RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates

RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings

Message

st3veebee -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 12:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 It'll eventually break in to profit. All blockbusters do. There's a really great analysis of how this sort of thing really works in The Good, The Bad & The Multiplex. Box office aside any major release like this will pocket a fortune from home video and TV rights. Yeah it ulimately will. 100 mill in its first weekend though?: none too shabby (even though poor US BO).

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 quote: ORIGINAL: Deviation It still won't be enough to pay back the marketing costs though, and it will still suffer to get its budget back. It'll eventually break in to profit. All blockbusters do. No they don't. quote: Box office aside any major release like this will pocket a fortune from home video and TV rights. No it won't. TV rights are negotiated and are dependent on how much a film makes at the box office. There won't be any big bucks TV deals for a flop like John Carter. Home video sales are also proportionate to BO gross. Even massive hits like Avatar or Harry Potter only made 25% of what they made in the cinema on home video.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:30:56 PM)
JCs box office actully went up from Friday to Saturday. So who knows how it will do in the end. Interesting to see the international numbers there.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:32:12 PM)
As for DC - this might interest you - a chart about how profitable movies are http://acatcalledfrank.com/content/filmstrips-visualisation/index.html Even something like Green Lantern still made a profit.

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 As for DC - this might interest you - a chart about how profitable movies are http://acatcalledfrank.com/content/filmstrips-visualisation/index.html Even something like Green Lantern still made a profit. That chart makes no sense at all from both a design and content point of view. Green Lantern is one of the top ten biggest money losers of all time. It lost $90 million at the box office. In no way did it turn a profit. PS. That site seems to think that the studio gets 100% of the gross. They don't. They also don't take into account marketing + distribution costs.

adambatman82 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: directorscut Green Lantern is one of the top ten biggest money losers of all time. It lost $90 million at the box office. In no way did it turn a profit. It made $219 million at the box office. It cost $200 million. Thats a profit of $19 million. And thats not including home video. Or merchandising. Or product placement/branding/endorsements.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: directorscut quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 As for DC - this might interest you - a chart about how profitable movies are http://acatcalledfrank.com/content/filmstrips-visualisation/index.html Even something like Green Lantern still made a profit. That chart makes no sense at all from both a design and content point of view. Green Lantern is one of the top ten biggest money losers of all time. It lost $90 million at the box office. In no way did it turn a profit. PS. That site seems to think that the studio gets 100% of the gross. They don't. They also don't take into account marketing + distribution costs. But likewise we don't know how much money Warners got from all the GL merch that was out there. It will be a movie which will get into profit. Pluto Mars won't ever for instance. Nor will Mars Needs Mums - but neither of those had extra profits coming in from elsewhere. Plus Lantern is a title that can be issued and re-issued in the future.

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 6:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 quote: ORIGINAL: directorscut Green Lantern is one of the top ten biggest money losers of all time. It lost $90 million at the box office. In no way did it turn a profit. It made $219 million at the box office. It cost $200 million. Thats a profit of $19 million. And thats not including home video. Or merchandising. Or product placement/branding/endorsements. You're taking the piss with me, aren't you? [:D] Ha ha. Very funny.

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 7:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: directorscut quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 As for DC - this might interest you - a chart about how profitable movies are http://acatcalledfrank.com/content/filmstrips-visualisation/index.html Even something like Green Lantern still made a profit. That chart makes no sense at all from both a design and content point of view. Green Lantern is one of the top ten biggest money losers of all time. It lost $90 million at the box office. In no way did it turn a profit. PS. That site seems to think that the studio gets 100% of the gross. They don't. They also don't take into account marketing + distribution costs. But likewise we don't know how much money Warners got from all the GL merch that was out there. It will be a movie which will get into profit. Pluto Mars won't ever for instance. Nor will Mars Needs Mums - but neither of those had extra profits coming in from elsewhere. Plus Lantern is a title that can be issued and re-issued in the future. Successful merchandise for films is an exception not a rule. The amount of films that have one that could cover the budget of the film is even fewer - ie, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Toy Story. A flop like Green Lantern most likely didn't have one and it certainly didn't generate $90 million for the studio.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 7:13:29 PM)
Warners would have sold the rights to the toys to another company, rather than do it in house, thus they make the money before even one action figure or lunchbox is sold.

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 7:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 Warners would have sold the rights to the toys to another company, rather than do it in house, thus they make the money before even one action figure or lunchbox is sold. They didn't sell the license for $90 million. [:D] Toy companies also get a bigger share of the sales. For most blockbusters the merchandise is a marketing write off. They don't expect to make much money at all, if any. It's primarily about brand exposure and if the merchandise happens to be a success that's a bonus.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (12/3/2012 7:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: directorscut quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 Warners would have sold the rights to the toys to another company, rather than do it in house, thus they make the money before even one action figure or lunchbox is sold. They didn't sell the license for $90 million. [:D] Toy companies also get a bigger share of the sales. For most blockbusters the merchandise is a marketing write off. They don't expect to make much money at all, if any. It's primarily about brand exposure and if the merchandise happens to be a success that's a bonus. Where you getting this from? And maybe not 90 million, but certainly quite a bit of dosh. Then you have to remember that a lot of marketing costs are done "in-house" so while Warners may have spent 80 million in marketing, much of that will have been paying another department. This is how they can claim the Harry Potter movies haven't been in profit yet.

spark1 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 1:08:03 PM)
but what was the actual budget for 'john carter' minus the development cost accured over years by disney?

adambatman82 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 4:12:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spark1 but what was the actual budget for 'john carter' minus the development cost accured over years by disney? I think it was $170 million. The film came in under budget too. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/andrew-stanton-john-carter-lie-over-budget-disney-reshoots-292488

Timon -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 4:26:42 PM)
I'd be interested to see this 170 minutes cut. It did feel like a lot was cut.

adambatman82 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 4:37:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Timon I'd be interested to see this 170 minutes cut. It did feel like a lot was cut. I think the film would benefit from a 90 minute cut. Get rid of all of the overly complicated background info and whatnot.

directorscut -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 5:06:17 PM)
No, it cost at least $250 million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cvkdd/Front_Row_Andrew_Stanton_William_Byrd_sports_documentaries In this interview Stanton argues with the interviewer over everything but the $250 million budget.

Darth Marenghi -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (13/3/2012 5:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spark1 but what was the actual budget for 'john carter' minus the development cost accured over years by disney? They only got the rights for Stanton in 2007 - so really the costs wouldn't be any more than is usual for that kind of a film.

spark1 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (14/3/2012 1:51:50 PM)
the history of 'john carter''s journey to the screen- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(film)#Development

spark1 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (16/3/2012 10:19:06 AM)
'john carter' may survive after all- http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/15/john-carter-losses at least it won't be as bad for disney as the mega flop of 'mars needs moms 3 d' from last year.

spark1 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (19/3/2012 10:15:57 AM)
and now 'john carter' is near the $200mil mark at international boxoffice- http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm but disney will take a bath over its underperforming- http://www.movieline.com/2012/03/19/disney-predicts-200-million-loss-on-john-carter/ http://www.mania.com/flop-or-not_article_132449.html

Rob -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:44:48 PM)
I think the press are being pretty quick to write off John Carter but the signs certainly aren't promising. Like others I've read The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex and Kermode puts forward a really interesting point in that all blockbusters eventually make their money back. I don't think that's strictly true although final figures are probably closer than people realise. Waterworld is always regarded as a flop but actually turned a profit ultimately. However, in the case of something like Green Lantern I just don't see how that can make it's money back. It cost $200 million to make and grossed $219 million at the box office and an additional $18 million on DVD giving us a rough total of approx $240 million. That doesn't mean it's $40 million profit as there were considerable marketing costs involved and of course the cinemas take rough half of the box office gross. The general rule of thumb is that a film needs to make between 2 or 3 times it's production budget back to break even. It's not an exact science but it's a useful guide. My main point though is this; if we take the guide above (2 or 3 time production budget = break even) then why on earth are Disney green lighting a $250 million budget for something like John Carter with no A-list talent, a relatively obscure character and a director who's never directed live action before? The film may be the greatest thing ever made but doesn't it seem somewhat optimistic to expect something like John Carter to make between $500 - $750 million? Anyway predictions for 2012 from me: TDKR - record breaking opening weekend and will beat TDK's overall total - I expect a larger international gross and will get help from IMAX prices and inflation. Avengers - It will certainly do well but I think it's really hard to call. Will it be respectable or massive - I think I'm leaning towards the latter.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob My main point though is this; if we take the guide above (2 or 3 time production budget = break even) then why on earth are Disney green lighting a $250 million budget for something like John Carter with no A-list talent, a relatively obscure character and a director who's never directed live action before? The film may be the greatest thing ever made but doesn't it seem somewhat optimistic to expect something like John Carter to make between $500 - $750 million? Avatar is your answer.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:47:23 PM)
As for the Dark Knight- if the final Harry Potter and the fourth Pirates can do over a billion I see no reason why this shouldn't.

Spaldron -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:50:42 PM)
May as well repost this here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200

Rob -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:51:01 PM)
Avatar - you're right. And ultimately my argument is irrelevant because they do green-light these movies hoping for Avatar level success. However, as Avatar was almost a one off then they are going to continue to be disappointed.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 4:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob Avatar - you're right. And ultimately my argument is irrelevant because they do green-light these movies hoping for Avatar level success. However, as Avatar was almost a one off then they are going to continue to be disappointed. Of course, but they saw the story that inspired Avatar, directed by the guy behind Nemo and Wall: E and after that, how could they resist? In fact Avatar kinda shows up John Carter - both are pretty easy stories, but Cameron knows how to provide the audience with information, and new names. In Carter you are thrown into the film, and face flashbacks, flashbacks to those flashbacks, flashforwards etc and so on in the first 10 minutes. Then you get all the names...

Rob -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 5:03:45 PM)
If you were the studio head would you have gone for it at that price? I know they did but it still baffles me.

UTB -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 5:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 As for the Dark Knight-� if the final Harry Potter and the fourth Pirates can do over a billion I see no reason why this shouldn't. What The Dark Knight Rises will have going for it is scope - it will no doubt be an epic 2.5 hour epic with multiple plot strains and the re-watchability of that will no doubt burst that billion mark I reckon.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: 2012 Box Office Estimates (20/3/2012 5:13:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob If you were the studio head would you have gone for it at that price? I know they did but it still baffles me. I can see why they went for it, and the film is actully not bad. Not amazing or anything - but a solid fantasy adventure film. The reason it has not done as well I think has to come down to marketing and just general interest in that type of film. You saw Prince of Persia and Cowboys and Aliens last year not do that well - John Carter is the natural extension of those two films.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.046875