut-scenes-elon-musk-letter-1235747775/

"The on-set source disputes the idea that “Aquaman 2” is troubled, noting that the film was on time, under budget and needed only about a week of reshoots*."

*re-shoots were stopped by the WGA strike. The week referred to in the article was what was needed to finish them.


Out of Date Conventional Wisdom

In days of yore it was said that a movie needed to double it's production cost to break-even and it was true (back then) ! Here's why.

1) Movies had very little overseas income. That started to change slowly after WW II. So the 50% domestic cut was damn near universal since there wasn't much foreign box office, where the theater cut was steeper. Heck by 1977 Star Wars foreign take was still only 25% of the total. It seemed to start changing around the mid 80's.

2) It may surprise some of you that the only serious paid advertising & promotion done for movies was in newspapers and it was fairly cheap. TV was not used for a long time for several reasons.

For a long time much of what was produced by the movie studio's were B-Movies, Serials, and Cartoon Shorts. Advertising for them was cost prohibitive. (starting in the early 1950's TV started to take over that part of the business). IIRC movie features did not do much advertising until about 10 years after color tv was widespread. So P&A costs were low until then. So the double the product cost saw for break-even held up till the mid 80's and refuses to go away nicely.
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2024, 11:51 PM
@ObserverIO - One other thing on P&A. WBD does not have a TV network. This is important in that Disney, Paramount, and Universal can advertise on their networks at no.net.cost. to them other than the small production cost of the commercials. That severely disadvantages WBD's ability to spend on P&A.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/31/2024, 5:18 AM
@JDL - That may contribute to the marketing costs being so high.

Good research there. I didn't know some of that. Sounds like the doubling the budget is outdated and we should probably double and a half for most films. But since Aquaman 2 may have had twice the marketing budget of most films, we probably have to triple. The film probably needs to make well over $600 million to break even, meaning it has at least $200 million to go.

And that's not even disputing the budget. Obviously the guy in the variety article was a WBD spin doctor. There is no way that those reshoots were budgeted, nor were there only one round of them, nor did they only take a week. 3 separate regimes screen tested the movie and then arranged extensive reshoots to try and rework the movie.
The reshoots the spin doctor was referring to will have been the final round of reshoots from James Gunn and Peter Safran's DC Studios. They were the reshoots that probably only lasted a week and were disrupted by the WGA strike.
Also, for a WGA strike to disrupt reshoots proves how extensive they were. They weren't just pick-ups, they were rewriting the movie.
Getting all the actors back long after the film has completed is costly. To say that all three of these reshoots fell under the $215 million budget is ridiculous. Are we saying that the film itself cost less than $200 million? Aquaman 2?!

But for argument's sake lets say that $215 million was the final budget, despite extensive reshoots. The film would still need to recoup another $200 million+ because of the marketing costs being so high.

Even if we merely double the budget (which you've found is an outdated model based on a time when not so much marketing was needed and when cinemas used to only take 50% internationally) that's $430 it needs to make. That's without marketing. Or distribution costs. Or reshoots (or assuming that the reshoots fall under the original budget).

So I'm not sure where you're getting the $35 million figure from that you say it needs to break even.

You obviously reject the idea that the budget was $200 million. I admit, it is a ridiculously high figure for marketing a film like this, one that was almost destined to flop based on the performance of last 8 DCEU movies. Still it is believable, absurd as it is.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/31/2024, 5:18 AM
But you would put the figure at $85 million? Okay, so $215 million + $85 million is $300 million. Going by the outmoded model of doubling it that's still $600 million. And that's being fair, because cinemas take a lot more now than they used to and marketing costs a lot more now than it used to.

So even if I conceded that:

a) The budget was $85 million not $200 million.
b) The reshoots were included in the $215 million budget.
c) that the old model of only doubling the budget were necessary.

That's still $300 million, which doubled is $600 million, which means they still have around $200 million to go before they break even.

However, you are not arguing the point of 'c)'. You have pointed out that that model is now outdated, yourself.
Going by that model of increasing the number by 100% and your numbers for budget and marketing, it needs to make over $600 million. But by modern standards of increasing by 150% it would have to make $750 million. And that's if it only had marketing costs of $85 million and the reshoots were included in the budget.

So my saying that it had to get around $200 million more was wrong. It probably needs to get $350 million more, going by your numbers.

That makes this a catastrophic flop. Maybe even more catastrophic than those other films you mentioned.

And if the ridiculously high number of $200 million was accurate then it would need to get $400 million more. And that's not even including the reshoots (three of them, which is highly unlikely to be covered by the $215 million budget) and distribution costs.

Holy [frick].
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/31/2024, 5:26 AM
@ObserverIO - * marketing not budget. I made that mistake a couple of times. But you can probably figure out when I actually meant to say marketing.
JDL
JDL - 1/31/2024, 3:23 PM
@ObserverIO - "So I'm not sure where you're getting the $35 million figure from that you say it needs to break even."

You misread me. The $35M covered Production Costs Only, no Marketing, whatever that was. I was in essence re-inforcing your point that it was not a financial success. We just disagree on what level of failure to label it with***.

"You obviously reject the idea that the budget was $200 million. I admit, it is a ridiculously high figure for marketing a film like this, one that was almost destined to flop based on the performance of last 8 DCEU movies. Still it is believable, absurd as it is."

If AT&T still owned WB the $200M** would have been theoretically possible. Very unlikely, but possible. Discovery simply does not have that kind of cash available* without borrowing at today's high interest rates. That is a non-starter. I doubt any lender would touch that without conditions that no sane firm would accept.

One other point on the size of the P&A spend. You only spend at that $200M level if you think you can recover it. Nobody was contemplating a box office that would even come close to justifying that level of spending, even were it possible, which it was not.

*I am an accountant. I looked at their statements. They do not have the cash needed.
** Yeah I figured out you meant marketing budget. No biggie

Look by the time AT&T got rid of WB they (WB's) were broke. The business, as a standalone, was close to insolvency (not bankruptcy, they are different things) and Discovery could not help much. They couldn't 1) self-finance, 2) afford taking on more debt to finance stuff, 3) take on partners on this movie because it was an orphan and people have not returned to their pre-covid movie going behavior. So it was a lousy investment.

As far as a BEP goes your latest try is reasonable. If the total cost is $300M (including marketing) the BEP by my calculation would be $720M.

***The Marvels, imo, even though I liked it, was in my book, a Catastrophic Flop. Unlike AQ2 it's universe isn't dead.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/31/2024, 3:49 PM
@JDL - I think we should be more disappointed with The Marvels. Like if you have a child that is always bad and a child that is always good, you will be way more disappointed if the good child does something bad than if the bad child does. It's to be expected from the bad child.

Considering how broke Warners is, that $200 million is looking way more unfeasible to me.

And hey if you're an accountant then 1) you probably know what you're talking about here and 2) I saw that Ben Affleck movie and I learned one thing: You do not [frick] with an accountant. So I'll defer to your expertise on that.

The $35 mil makes more sense now. Budget doubled, no marketing. But Oh wow... $720 mil is pretty bad. Holy shit. No wonder they're thinking of doing another merger after the year they've had (with DC at least, I know they made a Barbillion with other films).
JDL
JDL - 1/31/2024, 5:46 PM
@ObserverIO - On the Marvels; I agree 100%. I didn't think it was a bad movie but the public sure did.

On AQ2; they did respectable overseas business, especially given the orphan status and the Marvels, which was not an orphan, didn't. That's why I see them differently.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/31/2024, 7:44 PM
@JDL - Totally get it.

I didn't hate the Marvels either, tbh. Disposable, but entertaining enough.
Itwasme
Itwasme - 1/28/2024, 1:18 PM
Rough year for movies. Hopefully this year it bounces back and really hoping CBMs bounce back too.
Forthas
Forthas - 1/28/2024, 1:21 PM
"Both Joker and The Batman were vastly more successful than all these movies, suggesting the DCEU is the issue and not the DC brand or characters. That may bode well for DC Studios' reboot plans."

No! It does not bode well for the reboot plans. The reason those two films were successful is the same reason why the Dark Knight films and Man of Steel are successful. Because it takes the subject seriously and does not dumb down story with slapstick comedy. Given that the person heading that effort is the modern king of slapstick films...I highly doubt it will be a successful effort.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/28/2024, 2:11 PM
@Forthas - Also all those films told the story. Everything the audience needed to know was there in those films.

There weren't just random super-powered people existing merely because it's a fantasy and therefore anything goes.
KaptainKhaos
KaptainKhaos - 1/28/2024, 1:25 PM
Not as bad of a movie that people haven't seen it say it is. Definitely would recommend as a good background movie

Biggest reason why it flopped is because Amber Heard is in it
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/28/2024, 1:37 PM
@KaptainKhaos - Biggest reason it flopped is it is a good background movie, current market needs to be percieved as an event film (ie more telling the Flash flopped than this as that should have had event written all over it) to do much more, not a good but I'll catch it online and watch it at home kind of a film. I mean if not tied to being an event film with Barbie due to the viral thing I'd say as good as Oppenheimer is supposed to be could easily have only done more like Killers of the Flower Moon numbers.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder