Marvel VS DC - Movies by the numbers

[MIB41]

Here's a fun article that reveals all of the movies made by both companies and who currently has the highest collective gross between the two. It's actually closer than you might think!

http://www.zergnet.com/o/33163/1

[Earth 2 Chris]

That's pretty neat! Interesting that Superman:The Movie made more money than Batman (89). I knew Superman did very, VERY well, but I always assumed Batman did more business.

It's sad to see DC's movies rarely dipped out of the Superman and Batman franchises, while Marvel's films are all over the map...but we already knew that.

And technically, shouldn't V for Vendetta, Road to Perdition, History of Violence and The Losers be added to the DC list? Did I miss any?

Chris

[MIB41]

^^^ Good point Chris!

[ctc]

>I knew Superman did very, VERY well, but I always assumed Batman did more business.

I'm betting it did a lot more marketing-wise. The '89 Batman seemed to revolutionize the concept of movie marketing; wherein EVERY aspect was turned into a money generator. Superman kinda just happened as a movie, with relatively few direct tie-ins.

Don C.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I agree Batman did probably create the current "Hype it before it hits" marketing Hollywood enjoys now, but Superman had tons of tie-ins as well, from a lot of books, to glasses, to lunch boxes, all specifically tied to the movie, not just the comic.

Chris

[hedrap]

None of these are adjusted for inflation or pegged against price per ticket, so it's not really accurate.

For example, Superman '78 in 2013 dollars would have made - $1,679,372.05 That's a billion dollar movie compared to Avengers actual 600M.

What adjustments help show is how many more people used to go to the movies compared to today. This is why theaters and studios unpegged from inflation; so one buyer can now equal 3-4 people.

[jwyblejr]

I'm guessing they aren't counting the serials from the 40s?

[Earth 2 Chris]

^If you are counting actual features, Superman and The Mole Men would be the first true super hero feature film. Not sure why they started with Batman 66.

Chris

[huedell]

No "Salinger" Captain America on there.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^It never made it to theaters, and neither did Lundgren's "Punisher".

Chris

[Bruce Banner]

It's a shame that Lundgren's Punisher never got a theatrical release in USA... apparently it was because of New World Pictures going bankrupt.

I saw it during its UK theatrical run back in '89.

I still think it's better than the Thomas Jane version.

[huedell]

^It never made it to theaters, and neither did Lundgren's "Punisher".

Chris

It's not a great movie by any means, but it's interesting how Beatty and Cox were involved in a popular superhero movie and it still fell short of a theatrical release.