The past two weeks brought a flurry of negative rumors about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, followed by a lot of concern and questions among fans online. Briefly, the rumors claim there is concern at Warner Bros. about how Batman v Superman will perform at the box office, concern about the film's quality to some degree, and that the entire slate of DC Comics movies are potentially in jeopardy if Batman v Superman should fail. The result, so the speculation goes (and it's important to note, nobody claimed to have heard this part is happening or asserted it as fact, it was clearly presented as personal opinion), could be the Justice League project getting postponed, the Batman solo film being put in place of Justice League, and Warner completely starting over with their plans for the DC cinematic universe.
Is Batman v Superman shaping up to be a failure? Is Warner worried about the film? Are the future DCU plans all in jeopardy of falling apart? Is Justice League likely to be delayed? Will Batman be brought in to sort of rescue and restart the whole plan? There's a lot to talk about here, fans, and I've crunched a whole lot of numbers and talked to a bunch of people in order to bring you as clear, definitive, and detailed a reply to these rumors and speculation as I can right now. So sit back and get ready, and hopefully you'll feel a little better after I'm done. It's a lot of information, comparisons, box office numbers, estimates, and points, but stick with me and I think you'll find it's worthwhile.
Let me note upfront, none of us have a crystal ball we can look into and predict the future with total certainty. Despite any arguments and data I put forth (and despite the absolutist-sounding headline above, which is meant to convey my position in shorthand due to space limitations), come opening weekend it's all up to the public at large to either show up or not, and to judge the film by themselves based on its own merits. So at the end of the day, it's all best guesses and speculation.
That said, it's possible to try to make our predictions and speculation more reasonable and likely to be closer to the truth, and that's what I'm trying to do. I'm casting a wide net to try to consider a lot of possible factors, use conservative estimates, and present as reasonable and clear a case as I can for how Batman v Superman is likely to perform, what the studio likely is thinking about different aspects of the equation, and why ultimately fans should relax and wait for the film's release.
My expectations and predictions might turn out correct, at which point I'll say, "See? I told you so!" Or they might turn out entirely wrong, in which case I'll, "Hey, I warned you I don't have a crystal ball," and then proceed to try to explain why things went differently than expected and why they should've gone the way I predicted. Feel free to lob tomatoes at me however it turns out, I'll probably deserve it.
First up, we'll tackle the question of whether Batman v Superman is in danger of being a financial flop.
Batman v Superman is a huge financial investment for Warner, with a budget north of $200 million (although tax incentives helped offset a good portion of that). Marketing costs worldwide are going to approach $200 million as well. So when you see articles asserting a $400 million price tag for the film, that's what they're talking about. Of course, tie-ins and pre-sales helped Man of Steel pocket roughly $200 million before it even hit theaters, so expect similar numbers for Batman v Superman in that regard, which helps further offset some of the costs. For now, just remember these tax incentives and tie-ins and such, and we'll get back to them shortly.
Let's skip box office for a moment and go to merchandising, to make a point. On home entertainment release worldwide, there will be Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital-HD sales and rentals. Let's just use the figures for Man of Steel, which got mixed critical and audience reactions -- that film snagged perhaps $200+ million in global sales for Blu-ray and DVD alone. Digital-HD sales, plus all rentals for the film across platforms, should add at least another $100 million to the tally (these aren't precise figures in every case, I'm extrapolating and relying on other data I've seen, and using conservative estimates). So we'll go with a simple $300 million for home entertainment.
For other merchandising, Superman is worth about $277 million per year for Warner Bros. in licensing (as of 2013, so it is probably higher in the aftermath of Man of Steel and two years of buzz about Batman v Superman), with Batman bringing in another nearly $500 million in licensing. By the way, licensing is when, for example, a toy company buys the rights to make toys of these characters, and Warner/DC gets a licensing fee for that deal. (Warner says they can take an extra $150 million in annual revenue from this licensing if they can reduce Marvel's lead by 50%.)
So let's be conservative and reduce that combined $777 million in licensing for the two characters down to just a quarter of that value, to represent a sort of small shared overlapping value for the two's combined merchandising arising from this film's release. That gives us a nice, simple $500 million for all home entertainment and licensing for Batman v Superman merchandising for a year. Since the film will release in March, it will likely be available for home entertainment sometime near Christmas; sales for home entertainment are highest in the first several months of release, and since we're using conservative estimates overall, it's fair to generalize here and say from March to March we're going to guesstimate $500 million for the merchandising sales related to the film during that time.
Now take the $200 million in tie-in deals and pre-sales, and add in these other merchandising numbers, and we wind up with about $700 million. Remember, we're not discussing box office yet. For fun (or anti-fun), let's slice that number in half, on the pretense "what if things go drastically worse than expected?" (forgetting we're already using limited numbers from years ago and conservative estimates already, which suggests these figures are already on the lowest side of low). That leaves us with a worst-case, bottom-falls-out, obviously unrealistically small $350 million. Okay, put that in your back pocket for a minute, while we move on to talk about box office.
With about $400 million invested, Batman v Superman theoretically needs a worldwide box office cume in the neighborhood of $800+ million to break even. The true amount depends on how much of the receipts come from overseas versus domestic, since studios receive a smaller percentage of international box office than of North American ticket sales. But since we're using Man of Steel as a template, and since usually Batman and Superman films tend to take most of their box office in the domestic market, we'll go with a 50-50% split for now. However, if the film takes 60% of its box office overseas, then it would need to top $1 billion to break even, in theory.
I keep saying "in theory," because the truth is, it depends on who's perspective we're using. This film wasn't just paid for with cash straight out of Warner Bros.' wallet, after all. It has several production companies involved, and the financing for these films gets complicated and allows major studios to go a long way toward minimizing their own exposure. Warner itself isn't on the hook for an entire $400 million out-of-pocket investment in Batman v Superman, is the point. How much they pocket -- and when -- is where "Hollywood math" comes into play.
Without being privy to the contracts and details, we can only hazard guesses at who gets how much on what date and so on. So what we'll do for simplicity's sake is stick with the "in theory" notion that Batman v Superman needs to make about $800+ million before we start really imagining money going into the studio bank accounts, even though that's not entirely accurate and overstates Warner's position regarding how much the film has to make for that studio's position to be generally safe.
Take the $800 million figure, and subtract the $350 million ridiculously-unrealistically low figure we got earlier as the conservative lousiest-of-lousy situation for the non-box office revenue streams associated with the film. You get $450 million with that math, right? That's about how low Batman v Superman's total worldwide box office would have to be to really be in the "danger zone" for Warner, when all is said and done.
I know, I know, this is broadly speaking and there are nuances and such, and the issue of future DCU tie-in films is the larger context, but we're doing our best to keep numbers low and think worst-case, and for now we have to address this specific film itself and the associated risks, since it's from those things that the worst rumors ("the DCU is in danger!") spring. So, while different divisions account for different costs and profits, and while expectations matter and the accounting gets really tricky when it comes to claiming a loss or a profit for Hollywood studios, we are normal people having a normal conversation here, and for purposes of our guesswork and game, $450 million is a broadly generalized fair enough figure for how badly this thing would have to go to really cost WB a lot of money.
What would it take for Batman v Superman to seriously perform that badly? Let's take a close, serious, and -- most importantly -- realistic look...
Man of Steel took about $198 million worldwide on its opening weekend, and then turned that into a $668 million finally tally. So that's a final multiplier of almost 3.4x. Since we're being as gloomy and doomy as we can to make a point about how ridiculous the fears are, let's imagine what would happen if Batman v Superman had a final multiplier of only half that of Man of Steel, shall we? With a 1.74x multiplier, Batman v Superman would theoretically have to take only $260 million worldwide on opening weekend, to wind up with the nearly impossibly bad $450 million ultimate cume. That $260 million worldwide opening weekend would have to be despite day-and-date releases in the USA, Japan, and China -- three humongous markets, notice -- meaning the domestic share of that would be about $130 million in our scenario, with an equal share overseas.
This is the imaginary situation where Batman v Superman makes less than Deadpool on opening weekend, notice, and then has a patently absurdly low 1.74 final multiplier that's half that of Man of Steel. And in this crazy scenario, these terrible factors combine for the film to reach the lowest level where it erases any profitability associated with the picture. Should it manage the same multiplier as Man of Steel, or even just close to it, notice that even these overly negative figures wind up leading to box office totals north of $700 million.
Are you starting to get a better visual now of how Warner is already smartly positioned to minimize risks and make up a lot of the investment well in advance? Are you starting to understand now that the box office performance isn't some extreme "they bet everything they owned on a single roll of the dice" scenario that some folks mistakenly think and claim is transpiring?
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.
This doesn't remotely mean Warner doesn't care how the film performs at the box office, nor does it mean they won't be upset and worried if it should perform at the lowest possible levels. It just means there's a lot more nuance, positioning, and other details involved on the business end which matter, and which make this harder to pigeonhole into "it has to make X amount or the studio is in trouble/the film's a flop/someone's getting fired."
How much is the film really likely to make, though? Can we even make a reasonable guess? Of course we can, if we pay attention to history, trends, and data, and apply them appropriately.
Let me give you a comparison right off the bat (sorry, ugh) that might help you adjust your perspective a little bit. Remember 1997's feature film Batman & Robin, widely recognized as the worst Batman film of all time, one of the worst superhero movies ever made, and singlehandedly responsible for hurting the franchise (not to mention tripping up the whole comic book genre) so bad it took almost a decade for another film to be released?
Batman & Robin's box office, if adjusted for inflation and adding IMAX and 3D percentage increases, plus adjusting a bit for increased numbers of international movie screens, would rise to perhaps $500-600 million. And that's not accounting for the fact the superhero genre wasn't dominating the box office in 1997 as it does today -- this is purely taking Batman & Robin as-is, in its own context, and making the financial adjustments for what it might've taken with today's dollars, tickets, and screen counts.
Do you imagine there is seriously any situation in which it's remotely reasonable or intelligent to suggest Batman v Superman could be similar quality to, or perform as badly as, Batman & Robin? Just think about the obvious realistic answer to that question, and keep it in the back of your mind as we look at the rest of the data we have to consider.
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.
There is, then, a lot of reason to think a Man of Steel follow-up can be very successful just at face value. But for the sake of remaining conservative, let's pretend the starting point for a post-Man of Steel movie is roughly 20% lower than Man of Steel's box office performance, which is a sizable drop. That means we start off at maybe $533 million. Keep that number in hand for a second, we'll get right back to it...
What's the value of Batman? Well, his last two films both took more than $1 billion at the box office, and he's had one of the most successful overall franchises in the genre, and he's beloved by audiences and the general public worldwide now, and his merchandise is worth nearly half a billion dollars every year. But hey, it has to be good Batman to be valuable, right? Not bad quality like Batman & Robin... which, as we saw previously, is worth about $500-600 million all on its lonesome in modern pricing. Since Batman v Superman is about 50% Batman -- and that's a serious number -- let's say that putting Batman in this film and putting his name at the front of the title is worth only half of the lower-end value of Batman & Robin. Is that fair? How about if we decrease that 50% figure by another 20% of its own value, just to make sure we aren't overestimating the box office power of Batman? Fair enough now?
We're left with $200 million for Batman as a value-added, costar-with-top-billing element in this movie, which we can add to the $533 million still in hand for the value of a Man of Steel sequel, giving us $733 million. Remember, this is assuming a big decline for a sequel to what was in fact a successful film, and assuming a Batman top-billing value that's worth less than half that of the single worst Batman live-action appearance of all time. We aren't even considering whether it's good quality of not yet -- but don't worry, we will.
How about Wonder Woman? If they give us a small Wonder Woman role that's merely acceptable, what might her added value be for Batman v Superman? It's her first-ever feature film appearance, she's the most recognizable female superhero in the world, and she's starring alongside Batman and Superman. Plus, she's a fantasy character who brings magic and mythology to the mix, and that's often a valuable addition in overseas markets. I think it's entirely reasonable and fair, after all of the corners we've been cutting and the repeated resort to conservative estimates all the time so far, to say a decent Wonder Woman could add a 10% boost to Batman v Superman's box office run. But hey, I'll go with 9% just to make it a single-digit, more conservative estimate, to end up at $66 million total value worldwide for Wonder Woman, over a period of months in release.
That gets us to right at $800, the magic number, so to speak. Do we add any value for the Justice League buzz and setup? For the Flash and Aquaman cameos? For the Suicide Squad tie-in buzz? For the novelty factor of Batman fighting Superman? We could, but let's not, and we'll call that an even trade for anyone who wants to quibble over any of the figures so far in this equation. $800 million, then, is where we're at for now, with a movie suffering a sizable sequel decline, a bad Batman who only brings half the value of Batman & Robin to the proceedings, and a Wonder Woman who is merely passable as opposed to good.
We might now consider the extra value we could attach to the appearance of a brand new Batman on film. Will audiences' curiosity add more boost to Batman's value? Will a desire to see Batman again in the aftermath of the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy bring some additional box office love? Will knowledge that this year brings not one but two movies featuring Batman -- one of which has the Joker for sure, and maybe we'll see a little glimpse of him in Batman v Superman too, if we're lucky -- enhance viewer curiosity and help this picture's box office? We won't add that value in for now, since we can't really gauge it well anyway, but remember we ignored it and that this is further evidence we're sticking to realistic conservative box office estimates here, and aren't inflating the reasonable likely lower-end performance figures.
Which brings me to the film's quality, an issue that influences the box office, but also an issue that speaks to a separate controversy in the media lately. The claims that Warner is worried about Batman v Superman, that some screening feedback was negative, and so on hinges on two key premise. For those things to be true, either Warner is concerned about the quality of the film, or Warner is concerned about how audiences will perceive the quality of the film.
Does the evidence back up either premise? I don't really think so, certainly not in any way suggesting concern and worry of that sort are majority or common reactions at the studio -- which, I feel, is at the very least implied by the rumors, since it was said alongside broader rumors about Justice League possibly being postponed and about a possible future shakeup arising explicitly from an outcome in which the concerns prove to be predictive. So there's definitely an implication that the concern is more than just a couple of people whose opinions are of no consequence.
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.
Batman v Superman was written by Chris Terrio, the Academy Award winning writer of Argo (which won for Best Picture), who came aboard the project after Ben Affleck suggested he be brought in to rewrite the script. If you've not read Terrio's script for Argo, go read it (Warner has made it available online) and you'll see why there is so much confidence in his abilities. Affleck is an Oscar-winning screenwriter too, and his recent directorial work demonstrates a strong sense of recognizing good scripts and good writers. Affleck had also previously been reluctant (to put it mildly) to appear in another superhero movie, and is keenly aware that it would be a huge mistake for him to appear in a bad superhero movie. Terrio's screenplay for Batman v Superman clearly met with Affleck's approval, Terrio is a great writer, and so these points are relevant when considering the possible film quality.
Both of those films demonstrate Snyder's desire to be faithful to source material and provide serious, well-made comic book genre cinema. Man of Steel is Snyder's third comic film, and as we already discussed it was successful at the box office, got a high score from audiences, and had strong home entertainment sales. Critically, while reviews were mixed, it had overall majority positive reviews. Snyder is also responsible for the acclaimed remake of Dawn of the Dead. So the director's chair is filled by an actual fan with a track record of high-quality comic adaptations with good critical reception, who already successfully set up this DC universe on film. I freely admit I'm a fan of Snyder's filmmaking, so you can go ahead and deduct points here for bias on my part if you wish, but the points about his reputation and critical reception stand on their own.
Batman v Superman stars Ben Affleck, who came aboard and helped shape the way Batman is presented in the movie, and who might -- this is not at all confirmed, there's just circumstantial evidence to suggest it -- have at least played a minor uncredited role in helping tweak the script here or there, since as noted he's an Oscar-winning screenwriter who in recent years has taken a role in writing duties on most of his films, including working with Terrio on the Argo screenplay. Affleck's involvement matters in assessing the filmmaking precisely because he's a director and writer, because he might've had some role in assisting with writing at times, because he helped shape the new cinematic Batman, and because he has outright stated the fact he is fully conscious of how much he needs to succeed as Batman in order to protect his career.
Next, let's move away from discussing the filmmaking team to consider the overall cast. It's an awesome cast, and is full of top-notch and award-winning performers. We saw some of them already in Man of Steel and they were impressive, and this time they're more comfortable in their roles and we're seeing them in more familiar style now that the story is moving into a more established Superman world and life. And from the trailers, images, and story synopsis, it appears Henry Cavill's Superman is much more established as a version of the hero more familiar to fans and audiences, moving his already terrific portrayal from Man of Steel closer to the iconic incarnation of the comics.
Now we come to two of key pieces of information. Even among those who've heard whispers of worry at Warner, one consistent thing everybody in the press seems to have heard -- and which I've heard myself from every person I've spoken to who knows about the film and/or has seen it -- is that Batman is fantastic. Many seem to feel it could be the Batman live-action to date. We'll see if that pans out, but for now the point is Ben Affleck has by all accounts knocked it out of the ballpark. The trailers and still images seem to back that up, showing a Batman who looks and moves better than ever.
This new Batman, whom everyone says is amazing, takes up a large portion of the film. He is in fact the dominant character and perspective of the film's first half. We even see his origins, we see tragedies that befell him during his crimefighting career, we see him preparing to face a new and larger threat, and all of this takes up roughly an hour or more of the film's running time. We'll also see him facing off and fighting or Superman on a few occasions, and then teaming up with Superman and Wonder Woman against a larger evil threat. Batman v Superman, then, has a whole lot of awesome Batman in it.
Wonder Woman likewise is getting good reactions -- good enough that Warner greenlit her movie, and then put it into full production after studio executives saw Batman v Superman. Does anyone believe Warner would've moved ahead full speed with the movie Wonder Woman, if they were scared about how good her character is in Batman v Superman? Remember all the rumors we're hearing about the concern and possible delays and so on, and ask yourself what reasonable lesson we should learn from the fact Wonder Woman is already filming after the studio saw her in Batman v Superman. If there are any concerns or there's any nervousness at Warner, it's apparently not about Wonder Woman, and the admittedly limited imagery and scenes we've seen so far support the buzz that she's good in the film.
How much time is Wonder Woman in Batman v Superman? Well, she's at least in the climax, which you can assume is at least 15 minutes of the film. She's also in earlier scenes here and there, so maybe add another 5 minutes. If she's in 20 minutes of the movie, that's at least 10% of the running time.
My point with all of this "how long are they in it" discussion is that more than half of Batman v Superman consists heavily of Batman and Wonder Woman. If at least/more than half of a film is good to awesome, then it's literally impossible for most of it to be bad even if the entire other half had no redeeming value (which, for the record, nobody has claimed is the case -- the claims have been that people expressed concern or dislike in a more overall way, and about certain specific things here or there). But of course, it would be silly to think the rest would be entirely bad -- Lex Luthor gets good reactions from those who've seen the film too, as do the overall action scenes involving Superman. There is also consistent good reaction to a lot of the Daily Planet scenes. It's entirely reasonable to say at this point that more than half of the film, then, is widely considered good to very good to (in Batman's case) fabulous by pretty much everyone who's seen the film.
None of which is an argument the film factually is good, remember. We haven't seen it, so it would be absurd to try to have a debate about whether it literally is or isn't good. This is, instead, about expectations and about how much fans should let negative rumors and even possible negative reactions make them worried, and whether there is evidence of enough quality issues to think Warner is significantly concerned about the film. That's all I'm arguing here, so please keep that in mind and don't run out saying, "Mark said it's going to be great, he 'proved' it in his article," since I'm not attempting nor capable of succeeding at any such thing without seeing the film myself.
So that's all just what we've specifically heard the most about the film, the things mentioned the loudest as the best parts of the movie. There has also been plenty of positive reaction to Superman, lest you assume those who've seen it just didn't like him.
Now we can ask, in dollars and cents, what's this apparently amazing Batman worth to our box office estimates now? And what's the value of a Wonder Woman who is well-received enough to get her own movie in production? We were already at $800 million when Batman was worth half his value in Batman & Robin, so would you begrudge me adding another 12% to the total to us up to $900 million? That seems reasonable to me, since actually we all know a fantastic Batman who is in half of this movie probably already answers every question about how well it will perform at the box office. But we're taking it slow and conservative, so we're at $900 million. Now give Wonder Woman a tiny little adjustment too, along with those other positive factors we mentioned, for a little 5% bump, and we land at $945 million.
$945 million, using conservative estimates, starting at low-end numbers, ignoring the larger added value of Suicide Squad and the DCU buzz and new Batman value and so on that could provide other boosts. If you're looking for a reasonable, moderate box office prediction of where the film is likely to come in when all the worldwide box office is counted, this is where you should be looking. $900-950 million range is the realistic, serious conservative estimate if some elements are pretty good or great and others are mixed, with $800 million being a basement-level "nothing in it is very good" level of expectation that we already know isn't realistic by any honest account of the film's content or quality.
Can we just trust the buzz about how amazing Affleck's Batman is, and the other positive things we've heard? Maybe, maybe not, but here's the thing -- if we've got rumors, and some of the rumors make negative claims, then if we're going to even ask about those rumors and have a conversation about them, then yes it becomes relevant and reasonable to also consider the consistent rumors and firsthand accounts about the film that say (even according to those otherwise stating negative rumors) Batman is great and other aspects are good or pretty decent.
What this should tell you, dear readers, is that the most likely low-end underperformance range for Batman v Superman would be roughly an $800 million "break even" point, upon which the studio's actual realistic fortunes do not truly depend anyway. And that worst-case still leaves them with the earlier figure of $350 million from sources besides the box office, meaning if the film pays for itself by hitting the lowest level, they're still going to make money.
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting $800 million won't be considered underperforming, or that the studio won't mind and won't feel a need to address the problem if that happens. Clearly the studio expects and hopes for $1+ billion territory, and Batman alone should be enough to get them there if the film is good. What I'm saying is, $800 million is not remotely a disaster, and signifies huge box office and a large global audience that's one of the highest for any superhero movie in history, behind only two Avengers films, two Batman films, two Spider-Man films, and one Iron Man film. So worst case, Batman v Superman will come in as the eight biggest superhero movie ever made, in the company of some of the greatest and most successful pictures of the genre.
In the aftermath of an $800 million performance, there would be corrections made and rethinking of some planning, but actually Batman v Superman has the benefit of being followed by yet another DC movie a few months later. That film -- Suicide Squad -- is getting huge buzz, looks amazing, and features not only Batman but the Joker. The more Warner can include Suicide Squad mentions and shots of Batman fighting the Joker in the final month of marketing for Batman v Superman, the more that will help with overall branding and lift both movies at the box office. With Batman being so praised by everyone familiar with Batman v Superman, that bodes well for the impact it'll have on Suicide Squad and therefore means we shouldn't expect any negative fallout on that film even if Batman v Superman hypothetically underperforms.
More importantly, though, a strong performance for Suicide Squad and widespread awareness of Batman and the larger DCU movie tie-ins helps as a course correction for the DCU in the event Batman v Superman "only" takes $800 million.
Then comes Wonder Woman the following year in 2017. If it's good, and if the character is as good as the reactions to Batman v Superman suggest (not to mention Warner's confidence in greenlighting her project and putting it into production on time), then there won't be any serious negative fallout from an $800 million underperformance by Batman v Superman.
I want to stop and take a moment to stress something very important. I'm talking about the possible worst case scenarios and an underperformance by Batman v Superman only as a hypothetical, to show you why the hyperbolic assertions that it could flop or derail the whole DCU shouldn't really be taken very seriously. This isn't an argument claiming the film will underperform, it's an argument to show you what "underperforming" really will look like -- $800 million -- and to drive home the point that even a worst case scenario wouldn't ruin Warner's plans for other DC movies.
What the negative claims really suggest in a round about way is this: the studio thinks Superman still doesn't work on film right now, and thinks the film's tone and story are simultaneously too dark/somber and too complicated/too crowded for audiences.
Regarding Superman, if the studio felt Superman wasn't working, then that's easy enough to handle in a Justice League movie -- they can just kill him or have him otherwise disabled early in the story and then figure out what to do with him later. This sounds harsh, but I'm being straightforward and speaking bluntly about how they could address it for the short term and continue with other plans, then return to fixing Superman down the road.
If the tone is an issue, then they can simply go a little more toward the "fun" side of things as more heroes are added into the mix with Justice League. If the complexity of the story is a concern -- meaning political and social issues weighing heavily on the themes, lots of serious discussion about the nature of heroism and justice in our culture, complex nuances of the relationships and history between these characters from the comics, and too many different elements competing for time and attention in a story with a large cast of characters -- then that would seem contrary to audiences embracing all of those things in Marvel superhero films that have proven successful and popular, but regardless even so if that comes up as a problem then it could be dealt with easily in Justice League with a more action-adventure driven story and trimming the cast down if need be.
Keep in mind, Batman will be in Justice League, so his added value will add value there as well, and if he's as great as everyone thinks he is in this new iteration, then he'll remain popular regardless of whether people think other parts of Batman v Superman don't work as well. But consider this for a moment -- we've seen how much audiences actually prefer Batman movies to be more complex, to have more serious and somber tones, to be a little darker and more mature. So by having Batman in Batman v Superman, audience expectations are inherently going to adjust accordingly and make viewers more accepting of such things whereas they might not be quite as enthusiastic about such darker tones in a solo Superman movie.
If Batman v Superman retains the tone of Man of Steel or even goes darker, then, that's not a problem -- Batman's here, folks, and we all expect and enjoy a little more darkness when he's around. Meanwhile, it also mixes in a little more superhero action spectacle, so that's actually a great way to mix the broader modern expectations for the genre and the specific expectations we have for Batman.
Which is all to say, an underperforming Batman v Superman won't necessarily have issues that are hard to address and fix, and there's no reason to think the future of the DCU would really be in jeopardy, including the plans to proceed with Justice League. If Batman v Superman underperforms, Warner has other films in place to help keep things on track and to help enhance the DCU, they have overall plans that can still proceed just fine, and they have Batman and other characters who remain popular, recognizable brands. An underperformance by Batman v Superman won't be a belly-flop situation and won't wreck the DCU on film, even if it requires some adjustments here and there, so I'd strongly disagree with any speculation (which, again, is all it was in the first place, so fans shouldn't overreact to it or get too upset about it) that it would cause major changes and problems for the DCU's future.
To offer another comparison involving Marvel, look at how Marvel's development of their plans and franchises played out -- it wasn't without some stumbles and it wasn't all just a stream of blockbusters right out the gate, but their plans still came to fruition and changed the modern superhero genre. Remember that Iron Man was a hit, but then The Incredible Hulk flopped. Then Iron Man 2 was a hit but got mixed reactions from fans and critics. Then Thor performed very well without matching the success of Iron Man, followed by Captain America: The First Avenger doing fine but not blowing any doors off the box office. It was an up and down ride, then, with the very first year (2008) having both success and failure.
That was Marvel's first slate of films leading up to the phenomenal success of The Avengers, and even an occasional flop or weaker performance didn't derail their plans or undermine their confidence. The Marvel success overall, and the Marvel brand that's so powerful today, took time to build and was able to withstand bumps in the road just fine.
Look closely at Iron Man 2. That was the film that really invested heavily in bringing the whole concept of the larger MCU directly into the main plot of the films, set up S.H.I.E.L.D., and laid more groundwork for the subsequent films. Iron Man 2 was criticized by a lot of people precisely for having too much content setting up other movies, for "rushing" the shared universe idea, and for being tonally mixed. But it was still a hit, even bigger than the first Iron Man, and still enjoyed positive audience reactions even if the critical reviews were mixed but still overall mostly positive.
Notice something interesting about Iron Man 2: It's a superhero sequel about a hero's amazing power causing the world to become worried; he's called before Congress to testify and tries to reassure everyone while refusing to subordinate himself to government authority; an evil scientist hates the powerful hero and wants to destroy him; another hero dons a gray armored suit and confronts the movie's powerful hero, so they are antagonistic and battle each other, leaving the powerful hero hurt and humbled; the evil scientist unleashes a two-pronged attack, and a much larger threat created by the scientist attacks; the heroes join forces to fight the main attack; and there's a female character who seems to be a regular person, but she turns out to also be a superhero, and in the climax of the story she dons her costume and helps defeat the main villainous threat.
That's Iron Man 2, and it all sets up a larger superhero world, and the complaints were that it was too rushed and tried too much to set up other films and so on. When put in such intentionally broad terms, it mirrors a lot about Batman v Superman, right? The similarities are obvious (not in a literally direct way, I'm just noting the two have generalized things in common that make Iron Man 2 a good comparison for determining possible expectations and outcomes at the box office), as a sequel setting up future shared-world movie plans.
The point being, despite mixed reputation and being at the start of Marvel's world-building, and despite some bumps in the road, Iron Man 2 was the biggest hit of the pre-Avengers Marvel movies. If we adjust for inflation and add 3D pricing and larger international theater count on today's scale, it would easily have topped $750 million at the box office. That's before the superhero genre totally took over the box office, remember. In a post-Avengers world, Iron Man 2 would probably make far more money, and that's even though the hero still wasn't quite as big of a brand yet as Batman. Put Batman in Iron Man 2 and release it in today's superhero-dominated climate, and what would you expect for its box office? It wouldn't be remotely crazy to bump the $750 million estimate up to $900 million to $1 billion.
Not a precise apples-to-apples comparison, but it's just another example that demonstrates why there's no reason to think Batman v Superman is any any major danger of performing at a low box office level, or of Warner's future plans being derailed by anything less than pure blockbuster $1+ billion success for Batman v Superman. I think I've more than made a strong case for my points on those fronts, so let's move on to another part of the current negative rumors about the film and the future of the DCU...
In theory, despite all of those points and comparisons, could Justice League: Part 1 wind up delayed? Could The Batman release earlier than expected?
I've heard for months (and, to be honest, have privately told some trusted friends about what I heard) that the enthusiasm for Batman is so strong, Warner would love to see the solo Batman film fast tracked to release sooner rather than later. What I've heard is that 2019 is the assumed release period, but if there's any way it could possibly be ready for 2018, Warner would be willing to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. It depends on Ben Affleck's schedule, obviously, and on the scheduling for other DCU films that could overlap the timing, but if Affleck is willing and there's a way to rearrange things to get The Batman into theaters by 2018, my understanding is the money and total commitment to do it would be there from Warner's end of things.
Which is why, if Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a hit, I think The Batman has better than even odds of releasing in 2018, to capitalize on the success. But if Batman v Superman underperforms, then... well, then I think The Batman has better than even odds of releasing in 2018, as part of the studio's adjusting and tweaking of their plans. So for now, there seems to be a good chance you'll see a Batman solo movie in 2018 if the studio and Affleck can come to terms to make it happen, regardless of Batman v Superman's performance.
If that happens, production could be delayed a few weeks or even a couple of months, in theory. And that delay would almost certainly have an impact on the current November 2017 release date for Justice League: Part 1. A delay in starting production would likely mean pushing back the release date, and since it's already sitting on a late-year calendar date, that would inevitably mean Justice League would have to be moved into 2018 instead. Again, this is hypothetical, but it's worth talking about for a couple of important reasons, which I'll get to in a moment.
This means Justice League could potentially wind up delayed regardless of whether Batman v Superman underperforms or not. If an underperformance did happen, then it might make a delay more likely since making adjustments would be necessary. But as we discussed earlier, it would not require massive adjustments to the entire DCU plan, and any issues would be fairly obvious to pinpoint and directly address in a quick, blunt manner.
If Justice League: Part 1 wound up delayed, though, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. Indeed, I think it could be beneficial to the DCU plans overall, and to the staggered release schedule for these films.
In an article yesterday, I argued why the solo DCU movie Wonder Woman should move to a late-March or early-April release date in 2017, rather than remain in June where it goes head-to-head against the box office monster Transformers 5. Part of my argument includes suggesting Warner move Justice League: Part 1 to a July release date, instead of keeping it slated for November. For reasons I explain in that other article, I think July is a vastly superior release window for the Justice League movies. However, the current filming schedule for Justice League: Part 1 would make it a very tight fit to try and meet a July release. If Justice League's production were delayed at all, then a July opening becomes all but impossible. So to avoid any scheduling issues whatsoever, the best bet -- even if Justice League starts production in April of this year as planned -- might be to just move it to 2018 anyway.
Put down your sharp knives and hear me out. I know everyone has waited so long for Justice League, and fans don't want to wait any longer. But fans also want the best possible movies, and the best possible chance for those movies to succeed. Well, to that end, I argue a July release is far better for giving Justice League more time to get made and have the best possible post-production work, and to have the highest box office possible. Plus, moving to 2018 accomplishes two other things that would be good for the DCU: it gets Justice League: Part 1 into closer proximity to Justice League: Part 2, and it opens the door for (prepare for groan-worthy accidental pun) fast-tracking the Flash movie to release in 2017 instead of Justice League.
Seth Grahame-Smith is directing Flash, with his own script based on a story written by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. Work began on the script late last year, and it should be completed soon (if not done already). Which means, if Warner decided to get moving sooner on the picture, then production could begin this summer, and setting up a 2017 release. This would allow 15 months between start of filming and release, if production begins in May 2016 and the film released in July 2017. But for Flash, if they needed some extra time, then an August or September release wouldn't be bad (although it alters my preference for grabbing that July release date for the DCU, so if it's possible to meet that date then the studio should do try to do that, I feel).
This would give us two new solo DCU movies with less massive budgeting requirements (which could be good for some financial breathing room, so to speak) -- Wonder Woman and Flash -- before Justice League: Part 1 releases, and look how it changes the 2018 calendar: the late-March/early-April slot becomes empty, and Aquaman is the only DCU film for the year, sitting in July. If The Batman is fast-tracked, could Ben Affleck have it ready for an April release?
Consider Argo released just 12 months after filming began, and The Town released just a few weeks past the 12 month mark. Affleck works fast even when directing, co-writing, and starring in his films. But of course, The Batman will take a little longer due to costume changes and more effects shots. If it started production this fall, though, it could easily have 16-20 months between start of filming and release, which is more than reasonable based on Affleck's excellent track record. The script is already being written or finished, and all signs still indicate that yes, Ben Affleck will direct as well as star.
Obviously this assumes Justice League's filming schedule is arranged to allow Affleck and Ezra Miller (who plays Flash) to film their scenes for the team-up movie while also meeting the demands of their solo film shoots. But that's actually not going to be that hard to accomplish, if the studio is prepared for it (as I think they will be if it becomes necessary).
This would change 2018's line-up to look like this: The Batman in April, Justice League: Part 1 in July, and Aquaman in November or -- if Warner sees a way to make it work -- perhaps December, a couple of weeks before that year's Star Wars picture. Meanwhile, 2017 would now look like this: Wonder Woman in March/April, The Flash in July. More groundwork and foundation for the DCU and for Justice League is laid out this way, release dates improve, and there's more time to be sure Justice League is everything it should be. Again, this is regardless of how Batman v Superman performs, I would recommend this no matter how big that film opens and performs over the long haul.
So here's the thing to keep in mind, fans -- Warner already wants a Batman solo movie sooner rather than later, and you can be sure lots of people are hearing the whispering about that; and Warner knows there are possible, hypothetical reasons to delay Justice League's production just a little bit (for good reasons unrelated to Batman v Superman, but sure perhaps also to see exactly what works best and what might not work as well in that film, to be best prepared for moving ahead with Justice League).
So if there were whispers about those things already, it's possible some of that was heard and got somehow mixed into the other rumor, giving an impression that the negative reactions from some people are possibly causing discussions about changing the releases of those other films. I don't know if the speculation about postponing Justice League and moving Batman's film forward were in any way influenced by unstated additional rumors and buzz, but if so then perhaps at least part of that was due to what I'm talking about above.
Meanwhile, are there people at Warner nervous right now? Probably, and there are very simple, valid reasons for that. Batman v Superman is a huge film, a large investment, and it has the potential to be a massive hit that gets Warner into the superhero genre in a much bigger and faster way. These are important brands, worth a lot of money to the studio, and this is their first outing with them in a shared capacity. Warner executives and the filmmakers involved with Batman v Superman would have to be crazy or very drunk to not be both excited AND nervous to see how the opening weekend pans out. They have high hopes, this is the public's first introduction to a new Batman, to Wonder Woman, to Flash, to Aquaman, and to the Justice League concept. It doesn't matter what sort of reactions they've had to screenings so far, they'd still be nervous for plenty of sensible reasons.
Are there probably a few people here and there who are specifically nervous or even concerned about whether audiences like the more serious, darker approach of the DCU? Sure, there are bound to be people who wonder and ask those questions, particularly since Man of Steel got a lot of mixed reaction to the more grounded, serious approach. Are there also maybe some people who have personal tastes that lean more toward the old Christopher Reeve Superman movies, or more toward the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, or just whatever sort of preferences that make them dislike certain parts of Batman v Superman? Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's all personal taste or rumor or speculation or a combination of some/all of those three things, unrelated to the bigger picture, which is defined more by all the other stuff I've been talking about here today.
Batman v Superman will realistically probably perform at the very least in the $800+ million range, more likely in the $950+ million range. If it's really good and audiences embrace it then it will probably play to more than $1 billion. It won't "flop," and as far as offering evidence and expectations to try to predict its performance, I don't think there's any good evidence for an argument that it could flop besides essentially, "It's possible, if things go wrong and people don't like it." I think I've made a much stronger case for why a flop is unlikely, and why a performance in the $800-950 million range (or higher) is far more plausible and likely.
Warner meanwhile has lots of revenue streams and protections for their investments, and longterm plans that can be adjusted without derailing or messing up the DCU. The widespread buzz, even among people hearing negative things, is that Batman v Superman has a fantastic Batman and other good elements. Suicide Squad will bring Batman back again later this year, fighting the Joker, in a film that has tremendous positive buzz. After seeing Batman v Superman, Warner was confident enough in Wonder Woman to put her solo movie into production, something strongly suggesting they aren't too jittery or worried in any strong, widespread sense about the DCU's future. And there are perfectly normal, typical reasons for some people at a studio to be a little nervous heading into the home stretch for the release of a massive tentpole picture that will launch a ton of spinoff films.
The lesson here is, fans need to calm down, take a breath, and not let every new rumor or negative reaction get them worried, upset, or angry. We all know there are lots of rumors, gossip, and buzz from different corners and with many different opinions before films come out. Usually, what happens? The rumors are forgotten once the films release, because most of them wind up being false, exaggerated, or irrelevant. Which is why it's smart to wait for the film and judge it then, while having reasonable prior discussions about expectations based on evidence and rational analysis.
When you let negative rumors get to you, you wind up being the primary audience driving traffic to those rumors, you wind up repeating them, and you are actually spreading the rumors and stories yourself to a wider audience. It's not just the press, then, nor the people who start rumors or who repeat them, nor those who engage in personal speculation, who do the most to perpetuate rumors and stories -- fans participate in it, and are probably the most important component in how these stories and rumors spread.
If you want to read them, fine. If you want to talk about them, fine. But you shouldn't get angry and resentful at those reporting it, if you're seeking it out and spreading it to other people yourself. Read it, remember it's all rumors and speculation, and don't let it affect your own expectations and enthusiasm.
No matter how much we all argue and discuss and debate rumors and speculate about what could happen, we are five weeks from the opening of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The vast majority of the mainstream public -- the people who buy most of the tickets and will determine the fate of the film -- haven't read about the rumors and aren't endlessly discussing it. They watch trailers, they see Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they know it's a big superhero movie, and they'll show up -- influenced by only the film's marketing and perhaps a couple of conversations they had with other mainstream non-comic fans in their family or at work. There are lots of ads and merchandise tie-ins and trailers out there, and the viewership for it has been massive so far, with public awareness high.
The fate of the entire DCU won't be decided by Batman v Superman's early reviews, or by its opening weekend. And the fate of Batman v Superman won't be decided by rumors and exaggerated concerns. So let's all try a little harder to relax, remember there's plenty of reason to think the film has lots of great content and will be successful, and then wait to see the film for ourselves and how it performs.
We'll find out in five weeks. So in the meantime, if you don't like the negative rumors and you want to see more positivity, then just ignore the rumors and stop talking about them or spreading them to other people, and focus on the positives. There are lots of positives, after all, and I've certainly provided you with plenty of them to think about.
If you like this article, don't forget to check out my other piece this weekend about why Wonder Woman and Justice League: Part 1 should change release dates next year to bookend the superhero blockbuster season! Read it here now!
Box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office Mojo , Rentrak, and TheNumbers.
Follow me on Twitter, on Google+, and on Quora. Read my blog. Listen to my new Popular Opinion Podcast (POP) with Sean Gerber.
