STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

[Belz...]

Oh, good grief. Moving on....

What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.

 

[Flake]

I think they should try for Christmas 2015 for the next movie! That would be great. No point leaving it for too long between movies again. 50th anniversary can still be celebrated some other way, like a new TV show or even a spinoff Abrams-verse movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.

Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?

Once upon a time, every suburb in Australia had a picture theatre. It was the only way for the general public to see visual news ("newsreels") and cartoons. Many of the buildings still exist today, but most got turned into supermarkets, car showrooms or office complexes in the 60s (competition of TV), McDonalds restaurants or video rental shops in the 80s. The successful suburban ones were eventually divided up into multiplexes. It would be a similar story for the US?

The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.

 

[Dart]

And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits.

This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.

I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

STID:
$190M Budget + $95M = $285M
$214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
This is with a current figure of $416M

So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic

Seems throwback wasn't clear enough but Opus is on the ball.

The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!! Personally I can't see any business being run in such a terrible way - except banks and they destroyed the economy of a lot of the western world over and over. Sad but true.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!!

The "formula" being touted is one I recall being explained by "Starlog" magazine in the early 80s, but the filmmaking world has definitely moved on from there. "Creative accounting" has hidden many costs of some films.

Home video sales are definitely not counted. A film from the 60s can be released on Blu-Ray today for its first time and that money (mostly gravy) won't get added to its old 60s totals.

I also recall discussion about "Batman Returns" in 1992. Potential licensees had been caught on the hop by the surprise blockbuster that was "Batman" (1989) - the tie-in rights had been "too cheap" - and Warner Bros made an absolute killing on the sequel by preselling the rights (to sell international spin-off merchandise rights) to lots of little promotions companies all over the world (who didn't make their money till they sold enough local rights). They sold the rights to sell the rights! As it was told to me, Warner Bros and DC Comics made enough money on this new business model that the film had theoretically already paid for itself before release. But, of course, this money sat in a different pot and wasn't "counted" in final totals. (And, of course, many once-tiny promotions companies all over the world went to the wall because they failed to sell enough rights. But Warners already had their $$$$$)

 

[Sindatur]

This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.

I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

STID:
$190M Budget + $95M = $285M
$214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
This is with a current figure of $416M

So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic

Seems throwback wasn't clear enough but Opus is on the ball.

The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!! Personally, I can't see any business being run in such a terrible way - except banks and they destroyed the economy of a lot of the western world over and over. Sad but true.

Sure, the marketing may be less than half of budget, or they get a bigger percentage of foreign box office, and maybe there is a minimum profit built into that.

But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success, if movies make those required numbers, they get sequels, if they come close but don't quite make it there needs to be a compelling reason to approve a sequel (Lucrative tie-in/toy line(s), product placements, better than expected Disk sales, or some reason that gives them faith next one will do better)

 

[throwback]

In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis)

So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.

For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.

The formula for a film is,

Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost

Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/the-cost-of-making-a-hollywood-movie/

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success...

Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.

Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?

Pretty sure.

As of 2011, there were almost 40,000 screens in the US [link].

The number of nickelodeons exceeded 10,000 by 1910, but they were in decline and being shut down by 1915 [link]. They were replaced by movie palaces, that were fewer in number but which could seat more. Movie palaces in the US in 1922 numbered only around 4,000 [link].

Interestingly, the population of the US in 1920 was one-third of what it is today [link]. That means that, in aggregate, the ratio of screens per person was approaching what it is today, until the nickelodeon market collapsed. However, the typical seating at the nickelodeons (of 50-200 people) was more limited than at the typical movie theater today (about 200).

The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.

Again, I was simply trying to help show why the straightforward metric of counting tickets alone can't serve to accurately quantify a comparison of films from different eras, as if there were any question of that to begin with. As I said, I firmly believe that taking into account multiple metrics can give a clearer picture, by providing better context for data. Analyzing the distribution of theaters is just such an exercise, one that cannot be simply glossed over without consideration of the evidence. What exactly the lay of the land is affects the quantitative measures.

I was going to avoid opening this can of worms, but since I'm here, I may as well mention this too. The question I was responding to was whether ticket sales indicate popularity. In answering, I implicitly interpreted "popularity" as "interest", even though that's not really accurate.

People can line up and buy tickets to see a film, but still come away "meh" by the whole experience. A pretty good example here might be Superman Returns. Somehow, Warner made the call that, even though there was arguably a lot of revenue generated, it wasn't really a popular enough film to spawn a sequel (they're pros after all, so they must look at things from a lot of different angles). Now that MoS appears to be rejuvenating Superman on film, maybe more people can agree now that SR was best left as the period on the end of that continuity.

Oh, good grief. Moving on....

What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.

Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:

You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!

 

[Opus]

In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis)

So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.

For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.

The formula for a film is,

Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost

Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/the-cost-of-making-a-hollywood-movie/

Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

Bullshit.

But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success...

Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.

And anyone who buys that malarkey is simply unhinged.

Worst. Accounting. EVER.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.

Some say “Lions” could lose as much as $25 million, although UA and parent company MGM won’t comment on any figures. They said that “Lions” could even be profitable once it gets into its home entertainment and television runs.

And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

The cost to make and market "Titanic" is reportedly close to $300 million. A worldwide gross of $425 million would return about $200 million to the studio, leaving $100 million to be made up by global video, television and other ancillary revenues.

And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."

And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.

 

[beamMe]

Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.

And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."

And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.

The idea that a movie's published production budget has anything to do with what that film cost in reality is simply just laughable.

 

[Dart]

Yeah most of these budgets are guesses anyway. It's a made up formula, using made up variables.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:

You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!

I'm not sure I follow you. You seemed confused as to what I wanted when I suggested going with tickets sold, so I corrected you. For some reason you insisted, so I counter-insisted. I don't care at all for how empty a single theatre want, since what I'd like to know is how many times the movie was seen in its theatrical run.

 

[Keith1701]

Yeah most of these budgets are guesses anyway. It's a made up formula, using made up variables.

Do you think STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS can go back up the top movies listing to maybe 5 or 6 this weekend instead of 8 or below?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:

You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!

I'm not sure I follow you. You seemed confused as to what I wanted when I suggested going with tickets sold, so I corrected you. For some reason you insisted, so I counter-insisted. I don't care at all for how empty a single theatre want, since what I'd like to know is how many times the movie was seen in its theatrical run.

Clearly you don't follow. So there's a record of clarity, I'll recap, but this is getting tiresome.

In post #2346, you commented on what I said in post #2345, by saying, "Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out."

What you said there in post #2346 was not only conjectural and false (for the reason I stated in post #2365), but also, it warranted my saying so, because what I said in post #2345 was, in context, in response to a very particular question from another poster, whose question I even quoted in post #2345, that was asked in post #2340.

Post #2345 wasn't about what you were talking about at all. The question in post #2340 was whether tickets sold is "the best" measure of popularity. You already indicated you knew it wasn't perfect in post #2337, where you also made it clear what you wanted to know. I don't know how it could have been any clearer.

Everything so far between you and me after that point has been in this context. Just go back and reconsider post #2345. I really don't think I'm "confused as to what [you] wanted" as you say, since I wasn't even addressing you to begin with in post #2345!

'K?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The idea that a movie's published production budget has anything to do with what that film cost in reality is simply just laughable.

The studios typically provide a budget figure to the media. That budget may or may not reflect reality. If anything the studios lowball. But the reported budget figure can be used to broadly establish how successful a film is and it can be used for purposes of figuring out whether a film has a shot at a sequel. If the worldwide gross isn't at least double the reported production budget then a direct sequel almost certainly isn't going to happen. I can only think of two films that got direct sequels despite grossing less than their reported production budgets, both Paramount releases: Star Trek: Insurrection and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and the latter was made on a reduced budget and with significant cast changes.

An outside observer obviously doesn't know the granular details of any given movie's financial position, but there's enough coverage from journalists and financial analysts that the ecomomics of the movie industry aren't a complete mystery.

 

[Belz...]

Clearly you don't follow.

Yes it's clearly my fault for not understanding my own argument.

In post #2346, you commented on what I said in post #2345, by saying, "Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out."

Yeah, again because I want to know how many tickets were sold. I don't care about tickets not sold.

What you said there in post #2346 was not only conjectural and false (for the reason I stated in post #2365), but also, it warranted my saying so, because what I said in post #2345 was, in context, in response to a very particular question from another poster, whose question I even quoted in post #2345, that was asked in post #2340.

You can be bothered to check the post numbers but not quote them ? I'm not going back and make your case for you.

Post #2345 wasn't about what you were talking about at all.

Well I guess that makes the whole discussion between us pointless, then.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

OK, so let's move on.