EDITORIAL: Do any CBMs actually fail?

EDITORIAL: Do any CBMs actually fail?

Everybody has their own views on what makes a good movie. But Hollywood has one, and only one, true test. How many of the mainstream CBMs do you think fail? The answer will almost certainly surprise you.

Editorial Opinion
By TheDarqueOne - Nov 21, 2010 06:11 PM EST
Filed Under: Fan Fic




Not too long ago Generaldarkside posted an Editorial about Marvel and DC films. The discussion that followed made me wonder just how have the two done with their movies. Everyone has their personal opinion, their loves and hates, but how did the movies really do?

Hollywood has one simple yardstick. They care about one thing and that is it. You know what it is but I will say it... Profit. They want to make their money back at least a couple of times over to pronounce a movie 'successful'. Those that go beyond that level get nicer tags. Blockbuster is of course the top of the heap. As it stands right now you have to break the $500 million mark to qualify.

Whenever you look at numbers there are always things to consider besides what is shown in black and white. Movies these days are not just made for US Theaters. Long gone are the days when American Box Office is the only thing that counts. These days it is a rare filmmaker that does not consider the International audience. So in all my comparisons I am using World Wide Box Office as the basic final value for the film.

Whether or not a film actually makes money is dependent on a lot of factors. Every film has an advertising budget. The initial money is based on what they think the film is going to do. So for something with a budget of $50 million they may plan $1 million at first. If the movie does well enough they may very well advertise more. The gamble is how much do you do? It is easy to spend more than you can recover. This is not normally listed as part of the budget but it counts.

There is a big set of positives as well. DVD sales can range from $1 million to $100. Selling the rights to TV and others can be huge and are always something. And then finally the real monster... Merchandising. Frankly some movies can easily multiple their profit with merchandising.


What I wanted to measure

Marvel and D.C. produce the bulk of the comics that I have read. Most of the Characters I care about belong to one of the two. They are also the major players in CBMs. I know there are great things done by other companies and I give my apologies for the slightly narrow focus.

What I have done is dug up basic Budget and Worldwide Gross numbers for most of the Marvel and DC films starting in 1989. There are far fewer movies before that point and data is harder to obtain. My 2 main sources are listed at the bottom of this Editorial.

The goal of any movie is to make a profit. That means it has to make more money than it cost to make. When advertising and other expenses are added to the basic budget costs that means you need a little more than just the amount of the budget.

So if a film does not make it's money back it is a true failure. If it barely makes it's budget back then it is still pretty much a failure. The first line I draw is if a film makes twice it's budget. That should mean that it is indeed a success. Doing 3 or 4 times the budget is even better. And if you hit 5 times your budget or more then you are talking Blockbuster.


Marvel Films



D.C. Films




Budget, Gross and Profit are all in Millions of $

Budget is the basic cost to produce the film. Gross is the World Wide Gross Revenue. Profit is the difference between those two. Ratio is Revenue / Budget.

DVD and other income along with Advertising and other expenses are not considered. Frankly it is hard to get most of that data.

Here are some of my observations based on the Tables presented.


1. The Kings of the CBMs - The Two Batmans

I knew TDK had made a billion $ but I was surprised at how successful Burton's Batman turned out to be. I knew it was a Blockbuster but not quite the level that it had really obtained. On my Success scale it actually deserves an 11! The Dark Knight is perhaps a 6 which is still at the very top.

2. The Big Stinkers

From 1998's Blade to 2003's X-Men II Marvel had a pretty good run. But in 2003 Hulk and the 2004 Punisher both failed. 2005's Electra and 2008's Punisher: War Zone complete the set of 4 big stinkers for the Comic Industry Leader.

1989's Batman is of course the King of CBMs at this point. The follow-ups did not do as well but were solid successes. 1997's Steel only cost $16 million but it still managed not to make money. Sorry Shaq. We love you but the movie was really bad. 2004 Catwoman. 2006's Superman Returns barely made it's money back and annoyed people the world over. 2008 The Spirit and 2010 Jonah Hex both look to be failures. Sadly the 2009 Watchman also makes this list. This brings D.C. total to 6.

Not a big difference there. Marvel does have a much better win/loss ratio.

3. Marvel has more consistency but DC has the big guns

Marvel has more movies connected to it but the same number of failures. D.C. has had the 2 biggest CBMs ever but also a very high profile failure in Superman Returns. Movies are never less than a calculated risk and both have recent missteps.

Except for Punisher it looks like Marvel has a solid line of success running back to 2005. Kick-Ass did not do well in the USA but it almost reached $100 million once it got overseas.


4. CBMs almost never fail.

Almost none of these movies lost money. In fact when you consider the whole picture (merchandising and DVDs) the chances are that every single one was profitable. A few for each did not do well at all. But everything else, and that is the bulk of them, did pretty good. Fans may love them or hate them but people went to see them regardless.

Look at the Spider-Man Series. Spider-Man I was a certified Blockbuster. It gets a 5 but if the scale went to 6 it would get that. Spider-Man II which has been called the best in the series made a little less money than the first. And because it cost more it slips down to a 4. Isn't that odd?

Even worse is Spider-Man III. Supposedly the worst in the series it made more than I by a fair bit. Because of increased cost it slips down to a 3 on the Success scale though. Seems weird if it is such a bad movie that it would do so well.

Fantastic 4 II is pretty universally hated. So much that III was canceled. But it still doubled it's budget earning it a solid 2. This is one case where Fan and Audience reactions obviously counted more than usual. This movie made more than enough to justify the final part. Good decision but a little odd too.


Overall Observations

There is a very solid market for SuperHeros. They don't always please everybody. Fans suffer from the Paradox and little can be done about it. But the only real question about a CBM is how well will it do? Not will it be a success.

In a way that is a fairly nice thing to know.

What is the Paradox you ask?

Well the only reason characters like Batman, Iron Man and Spider-Man exist is because of their Fans. All the people who bought their comics made them into something worthy of a film right? But we comprise a small part of the general audience. So when movies get made out of our beloved Heros and yes Villains too, they are made for everybody BUT us. That is the Fan Paradox.

If we are lucky we get a Director who is either a Fan or respectful enough of us to care. They avoid decisions that are contrary to the spirit of the character. They do make changes but they try to do something we can accept. But that is it. They cannot make perfect reproductions of what is in the comics because those only appeal to us, that tiny fraction of the population.

Let me put it another way. If a movie that was a perfect representation of the Character, Story, and Setting of a comic would indeed do well then comics themselves would sell in the millions. But in truth a good selling comic does 100,000 or so.

I think Fans have an impact but it is more on the level of a multiplier. We do not determine the fate of a film but we increase the ups and downs. If we get behind the movie then I think more people do go to see it. If we really hate it I am not so sure that has the same impact. Enthusiasm is contagious, hatred a little less so perhaps.

It might be more accurate to say that while Fans are the final word on the accuracy of a film we are not on the overall quality of it. When we say we love it that tends to mean both that it is a generally good film and that it does the character or story right. If on the other hand we say we hate it that might mean it is just a bad movie. Or we are being too picky again and want too much. Remember the Paradox.

Only another Fan has much of a chance to telling those two reactions apart. So when we dis a movie I think a lot of people just ignore us. But from the numbers above I will admit it is hard to see where Fan reaction plays a part.

What is very, very clear from the data above is that we will be seeing SuperHero CBMs for a long, long time. They are doing remarkably well and all signs point to more of the same.







Sources:
The Numbers

Wikipedia
American SuperHero Films
D.C. Film List
Marvel Film List

A.I. - Artificial Ironman: An all original WHAT IF...
Related:

A.I. - Artificial Ironman: An all original WHAT IF...

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created Infinite Crisis Video
Recommended For You:

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created "Infinite Crisis" Video

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.

TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/21/2010, 6:18 PM

MetaWar Chapter Twelve
"Bloody Vengeance"


Original SuperHero fiction here on CBM

Ibz
Ibz - 11/21/2010, 6:42 PM
dude you got it spot on people dont seem to realise that s US fans are small number and that if a movie was solely made for us yes we would love it but the studio would lose out money but that should'nt mean that our favourite characters should get raped by these directors but it also means sometimes us fans have to overlook certain things or we wouldn't get CBM's
airbeyonder18
airbeyonder18 - 11/21/2010, 6:56 PM
@TheDarqueOne: Are you serious? Shaq's like Coby. They're both pompus a#&es
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 11/21/2010, 7:04 PM
SHAQ ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

; P
TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/21/2010, 7:09 PM
I just insulted his movie AirBeyonder I was just tossing him a bone.

DukeAcureds
DukeAcureds - 11/21/2010, 7:35 PM
Good article, Darque One. So The Spirit was as big a flop as Catwoman and Steel? And Jonah Hex really flopped bad - I wasn't even aware it had been released yet.
Y'know, this actually makes me love The Spirit even more.
TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/21/2010, 7:53 PM
It was released in the US in June. Might be a little early to judge it but not much.

My personal tastes do not always go along with the box office either. I do not know the Spirit well but it seemed to me they tried to really do a comic movie. As I suggested the more comic-like it really is the less it tends to work for the mass audience.
TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/21/2010, 8:06 PM
CORRECTION

I left Watchmen off the Stinker list. That brings DCs total to 6. Since I think it is brilliant it pains me to do it. But the numbers are what they are. It did make money just not much.
Mrmo416
Mrmo416 - 11/21/2010, 8:53 PM
As someone who uses marketing analytics often, I'm really digging this editorial. I just can't believe its not on the homepage. This is easily my favourite editorial in a long while.

There are a quite a few more conclusions you might be able to draw when looking at the data set though. Consider the following (if you have time):

-try plotting the data into a time-series graph to see how total CBM sales have been doing each year. my guess is that you'll see an increasing trend.
-you can also use a pie chart to show market shares of marvel vs DC CBMs

Also, this data raises a few more questions:
-are CBMs making more profit each year or less?
-are marvel films making more profit overall or DC?

Anyway, great job man! its nice to see the industry broken down into numbers.
marvelguy
marvelguy - 11/21/2010, 9:29 PM
Who knows how much they spend in development?

It's rumored that Warner Bros. spent somewhere near $50M in the '90's developing a Superman movie. Remember, Kevin Smith was one of five or six writers and directors that were hired at one point.
thunderguy123
thunderguy123 - 11/21/2010, 10:10 PM
the watchmen didnt make money because it

wasnt very good as a matter of fact it

was somewhat BORING!! i didnt read the

graphic novel if so maybe I would've

liked it out some sense of loyality

or something.

a cbm cant just be tailored to it's
hardcore fans it has to be able to
reach all the people...watchmen
apparently didnt do that.

nice article very informative i learned

a few things..numbers dont lie!
ThreeBigTacos
ThreeBigTacos - 11/21/2010, 10:59 PM
Very well written! We need more articles like this
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 11/22/2010, 5:25 AM
This is a good article, but i think when most people say a movie "fails", they mean it fails as a CBM, not necessarily that it doesn't make money. MOST CBMs tend to make truck loads of money, even though a lot of them are embarrassments to the source material. I know when I say a cbm fails, thats what i mean, it wasn't a good representation of the characters and world. So therefore, it fails as a CBM. :)
TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/22/2010, 2:41 PM
@Ibz

It is a balancing act for us. If we expect too much we are always disappointed. If we do not hold their feet to the fire sometimes we will never get anything we like at all.


@Tiger84

Jennifer Garner was very hot at the time. That was why they ruined Daredevil to focus on her and why Electra got made. It had nothing to do with the Character it was all about her. Obviously she was not nearly as popular as they thought.

Ruined 2 movies based on a mistake. That is Hollyweird.


@MrMo

Glad you enjoyed it. I will take a look at the other angles you mentioned. Not sure if the sample is really big enough to draw really solid conclusions but it has been fun playing around with the numbers.

I knew Marvel's Characters were doing well but I had no idea how well. In the movie business a string of success is very uncommon to say the least.


@marvelguy

If a movie gets made then the Development costs are a standard part of the Budget. If the movie does not get made then the Studio just has to eat the cost. This is one reason why sub-standard movies sometimes get made. Once a certain amount of money has been spent it is just better to go ahead and make the picture. At least that way there is a chance of getting the money back.



TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/22/2010, 2:49 PM
@CorndogBurglar

While I accept that you might just mean the CBM aspects have failed I find it hard to believe that about most others. I rarely see any discrimination at all when it comes to spewing hatred at a film.

Because they did not like Spider-Man III do you know how many people I have seen saying things like 'Sam Raimi is a shit director!'. They no longer care about the brilliance of Spider-Man I & II. He let them down so now he is crap who should never be let near a CBM again.

By the same token the number of times I have heard people say 'Spider-Man III was an utter failure and killed the franchise!". Again they could not be more wrong on that last part.

From the outside we look like a bunch of nit-picky bastards who are never really happy with anything.


@Xenix

You are quite correct. D.C. has had a pretty bad run for a while now. With any luck GL will turn that around but Superman is very much up in the air (and not in the good way) right now. It might work but it also might just be another Superman Returns no matter what they say it is going to be. Zack promised 'different' and I doubt it means what the Fans think it means.

I think it means nothing like the Superman we all know.


TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/22/2010, 2:58 PM
@Thunderguy

I left you for last cause I think Watchmen is a very important, and interesting case.

To me there were a couple of problems with it (1) It tried to be a actual comic book movie and beat the Paradox and (2) It is not a normal SuperHero story.

The Watchmen was a brilliant series no doubt about that but it is also very dark. Believe it or not most people want to see the Heros win in the end. We might like a dark story now and then but when it comes to our Heros I think the rules are different.

Watchmen tells the story of what happens when the Heros fail. What was missing from the movie (and I think it was a huge mistake not to include it) was the fact that the world was run by SuperVillains in suits. The world has literally gone to hell and the good guys can do nothing to stop it.

This is a bummer of a story despite it's brilliance. And even in this day and age that is a problem. If it were a normal Adventure movie it might have done better. But it was about failed SuperHeros and people just did not take well to that.

I personally hated it the first time I saw it. The Comedian is just a disgusting person and the rest of the story was just a huge downer. But I did give it a few more chances and over time it grew on me. There is a lot about that is pretty amazing.
KeithM
KeithM - 11/22/2010, 9:03 PM
@TheDarqueOne: What do you mean "from the outside"?

We look like a bunch of nit-picky bastards from the inside too. :)

Watchmen is a unique case imo. It's a work of art that the studio mistook for a blockbuster. If it were a 'normal adventure' it would have been shit - it would not have been Watchmen, better performance at the box office or not. Also, if it had done too well, they'd have made a sequel :shudder:

A movie's success or failure is not measured by box office alone, although obviously it's quite high on the studios' list. Critical and audience response is hugely important too. Really big hits speak for themselves, but if lots of people are attracted to a movie because a previous movie was good (e.g. Spider-Man 2) and are left disappointed (e.g. Spider-Man 3) - vocally so - then even if that one does quite well, it puts even more pressure on the next movie after that to be extra-good - two sucky movies is really testing audience loyalty - or it could be the proverbial nail in that franchise's coffin for years (after Harry Potter ends, DC's stuff better perform or WB will find something that can and that JLA movie will never get made ;)).

Even a movie that utterly tanks at the box-office though could be regarded as successful in other ways besides its take - perhaps it has a huge influence on other filmmakers (Citizen Kane), perhaps it becomes regarded as a classic even if it doesn't do great box office (Shawshank Redemption). Are these movies "failures"? In box office terms undoubtedly so. In "real" terms, not at all. I think Watchmen is one of those not-great-performers that will be regarded as a retroactive 'success', as will Scott Pilgrim, whereas movies like Superman Returns, Batman and Robin, Borigins and Spider-Man 3 will always be regarded as "failures" no matter what they made.

Many of these movies that on the surface were "successful", i.e. made a profit at the box office, were actually regarded as failures because the critical and/or audience backlash was so bad as to risk a franchise suffering catastrophic diminishing returns (Batman & Robin is the classic example).

Ultimately history tells us which movies are successes or failures. Who knows, one day Catwoman may become regarded as a classic...

Nah.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 11/23/2010, 5:18 AM
@ darquone

I completely understand everything you said, its definately the truth. people are so quick to throw directors to the trash after one bad movie.

but i don't put a lot of stock in what a LOT of people say around here. there are definately a lot cool people that think things through and look at things rationally around here. unfortunately, it seems like for every one of those people, there are two of the others.

Im completely fine with the people that don't like what Raimi did with ANY of the Spidey movies, for whatever their reasons. But the people to just crap all over Raimi because of the 3rd are just being moronic.

Also, i think its funny, because back when Spidey 1 and 2 came out, it was loved by just about everyone. Now, like you said, after the 3rd, its like people forget how good those are.
Angelus
Angelus - 11/23/2010, 8:12 AM
I really hate the term and usage of the word fail. I understand that this is a bit of topic but its so aaaaargh!
The answer is its relative if they fai.... If they fai.... I cant even write it. Its relative if they DONT do as good as the studio wants them too. But no one in their right mind, on this earth mind you, can say that The Fast and the Furious is better than The Shawshank Redemption. So the relativism stops at one point.
The Dark Knight isnt that amazingly, great picture of a movie as everyone thinks, believes and ignorantly claim. Its a really good movie but not the best CBM ever. I would say thats the first Superman, and people can dispute that.
I dont know what defies if a CBM really does what its supposed to be but studios always want to cash in. They dont do this for the pure fun of it. So box office is the pure atheistic view of a good cbm.
In the end its a really good question with a lot of bad answers.

BMP!
TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/23/2010, 4:44 PM
@Angelus

Good has a lot of meanings as well. But I was careful to avoid saying that Hollywood's way of looking at things had anything at all to do with actual artistic merit. It simply does not.

Good is to me first of all a personal term. What I like is good. Good is also used in the larger sense because each film is collectively embraced or rejected by the public once it has seen it. And if you are a film school student or work in the Industry there is also the version of good that is defined by the Critics.

Here of course we also have the hard to define Fan version of good.

So for me for example I get:

Spider-Man 2: Me: good Audience: good Critics: good Fans: good

Spider-Man 3: Me: good Audience: good Critics: iffy Fans: not good

Gets a little confusing at times really.

And yes there really are a whole lot of people who would make the claim about Fast and Furious. To those people Redemption is dull and stupid and they probably never even watched it. I certainly agree that the SR is the better movie in terms of Art. But oddly a large number of people do not go to the movies to see Art they go to have a good time.

The two can go together but it rarely happens.

TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/23/2010, 4:48 PM

MetaWar Chapter Thirteen
"Love, MetaHuman style"


Original SuperHero fiction here on CBM


Pulsar & Nova



thunderguy123
thunderguy123 - 11/25/2010, 11:12 PM
o.k. from where im standing maybe the watchman

movie should've never been made. maybe it was

doomed from the start i dont know i was a little

caught off guard how it all turned out.

superman is another movie unlike the watchman
has had a few attempts of putting together a
solid movie from start to finish.

it hasnt delivered yet in
my opinion reeve's superman
was cartoonist with hackman stinking it up and we
all seen what happen with routh's version!

i guess some classic graphic novels and comicbook icons

arent suppose to hit the big screen..expectations are too

high that the studios cant seem to satisfy .


TheDarqueOne
TheDarqueOne - 11/26/2010, 4:46 AM
I think like with all near-misses that Watchmen just got it a tiny bit wrong. A lot of movies do far worse. As a CBM it is ranked at the bottom in terms of success but compared to movies in general it did ok.

Thunderguy in 1978 when Superman was made comics were very much still for kids. The movie was made to appeal both to them and to people nostalgic for a simplier time. So when you call it cartoony in a negative way you are kinda missing the point. It is that and it is supposed to be that.

When you say expectations are too high I assume you are only referring to Fans of course. I think Watchmen could have been a much bigger hit with only a couple of fairly minor adjustments. But Fans are kinda bound to be disappointed quite often. Just how it works.
View Recorder