Gamer @ Heart
Member
Horror films don't have as a good a secondary life as other films. They do well for studios because they are cheap, but don't have the international draw or TV/plane/ondemand play that a successful romcom would.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BO 0826-2816 - Audiences Don't Breathe as Suicide Squad slips to second
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
Horror films don't have as a good a secondary life as other films. They do well for studios because they are cheap, but don't have the international draw or TV/plane/ondemand play that a successful romcom would.
I do have hard numbers backing that up actually...but I unfortunately can't share them, as conversation impeding as that is.
As for CA, that first movie had a lot to make from other sources besides the theater, and set things up for two successful sequels. And once again, I never said it was a perfect rule for all situations. Far from it.
Violence Jack
Member
Ben-Hurrying to DVD. I still don't get who would greenlight $100 million to make that shit.
I hope the success of Don't Breathe, Conjuring 2, Lights Out, and The Purge means that we're getting more wide release horror movies.
I hope the success of Don't Breathe, Conjuring 2, Lights Out, and The Purge means that we're getting more wide release horror movies.
BronsonLee
Member
If it was a shit formula to use don't fucking use it
I really don't get the anger, it's a simplification of a complex issue, I never presented it as anything else.
How convenient.
So why bring it up at all? If it's normal for superhero films to fail in theaters but make money through merchandise and media sales, there's no point in using that formula to determine a film's success. It doesn't even check out with the Thor franchise either, because the second film lost them millions.
BronsonLee
Member
Are you making fun of the way I talk now?! GET OUT OF MY HOUSE
I demand an immediate apology and a changing of your name to Gatt
I demand an immediate apology and a changing of your name to Gatt
It is an oversimplification that is not accurate. It is like saying "you put fuel in a rocket and point it towards mars" when asked what is involved with space travel.
...because we are specifically in a box office thread, talking about the box office performance of films?
I started this entire conversation by saying that SS and BvS were not bombs, just not big successes either.
CaviarMeths
Member
This is not true and hasn't been for over a decade. Several theater chains went out of business under this model, which heavily favoured studios for typically front loaded blockbusters. It's why people still think that theaters make most of their money from concessions (which is also no longer true).
I've got a decent handle on it. Enough to know that a $200m blockbuster doesn't need to make a billion dollars to "absolutely" be profitable.
I don't see any "debunking" in that article. It all seems to be his opinion, not based on any sources that would actually debunk a claim.
Seems he is basically saying he thinks people are overestimating due to Hollywood accounting that is supposed to make successes look bigger, which ignores the fact that Hollywood accounting also often doesn't publicly reveal marketing budgets and can do things to make their overblown budget look less than it actually was, for reasons of making bombs look not as bad, the inverse of why they would want things to look good.
Then tell me what's inaccurate. Seriously. Is a 3x multiplier a better rule of thumb then a 4x multiplier? Why do you think so? You could be right, I'm not discounting it.
BronsonLee
Member
I now officially hate everyone named Matt with a fervor that is rivaled only by my love for opium
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I don't know if that's true. I go back to Fox/Sony deal with Marvel (in part because those old Marvel deals are fascinating to me). Unless my math is incorrect and using the formula, we get:
XMenA: Budget 178M, BO: 541M. Loss of -85.5M
Deadpool: Budget 58M, BO: 783M. Profit of 275.5M
XMenDOFP: Budget 200M, BO: 748M. Loss of 26M
The Woverine: Budget 120M, BO 415M. Loss of 32.5M
XMen First Class: Budget 140 -160M, BO 354M. Loss of 103 - 143M
XMen Origins Wolverine: Budget 150M, BO 373M. Loss of 113.5M
XMen Last Stand: Budget 210M, BO 460M. Loss of 180M
X2: Budget 110M, BO 408M. Loss of 16M
XMen: Budget 75M, BO 296M. Loss of 2M
FF: Budget 100M, BO 331M. Loss of 34.5M
FF Rise of Silver Surfer: Budget 130M, BO 289M. Loss of 115.5M
Fan4stic: Budget 120M, BO 168M. Loss of 156M
Fox would still have to pay Marvel a fee on all those BO gross, so a bigger loss/smaller profit. Only 1 profitable movie in 16 years. Negligible to no merchandise revenue/profit. VOD, TV licensing, Blu Ray, DVD revenue/profits are all shared.
Spiderman: Budget 139M, BO 822M. Profit of 133M
Spiderman 2: Budget 200M, BO 784M. Loss of 8M
Spiderman 3: Budget 258M, BO 891M. Loss of 70.5M
Amazing spiderman: Budget 230M, BO 758M. Profit of 19M
Amazing Spiderman 2: Budget 200-293M, BO 709M. Loss of 45.5 - 231.5M
Up until 2011, Sony had to pay Marvel a fee of the BO gross and got a percentage of the merchandise deal, after that they pay no fee for the BO gross and don't get a percentage of any Spiderman merchandise. That started with Amazing Spiderman.
2 profitable movies, one possible huge loss. No merchandise revenue/profit. VOD, TV licensing, Blu Ray, DVD revenue/profits are all shared.
Looking at the numbers above, and considering that Fox and Sony would only make money off DVD/Blu Ray/VOD sales (and still have to pay a fee on each item sold), it seems like a loss venture for them and not worth it. Why would they keep pumping out movies that they are constantly losing millions on? These people didn't get rich by throwing money away.
Of course I don't think that is the case as Fox even went out of their way to rush a Fantastic Four into production just so they could keep the license.
Sorry about the formatting, did it in a hurry.
But what if I also love opium?
hydragonwarrior
Member
Not sure about everyone else, but those marketing peeps (and the people who build the trailers) know exactly what they're doing.
Which is it?
Just admit that your formula doesn't work. Run that math and you'll find that most movies are failures.
EDIT: Look, this isn't an attack on you. It's just that we see these bullshit formulas thrown around in every BO thread, especially with DC movies. The bar keeps getting higher every week too and it's goddamn tiring.
BronsonLee
Member
THEN I'M CALLING THE COPS
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I have to admit I find the "movie budget times two" for just marketing hard to believe too.
For one, that shit should really not be that expensive (why even bother when it's that expensive), but second is that most movies do make just double their budget back in their theatrical runs and those are considered successful enough to warrant sequels.
Case in point being Edge of Tomorrow getting a sequel, which I seem to recall -without checking- made only double its budget. And most sci-fi movies only do double or triple to be considered 'a success'.
So how on Earth would some random SUPERHERO movie with an already existing cultural appeal that any church is secretly jealous of NEED 250 fucking million on goddamn marketing?
And worse, who the fuck even spends money on that knowing you can just JJ Abrams a low-budget film and make a lot more profit on it, if that number were true?
I can't help but think we're being played into buying into Hollywood accounting here.
For one, that shit should really not be that expensive (why even bother when it's that expensive), but second is that most movies do make just double their budget back in their theatrical runs and those are considered successful enough to warrant sequels.
Case in point being Edge of Tomorrow getting a sequel, which I seem to recall -without checking- made only double its budget. And most sci-fi movies only do double or triple to be considered 'a success'.
So how on Earth would some random SUPERHERO movie with an already existing cultural appeal that any church is secretly jealous of NEED 250 fucking million on goddamn marketing?
And worse, who the fuck even spends money on that knowing you can just JJ Abrams a low-budget film and make a lot more profit on it, if that number were true?
I can't help but think we're being played into buying into Hollywood accounting here.
Umm, those posts don't contradict each other.
And most movies do fail to recoup their costs at the BO. That is the nature of the film industry.
Quite literally everything about it. Nobody knows the real numbers but the hollywood accountants and the execs. I wouldn't believe the Hollywood reporter "someone familiar with production" articles. I know it makes discussion here easier when we use the make believe multiply it by 2x formula but it's not accurate.
Well alright then. If three pages of solid reasoning can't change your mind, nothing will. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯Obviously one part of the problem with this method would be that the budget numbers we get are not that great. Do they include any marketing costs? Do they include reshots? Was there anything else that may have inflated the budget?
Also, looking at that all laid out I wonder if maybe super hero movies might spend less on marketing in general because of already existing cultural awareness of their ip? I have no idea.
Or maybe my rule of thumb is excessive, and overestimating costs or underestimating studio revenue.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Well alright then. ¯\_(ツ
I'm with you on questioning the formula, especially when you look at the 3rd party Marvel movies for evidence, but those posts really don't contradict each other.
FUCK!
When someone says "they are by no means successes", doesn't that mean it's not a success? Like, not even remotely close?
English isn't my native language, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh ok.
In both of those sentences I was saying that neither SS or BvS were real money makers in the theaters, just in slightly different ways.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
Since everyone's still arguing:
Chinese grosses are great for boosting those Worldwide totals to impressive numbers, but studios only take 25% of the gross from China, and ancillary revenue is like 10x lower than it is domestically (though that situation is starting to improve). $90M of domestic gross is about the same as $200M of Chinese gross, not considering any other revenue but box office. If you factor in everything else, it's probably closer to $50M domestic (or $60-75M in Europe) is as good as $200M in China.
Civil War and Age of Ultron were by far the two biggest comic films in China, and even in those cases, we are talking about another $45M and 60M going to Marvel Studios respectively (Marvel's theatre cut outside of China for those two films was about $450M for Civil War and $525-550M for Age of Ultron). As such, I think you can mostly discard China when trying to get an idea of Superhero movie success. At best, it bumps the worldwide theatre cut by 10-15% and the ancillary revenue cut by 1-2%. Often less.
Also, China has only been a significant part of worldwide superhero grosses since 2012 (with $90M+ grosses becoming frequent in 2014). Setting it aside provides an apples to apples comparison to anything released earlier.
Below is a chart of every comic book Superhero film (minus the super low budget stuff) released since the MCU started. Each film is listed alongside their worldwide gross without China inflating things, their reported budgets (some of these differ from what is listed on BOM if we got clarifying budget reports after the film was released), and their gross to budget ratios.
Suicide Squad is listed at the bottom along with an estimated final gross range based on current trajectories.
Without getting into bullshit about super high marketing above and beyond all of these other films that had ubiquitous marketing efforts as well, how can one justify Suicide Squad not being a success, given the stats on every other film in the genre? Even if the reported $175M budget was under by $50M (making the film $225M), Suicide Squad's gross to budget ratio would still be in the >3x MCU range on that low end $700M gross.
Chinese grosses are great for boosting those Worldwide totals to impressive numbers, but studios only take 25% of the gross from China, and ancillary revenue is like 10x lower than it is domestically (though that situation is starting to improve). $90M of domestic gross is about the same as $200M of Chinese gross, not considering any other revenue but box office. If you factor in everything else, it's probably closer to $50M domestic (or $60-75M in Europe) is as good as $200M in China.
Civil War and Age of Ultron were by far the two biggest comic films in China, and even in those cases, we are talking about another $45M and 60M going to Marvel Studios respectively (Marvel's theatre cut outside of China for those two films was about $450M for Civil War and $525-550M for Age of Ultron). As such, I think you can mostly discard China when trying to get an idea of Superhero movie success. At best, it bumps the worldwide theatre cut by 10-15% and the ancillary revenue cut by 1-2%. Often less.
Also, China has only been a significant part of worldwide superhero grosses since 2012 (with $90M+ grosses becoming frequent in 2014). Setting it aside provides an apples to apples comparison to anything released earlier.
Below is a chart of every comic book Superhero film (minus the super low budget stuff) released since the MCU started. Each film is listed alongside their worldwide gross without China inflating things, their reported budgets (some of these differ from what is listed on BOM if we got clarifying budget reports after the film was released), and their gross to budget ratios.
Suicide Squad is listed at the bottom along with an estimated final gross range based on current trajectories.
Code:
Title Worldwide minus China Reported Budget Gross/Budget Ratio
Avengers $1434M $220M 6.52x
Avengers: Age of Ultron $1165M $265M 4.40x
Iron Man 3 $1094M $200M 5.47x
The Dark Knight Rises $1032M $230M 4.49x
The Dark Knight $1005M $185M 5.43x
Captain America: Civil War $962M $250M 3.85x
Deadpool $783M $58M 13.5x
Batman v Superman $777M $250M 3.11x
Amazing Spider-Man $709M $230M 3.08x
Guardians of the Galaxy $677M $195M 3.47x
X-Men: Days of Future Past $632M $200M 3.16x
Iron Man 2 $616M $200M 3.08x
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 $615M $290M 2.12x
Man of Steel $605M $225M 2.69x
Captain America: The Winter Soldier $598M $170M 3.52x
Thor: The Dark World $589M $170M 3.46x
Big Hero 6 $574M $165M 3.48x
Iron Man $570M $150M 3.80x
Thor $449M $150M 2.99x
X-Men: Apocalypse $420M $178M 2.36x
Ant-Man $414M $130M 3.18x
The Wolverine $374M $120M 3.12x
X-Men Origins: Wolverine $373M $150M 2.49x
Captain America: The First Avenger $371M $140M 2.65x
X-men: First Class $354M $150M 2.36x
The Incredible Hulk $254M $150M 1.69x
Green Lantern $220M $200M 1.10x
The Green Hornet $208M $120M 1.73x
Watchmen $185M $130M 1.42x
Fantastic Four (2015) $168M $120M 1.40x
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army $158M $85M 1.86x
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence $133M $57M 2.33x
Suicide Squad $700-730M $175M 4.00-4.17xWithout getting into bullshit about super high marketing above and beyond all of these other films that had ubiquitous marketing efforts as well, how can one justify Suicide Squad not being a success, given the stats on every other film in the genre? Even if the reported $175M budget was under by $50M (making the film $225M), Suicide Squad's gross to budget ratio would still be in the >3x MCU range on that low end $700M gross.
That is an interesting post.
I actually just realized that the first person who ever told me to "just double the cost and half the gross" was, in fact, a WB exec.
I...don't know how to feel about that now.
I have a feeling you are pretty close to the matter, are you able to disclose where you work? Not a lot of people get to talk to WB execs.
I don't work in the film industry, but I have had occasion to be around people who do my whole life for various reasons.
Tentpole films have had production budget creep in the past decade. At the same time, marketing departments have become better at offsetting ad costs through product placements, co-marketing deals etc. Marvel and WB aren't spending $250-300M on ads for stuff like BvS or Civil War. Probably closer to half of that, before accounting for product placement.
The double the budget and halve the gross rule probably works better for mid budget films. Especially those that aren't expected to drive merchandise.
On the other end of the scale, for microbudget stuff under $10M, marketing can end up costing 2-10x as much as the film itself, so it's not a one size fits all rule.
The double the budget and halve the gross rule probably works better for mid budget films. Especially those that aren't expected to drive merchandise.
On the other end of the scale, for microbudget stuff under $10M, marketing can end up costing 2-10x as much as the film itself, so it's not a one size fits all rule.
I don't remember hard numbers, but I do remember emails about how ASM 2 was considered a disappointment internally, which the Marvel deal seems to have confirmed.
Here is a relevant quote from the emails I can find atm
http://gawker.com/sony-hack-reveals-25-page-list-of-reasons-it-sucks-to-w-1666264634
MIB3 budget is reported at $200M ftr.
Deadline did a breakdown for ASM2 including estimated/sourced data from DVD sales and TV deals.
http://deadline.com/2015/03/amazing-spider-man-2-profit-box-office-2014-1201389608/
They estimated it netted $70.38M profit when all is said and done.
Yep, that makes sense.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
Hell yes at Kubo passing Sausage Party. Hopefully good word of mouth gives Kubo legs.
shira
Member
Are you notentertainedamazed?
I thought that imaginary figure was now 1B? Sorry I didnt keep track.
Maybe for Suicide Squad 2 Ayers should direct the trailers
old manatee
Banned
I'm really happy that good, original horror movies are being made, and that they have been finding some success. There was a rough period there where it felt like every horror movie was either a micro budget found footage movie, or a tamed down pg13 reboot of a tired franchise.
So speaking about the actual profitability of films; there is this blog run by a producer of indiefilms (and he has written for various film related publications) that takes a look at data and statistics surrounding films. I've seen it mentioned by people whom I respect so I'm assuming that he is in the right ballpark;
How movies make money: $100m+ Hollywood blockbusters
Unfortunately the article is way too long to compress into a couple of pull quotes but I'll try to include some key points and graphs.
He also has an article just talking about profitability. Which includes this gem:
How movies make money: $100m+ Hollywood blockbusters
Unfortunately the article is way too long to compress into a couple of pull quotes but I'll try to include some key points and graphs.
He also has an article just talking about profitability. Which includes this gem:
I can't personally vouch for it being 100% accurate, but it is above the usual armchair analysis.
Box office GAF is one of my favorite communities here. I praise Swiss's work like every other day...but others kill it as well.
Informative threads with some insanely comical hyperbole sprinkled in from time to time by certain users.
I love this thread, and there's some great regulars, but these's some absolute morons.
And Bronsob.
BronsonLee
Member
BRONSOB, EH
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
What is going on in this thread?! o.o
The rule of thumb Matt is speaking about does ring true (and depends when that conversation with the WB exec happened), but belongs in a different era: the 1990's and early 2000's where marketing campaigns weren't as expensive as they are today.
Edit: kswis did goood
The rule of thumb Matt is speaking about does ring true (and depends when that conversation with the WB exec happened), but belongs in a different era: the 1990's and early 2000's where marketing campaigns weren't as expensive as they are today.
Edit: kswis did goood
Did you read this entire thread before posting that? Matt's 4 times rule isn't even close and has already been debunked... it may be 2 times but even that might not apply to big budget movies because their advertising costs are less relative to their budget.
Never-mind, I see you saw kswis's post.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked