MovieChat Forums > Suicide Squad (2016) Discussion > If it makes 670 milllon ww, it could sti...

If it makes 670 milllon ww, it could still be 40 million in the red:

posted 8 years ago by gogoschka-1
195 replies | jump to latest

Edit: I'm NOT calling this film a flop, nor am I a Marvel shill who's out to bash the DCEU. This post is meant to illustrate how corporate filmmaking works. Suicide Squad not making a profit during it's theatrical run was always a calculated loss: contrary to popular belief, most megabudget productions don't turn a profit through box office performance alone, not even the ones making between 600 - 800 million dollars.

Suicide Squad’s numbers (rough estimates, but based one the numbers from films of similar size):

REVENUE (by the end of its theatrical run):
Revenue from theatrical rental
Domestic: approx. 300 million, studio gets 55% = 165 million
Foreign: approx. 370 million, studio gets 40 % = 148 million
Combined revenue (all of the above): 313 million

COSTS:
Net production budget: 175 million
Marketing/releasing costs (domestic)): 80 million (estimate based on films of similar size)
Marketing/releasing costs (abroad): 80 million (estimate based on films of similar size)
Overhead: 17.5 million
Combined costs (all of the above): 352.5 million

313 million minus 352.5 million = -39,5 million (in the red)

And that figure doesn’t even factor in participations (back end deals for Smith, Leto, Robbie, Ayer and many others).

Naturally, this product will break even in the long run through ancillary revenue, though I doubt the corporation WB belongs to will consider it a winner. The real issue in the case of this product was not the little loss it suffered (that was calculated, although the studio certainly hoped it would make more money). What really hurt was the lukewarm reception from audiences and the scathing reviews from critics, because THAT jeopardizes what products like Suicide Squad are actually made for: to generate a never-ending stream of ancillary revenue through TV rights, DVD and Bluray sales, sequels, toys, spin-offs (film and TV), TV-shows and tie-ins, video games, books and comic books, soundtracks and even theme park rides and muscials.

Now instead of just insulting me, if you doubt what I'm writing here, somebody who's much smarter than me summerizes what the actual logic behind these tentpoles is here (in case, you'd rather just insult me, though, go ahead, but at least try to be creative):

Part 1:http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/02/28/the-future-of-film-i-what-happened-to-summer-2013/

Part 2: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/01/future-of-film-ii-la-fin-du-cinema/

Part 3: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/02/future-of-film-iii-the-entertainment-as-a-service-crash/

Once you've read all this, you also realise why most of these products are declining in quality with regards to their storytelling.

The slightly more entertaining version of the above you can read here:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-blockbuster-movie-bubble-will-burst-in-2018/

and here: http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck_p2.html



"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] Necronomicon2016 8 years ago

You're delusional.

According to you, 90% of the blockbusters today are HUGE FLOPS.

THE SUPERMAN CINEMATIC UNIVERSES
http://superman-universes.blogspot.com

reply
formatting help
[–] FitandHealthyatAnyAge 8 years ago

Did you actually look into what he is saying or did you simply dismiss it out of hand with no facts or evidence to back up your opinion?

I would say considering the budget was much more than 175, SS is really screwed for a long time unless it makes 750-800, which is what WB is reportedly looking for.

Get the best Fitness and Health tips here: https://www.youtube.com/user/willmolinar

reply
formatting help
[–] Captain_Guyliner 8 years ago

the red one is in the comics in the SS there is no red in haley qinn.

Chris Evans: the original guyliner
Now I am popular on the internet

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

According to you, 90% of the blockbusters today are HUGE FLOPS.


Not 90% more like 50%. Another 20% manage to break even and another 20% generate a small profit. And around 10% generate a huge profit. But yes, a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, at least if you don't factor in merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment. Generally, those films are huge gambles which the studios can only risk because they're under the relatively safe umbrella of gigantic corporations. But if one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it could spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] QCTeamkill 8 years ago

Keep believing this and continue to scratch your head as more of these movies are made. If you really hate this franchise, good for you, but at some point, hopefully common sense kicks in and you realize maybe a studio that has existed for a century doesn't just keep hemorrhaging money for the fun of it, and is stupid enough to keep doing it.

Also, think relativity. Is it only the DCEU that fudges their numbers like this? Why not look at the studio as a whole. Wouldn't its other movies have similarly fudged numbers? If that's the case, then the DCEU is still their best franchise. And why limit the budgefudge to only WB? All the other studios must be hemorrhaging money too. Simply, look at the history on BOM of tentpoles in general. You'll see a GIANT list of movies that actually missed their budgets by tens or hundreds of millions, let alone more than quadruple its budget.

So if a movie has a WW gross that is triple to quadruple its budget is considered a money loser, consider all the movies that don't even reach their budgets, or not even make half of its budget!

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Dude, I don't hate any franchise; if anything, I hate the formulaic nature of most of these blockbusters and therefore admire what Snyder set out to do with BvS. Those numbers in the original post are very rough estimates, but they're based on the common model for all those giant blockbusters. Once you learn a little bit about how these films get made, and how little it means if such a tentpole made a billion dollars on the page, you'll understand that those numbers are pretty accurate.

So if a movie has a WW gross that is triple to quadruple its budget is considered a money loser, consider all the movies that don't even reach their budgets, or not even make half of its budget!


Those films are not flops in the traditional sense, it all depends why a film gets made and what it sets out to achieve. For films that need to start a franchise, making a big profit is less important than creating huge brand awareness and being a embraced by fans and critics. Batman Begins, Captain America I, Thor I, X-Men: First Class and Ant-Man are all good examples for this.

And yes, all those fims are so expensive to make (even more once the actors become stars with huge back end deals like R.Downey Jr) that they all only make big profits through ancillary revenue - unless they make a billion dollars. But this is corporate filmmaking: the studio is well aware they will not make a huge profit on most of those films, especially not if it's a first entry in a planned franchise.

It might sound paradoxical to most people, but the film business is responsible for such a tiny part of the overall income of the huge conglomerates the studios are part of, that despite smaller and smaller profit margins for huge tentpoles, they still can afford to make those gambles.

And while a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, it's a calculated disappointment, because a lot of money will come through merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment (which is of course the main source of revenue for all these mega-budget films). It's also about having huge market shares with a tentpole and creating brand awareness.

But in the (recently very rare) case one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it will spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games, books and comic books and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational (especially the one with Bill Mechanic, former head of studio 20th Century Fox):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html


"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] General_Haberdashery 8 years ago

Not 90% more like 50%. Another 20% manage to break even and another 20% generate a small profit. And around 10% generate a huge profit. But yes, a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, at least if you don't factor in merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment. Generally, those films are huge gambles which the studios can only risk because they're under the relatively safe umbrella of gigantic corporations. But if one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it could spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html


Yep.

Was trying to explain this earlier.
Even at 700 million this movie would be in the red by about 15 million at the least.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Yep.

Was trying to explain this earlier.
Even at 700 million this movie would be in the red by about 15 million at the least.
It's kind of hard on this board to explain anything without getting attacked by rabid fan-boys who believe you're out to bash DC. As you and I know, the corporate logic is the same behind all those tentpoles - regardless whether it's WB/DC, Disney/Marvel, Fox/Marvel or Sony/Marvel.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

No he is in the good ballpark, according to him more than 90% of the blockbuster are still in the red after their theatrical run alone.

It is simply that a lot of the revenue come after the theatrical windows, in 2015 only 30% of Warner Bros movie division revenue came from the box office.

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

I agree. People have lost their minds.

Despite almost every movie losing money (according to the amateur accountants) the industry just keeps on chugging along.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

You, my friend, need to read this (you might change your opinion and lose your mind out of solidarity with people like me). It's a bit of a lengthy read, but you'll emerge with more than a little "pseudo" knowledge about how corporate filmmaking has changed Hollywood over the last 15 years:

Part 1:http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/02/28/the-future-of-film-i-what-happened-to-summer-2013/

Part 2: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/01/future-of-film-ii-la-fin-du-cinema/

Part 3: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/02/future-of-film-iii-the-entertainment-as-a-service-crash/

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Do you have a point? It's an industry. Always has been and always will be. So what? What do I care?

What is you're trying to say? People in Hollywood have a different business model than in the past? Who cares?

You're delusional if you trust any Hollywood accounting numbers in the first place. I'm not an investor, so I'm not too worried if a movie loses money. Movies have been losing money forever, yet they just keep getting made. Return of the Jedi made $475 million on a budget of $32 million and reported a loss...that was in 1983. Somehow the film industry just keeps going.

Spielberg and Lucas are pushing the idea that movies will have to be watched at a higher price range and be geared towards services at the theatre because they have invested in that idea. They have an agenda to forward the idea that big cost tentpole movies are going to drive up the cost of watching movies because they stand to profit from it.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Do you have a point? It's an industry. Always has been and always will be. So what? What do I care?
Try reading the links before you come to conclusions, bro, and chill, life is good. 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] merh 8 years ago

They don't make movies to break even.

They make movies to make money. Breaking even or making a small profit isn't the point. WB announced this series of movies dreaming of Avengers gold, not scraping by.

Don't take life too seriously.
You'll never get out alive
-Elbert Hubbard

reply
formatting help
[–] CowherPowerForever 8 years ago

WB announced this series of movies dreaming of Avengers gold, not scraping by.


Yet, no one was predicting the high totals SS is now getting. 

This film is no doubt a smash success, and after BVS disappointed at the box office, it was much needed for WB.

You're never going to get any truth from us(the media). We'll tell you anything you want to hear.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

This film is no doubt a smash success, and after BVS disappointed at the box office, it was much needed for WB.

Now this is something you'll have to explain: how did BvS disappoint at the box office while Suicide Squad is a "smash hit" when Suicide Squad will end its box office run with 200 million less than BvS?


"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] CowherPowerForever 8 years ago

The difference is big. First off Batman v Superman had the two biggest comic book characters in the same film, and most expected the film to easily top a billion, including myself. Suicide Squad on the other hand didn't have nearly as the same big time characters compared to Batman and Superman, and was only predicted to maybe hit 500 million worldwide at best.

Not every comic book movie is slated to keep outdoing the previous, not for Marvel or DC.

You're never going to get any truth from us(the media). We'll tell you anything you want to hear.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Suicide Squad on the other hand didn't have nearly as the same big time characters compared to Batman and Superman, and was only predicted to maybe hit 500 million worldwide at best.

All I ever read before the film came out was that it would make at least as much as Guardians of the Galaxy worldwide and that it was the most highly anticipated film of the summer. Who said this film would only make 500 million?

And unlike BvS, Suicide Squad has:

-the most popular villain of all time: the Joker
-one of the biggest international stars: Will Smith
-a famous rock star and recent Oscar winner playing the Joker: Jared Leto
-a Batman cameo

That's not too bad either I'd say.


"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] QCTeamkill 8 years ago

You could convince me that maybe the budgets are that high, but again, all of these movies have similar situations. Somehow, the studios keep making money. Keep in mind that this studio isn't some singular being that has tons of cash. There are many investors and tons of people deciding where money goes and tons of people receiving money. If they're actually hemorrhaging the $$$, more than one voice will speak up. Also, this wouldn't be studio specific. Interestingly, the predictions for SS were far lower than what it's actually doing, but as it overcomes each benchmark, a new benchmark to determine its success is given.

Maybe you're right, and Hollywood, despite its existence for a century is about to go Big Short level. In that case, I commend you Dr. Christian Bale. You can gather Gosling, Carrel, and Pitt and make some bets on the demise of the movie industry. Heck, I think you might be on to something, but its certainly not a problem limited to just this one franchise that you seem to be fixated on. Wouldn't it be a general problem, and something everybody should be concerned about?

reply
formatting help
[–] MydnightRose 8 years ago

LoL another attempt to downplay the films success by IMDB accountants. This just will never cease. No matter how you try to manipulate the numbers more DC films are coming

1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Maybe you're right, and Hollywood, despite its existence for a century is about to go Big Short level. In that case, I commend you Dr. Christian Bale. You can gather Gosling, Carrel, and Pitt and make some bets on the demise of the movie industry. Heck, I think you might be on to something, but its certainly not a problem limited to just this one franchise that you seem to be fixated on. Wouldn't it be a general problem, and something everybody should be concerned about?

Believe me, your comment about those studios being on big short level is spot on: especially after 2015. Spielberg predicted this a long time ago, studios are currently making some films that have actually become "too big to fail", and over the last 5 years, around 50 films with budgets over 100 million have either underperformed or flopped badly.

But many of the ones that managed to do "only" a little more than double their net production budgets are not flops in the traditional sense; it all depends why a film gets made and what it sets out to achieve. For films that need to start a franchise, making a big profit is less important than creating huge brand awareness and being a embraced by fans and critics. Batman Begins, Captain America I, Thor I, X-Men: First Class and Ant-Man are all good examples for this.

And yes, all those fims are so expensive to make (even more once the actors become stars with huge back end deals like R.Downey Jr) that they all only make big profits through ancillary revenue - unless they make a billion dollars. But this is corporate filmmaking: the studio is well aware they will not make a huge profit on most of those films, especially not if it's a first entry in a planned franchise.

It might sound paradoxical to most people, but the film business is responsible for such a tiny part of the overall income of the huge conglomerates the studios are part of, that despite smaller and smaller profit margins for huge tentpoles, they still can afford to make those gambles.

And while a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, it's a calculated disappointment, because a lot of money will come through merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment (which is of course the main source of revenue for all these mega-budget films). It's also about having huge market shares with a tentpole and creating brand awareness.

But in the (recently very rare) case one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it will spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games, books and comic books and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational (especially the one with Bill Mechanic, former head of studio 20th Century Fox):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html



"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] jriddle73 8 years ago

WB announced this series of movies dreaming of Avengers gold, not scraping by.

The hubris of the suits as WB is fairly breathtaking. WB has an absolutely atrocious record with comic adaptations; for decades under multiple regimes, they've made one disaster after another in this area. That godawful GREEN LANTERN train-wreck they ground out was originally intended to be the first DCEU movie. With the current DCEU run, all of the behind-the-scenes reporting has made crystal clear they have no idea what they're doing. With the Wonder Woman movie, they hired five writers/writing teams and told each to write a first act, with the idea that the suits would pick what they liked--as one participant described it, throwing sh!t at a wall to see what would stick. With Aquaman, they were doing the same routine, this time with three (there may have been more since). The production of SUICIDE SQUAD, which was originally going to be a modestly budgeted feature, was allowed to spiral completely out of control until it cost 4 times that (and that's by the official budget figures, which there's reason to believe are significantly low-balled). The suits, deciding upon viewing the film they had a major problem on their hands, ordered expensive last-minute reshoots and prepared at least three distinct cuts of the movie with multiple editors.

And all the while, these same suits--the ones who so obviously don't know what they're doing--are greenlighting these incredibly expensive pictures, one after another, expecting to make AVENGERS-level money right out of the gate. BvS was a creative abortion from conception and they spent $30 million more on it than was spent on AVENGERS. JUSTICE LEAGUE's budget reportedly went over $410 million months ago, meaning it may become the most expensive movie ever made before it's completed and they have the same clown making it as ground out BvS. It boggles the mind.

---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

reply
formatting help
[–] WalterWheyt 8 years ago

product placement
toy sales
etc

reply
formatting help
[–] WalterWheyt 8 years ago

i take it you ignored it on purpose

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

i take it you ignored it on purpose

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. And I even agree with you. All I was stating in the original post is that the film will likely not make a profit during its theatrical run - but it doesn't have to. Most blockbusters don't theses days, and that - temporary - loss is absolutely calculated. All it has to do is reach a critical mass of viewers for it to serve as a platform to sell all the shît the corporation has in store for you.

It might sound paradoxical to most people, but the film business is responsible for such a tiny part of the overall income of the huge conglomerates the studios are part of, that despite smaller and smaller profit margins for huge tentpoles, they still can afford to make those gambles.

And while a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, it's a calculated disappointment, because a lot of money will come through merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment (which is of course the main source of revenue for all these mega-budget films). It's also about having huge market shares with a tentpole and creating brand awareness.

But in the (recently very rare) case one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it will spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games, books and comic books and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational (especially the one with Bill Mechanic, former head of studio 20th Century Fox):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] Petals121 8 years ago

Why do people insist on pretending they know how much movies cost? They don't. Just accept that you don't have a clue how much this movie cost and just move on.

"I will not be strong armed by threats against my laundry"

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Why do people insist on pretending they know how much movies cost? They don't. Just accept that you don't have a clue how much this movie cost and just move on

It's actually quite well known what movies cost. Follow the two links I provided in the original post and see for yourself. Also, you might want ro read what the former head of 20th Century Fox had to say:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html


"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] Petals121 8 years ago

And what is that interview supposed to prove? And no it isn't well known how much movies cost to make. You have no idea.



"I will not be strong armed by threats against my laundry"

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

And what is that interview supposed to prove?


To you probably nothing. But it's very insightful and educational.

And no it isn't well known how much movies cost to make. You have no idea.


Sigh... Sure dude, whatever.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] terminaltrip421 8 years ago

I bet these people still think scientists are lying about global warming too.




if you don't have anything nice to say ...you're probably a butthole

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

lol, yeah. But to be fair, if you haven't dived a bit into the financial side of blockbusters, you're awed upon reading a film like Suicide Squad made 500! or 600! or 700! million. And that's part of what corporate Hollywood is all about. When you read an interview with Bill Mechanic (former head of 20th Century Fox) where he admits that the studio made more monye on 'Dude, Where's my Car' than they did with 'Cast Away', a film making (on the page) 5x as much, that is very telling. But as Richard Natale, another industry insider (wrote for New York Times, Washington Post, Variety), said in an interview years ago:

"The big financial stories are the fact that tentpoles are not that profitable, ultimately. The amount of expenditure that goes into them does not make a movie very profitable anymore. And because they are subsumed within a giant corporate culture, with so many people who have to be employed and so many different fees and distribution and profit participation, there's very little profit made anymore. What you're doing is throwing big numbers at people.

The studios are very fond of something called market share. ... They want to have 20 percent of the market or more in a given year and be the number one, but that says absolutely nothing about how profitable that particular studio was. They may have released 50 movies, each of which grossed X amount and gave them a 20 percent box office share, so they sold one out of every five tickets.

But those movies were also expensive. They didn't really make any profit. And the studio that's ranked third maybe released five or 12 movies, and all of them were profitable. Therefore, they're actually the success story of that given year. It's all become about numbers. It's all become about dazzle. It's become all about sizzle, and no steak."


And this:

Frontline interviewer: It used to be that your big film would carry little ones, but now they're all big.

... If you made a little miss and a big hit, you really covered yourself. But now they're making big misses and big hits, so you can see that the profit ratio is shrinking.


It seems like such a huge gamble, and every time it gets bigger.

The gambles are bigger because they want them to be bigger. Part of the corporate culture is to create a brand name. You want to go to your bosses and say, "I can bring you "Tomb Raider," and "Tomb Raider" will be two, three, four movies. Then we can spin it off and make a TV series out of it. We have a great soundtrack. We'll sell millions in DVD. It'll be a great title for when we go to television and syndication and cable." And the gamble is part of the excitement now. So it's become really a gamble, rather than a sort of curious mixture of business and art.


"Tomb Raider" is a huge franchise, but in reality, it shrinks down to a profit for very few people.

Well, of course. But the reason for that is that they have all these other divisions to feed. So you create a "Tomb Raider" so you can make your home video division happy. You create a "Tomb Raider" so that you can make your television division happy, because maybe at one point you want to do a syndicated series or a series on the WB that's based on "Tomb Raider." So you start to create that, because you want to make all the people happy in your company. And the happier you make the people in the company, the better you look, and the more the bosses smile down upon you."









"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

You don't have any real idea. You think you do, but you don't. Don't know that Hollywood accounting is notoriously shady?

That interview proves nothing. It was some guy moaning about how hard his job is. Making movies has always been about making money...nothing has ever changed. People who invest could care less about how good a movie is, they just want money. This isn't new.

The bottom line is you thinking a movie that is going to be top ten box office for the year 2016 is going to lose money...that's just stupid.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Before calling other people stupid, you might want to consider what I actually wrote: I was always talking about this movie's theatrical performance, and the truth is, most blockbusters don't turn a profit during their theatrical run. But as I wrote, that's a calculated loss. But since you already dismissed me as stupid, maybe try to read the following written by someone who you haven't had the chance to assess yet (although, if you have a tendency to just call anyone stupid who confronts you with concepts that are new to you, don't read it; it would be a waste of the writer's talent and your time):

Part 1:http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/02/28/the-future-of-film-i-what-happened-to-summer-2013/

Part 2: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/01/future-of-film-ii-la-fin-du-cinema/

Part 3: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/02/future-of-film-iii-the-entertainment-as-a-service-crash/

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

I never called you stupid, yet you say that I did on multiple replies. What are you talking about? Your whole response is based on something I didn't say. What is that?

I don't care what you say about calculated loss. The one fact that refuse to acknowledge is that Hollywood accounting is based on a series of lies and misinformation. Losses are phony, by design. You need to realize that all of your arguments are based on lies.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding had a budget of $6 million, grossed $350 million worldwide and reported a $20 million loss. Does that seem logical to you?

Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix made $940 million and reported a $167 million loss. Does that make sense?

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

"It does not read! Why does it not read? Why can't you teach it how to read!"

- Steve Jobs on South Park

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

It's the same nonsense over and over from you. I've already read 4 or 5 of your links and they're all basically the same. Quotes from insiders who have an agenda to spread false information.

Yet another arrogant response...although maybe you're referring to yourself. You seem to ignore anything that addresses your narrow minded line of thinking.

It's clear you have no answer for how a movie that makes $350 million on a $6 million can report a $20 million loss.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

It's the same nonsense over and over from you. I've already read 4 or 5 of your links and they're all basically the same. Quotes from insiders who have an agenda to spread false information.

Yet another arrogant response...although maybe you're referring to yourself. You seem to ignore anything that addresses your narrow minded line of thinking.

It's clear you have no answer for how a movie that makes $350 million on a $6 million can report a $20 million loss.

Relax, bro. Why would I have to give you an answer for things that have already been answered years ago and are so commonly known that you can read about them on Wikipedia under "Hollywood Accounting"? Try the links I provided for you, they will help you understand what I'm talking about (provided you calm down long enough to take anything in that your read). Peace.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Again, you don't have any answers. It seems you know how to type "Hollywood Accounting" into google, so try understanding the concept.

Your links are long and boring and are entirely based on a false system of accounting...in the end who cares? What does it matter? What is the relevance to you or I if Suicide Squad makes a profit at $1 or a billion dollars? Who cares if tentpole franchises make money or lose money? What difference does it make?

You quoted Spielberg predicting the demise of cinema as we know it based on the reliance on big budget tentpole movies. Meanwhile he's producing Transformers movies, Men In Black 3, Jurassic World and the upcoming Jurassic World sequel, Gremlins 3, Indiana Jones 5. Are you kidding me? Don't forget his claims of an unsustainable system don't hurt his investment in "Screening Room" (which is $50 theatre released movies at home).

The answer as to how a movie that cost $6 million to make and grossed $350 million lost $20 million is simple. It's not true. It made lots of money in reality it only lost money on paper.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Sure, bro, anything you say. You're the expert. Peace 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

You're a clown.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago



"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] Jonathan-Doe 8 years ago

Where have you read that "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" made a loss?

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

You can find it on Wiki; it's one of the most extreme cases of the so called "Hollywood accounting" by which studios try to cheat talent (mostly actors and filmmakers) out of profits. The other famous case is the one about a Harry Potter which reported a loss after making nearly a billion at the box office.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] Jonathan-Doe 8 years ago

The Harry Potter one gets bandied about all the time. It is creative accounting. That doesn't change much of what the OP is saying though.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

LOL, yeah, I know - but tell that to MachoMan.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] JdgMoonbox 8 years ago

Forrest Gump pulled in $600 million at the box office, but the studio said it was a net loss. Stupid is as stupid does.

This picture contains no physical depiction of the Godhead.

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

The writer of the movie signed a really bad participation contract that was letting the studio put other movie released the same year lost in Gump profit calculation, they never said to Winston Groom that Forrest Gump lost money, they said that when putting other bad movie in the accounting calculation like he agreed to in is contract he was not illegible to any bonus.

Most of those story like are usually from bad contract like that and create urban legend.

https://konvexity.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/what-accounting-lesson-winston-groom-learned-from-the-movie-forrest-gump/

So he looked down at the expense items and he noticed a big expense item of $140 million. He asked them about that. They said that they haven’t named that yet but that’s a provision. He asked provision for what? They replied that provision for future bad movies. [The studio accounting allows a movie company to make a portion of the revenue of a movie and set it aside as the provision for the future bad movies.]

Winston Groom said that it’s not fair and decided to contest it in the court. The case lasted only 15 minutes. The judge took a look at the contract and asked: “Mr. Groom, is this the contract you signed?” He replied yes. The judge said: “So basically you put your faith in the hands of the accountant? Is that right?” He said: “I guess so.” The judge said: “The case dismissed. You got what you deserved.” This is what happens when you put your faith in the accounting profit.

It is a bit like the guy in the social network movie, he signed a bad contract without a lawyer/accountant reading it, that is different from a studio claiming that the movie didn't made any money (HanK and Zemeckis both knew the business and made 40 million each in bonus), that is not what they said to him.

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

My Big Fat Greek Wedding had a budget of $6 million, grossed $350 million worldwide and reported a $20 million loss. Does that seem logical to you?


Do you have source for that ?

From what I can read, it is the total revenue that were disputed:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/08/business/fi-hanks8


However, according to people familiar with the case, Gold Circle maintains that the aggregate gross receipts -- including theatrical, pay television, cable and home video -- amount to $287 million.


Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix made $940 million and reported a $167 million loss. Does that make sense?


If you are talking about that:
https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg?w=970


It is simply because the biggest source of revenue dvd profit are not on it (only VHS), maybe because they were part of a different participation bonus deal. Domestic tv revenue are also not on it.

There is a reason the line negative cost and or advance is so big, and getting bigger by around 30% of the movie gross income on that sheet, that probably contain the big bonus to the producer and Rowling(and director, writer, cast, etc...)

Heyman and JK Rowling(and even the cast that was signed a movie at a time) would have never continued with the series if WB would have tried some really big accounting tricks like that.

reply
formatting help
[–] serving_water 8 years ago

LOL.
Another self-proclaimed expert on how much movies cost to make and advertise and how box office revenue affects those numbers.

If one ever needs an example of the desperation of fanboys in their pursuit of trying convince others of their opinion, look no further.
I salute you OP.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

LOL.
Another self-proclaimed expert on how much movies cost to make and advertise and how box office revenue affects those numbers.

If one ever needs an example of the desperation of fanboys in their pursuit of trying convince others of their opinion, look no further.
I salute you OP.

Salute goes right back at you, mate. And don't worry, I'm not offended. It's totally ok for you to love the film (haven't seen it myself, but I hear some people love it). But you really shouldn't let the numbers posted in the original post have an effect on the great experience you had with this film. They're just numbers: they can't hurt you. Peace, bro 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] jerlot65 8 years ago

If this the case nobody would make big budget movies.

You have absolutely no idea what the actual total cost of this movie was. Nobody and I mean nobody, outside of a select few execs will know and they dont tell anyone else until earnings calls at shareholder meanings.

So I will just go with the fact that if a 175 million budgeted film cannot even break even at 670 million in sale then there would never be big budgeted movies ever made and 90% of thrm would fail.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

So I will just go with the fact that if a 175 million budgeted film cannot even break even at 670 million in sale then there would never be big budgeted movies ever made and 90% of thrm would fail.

Not 90% more like 50%. Another 20% manage to break even and another 20% generate a small profit. And around 10% generate a huge profit. But yes, a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, at least if you don't factor in merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment (which is of course the main source of revenue for all these mega-budget films). It's also about market shares and creating brand awareness.

Generally, those tentpoles are huge gambles which the studios can only risk because they're under the relatively safe umbrella of gigantic corporations. But if one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it could spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games, books and comic books and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational (especially the one with Bill Mechanic, former head of studio 20th Century Fox):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] NoLANIST 8 years ago

List of Flops according to OP-

The Incredible Hulk- Budget -150M
Domestic- 134M, studio gets approx 55% = 84.5M
Foreign- 128M, studio gets 40% = 49.6
Total- 134.1M
Marketing Budget- 50M(approx, It was advertised decently)
budget+marketing Total=200M
That's excluding Norton's pay of rewriting the script.

Iron Man 2- Budget 200M
Domestic- 312M, studio gets approx 55%= 171.6
Foreign- 311M, studio gets approx 40%= 125.5
Total- 297.1M
Considering Iron Man was huge hit they basically marketed this movie like crazy. Still I am gonna go with 120M (domestic+foreign).
budget+marketing- Total=320M
Still excluding RDJ's participation.


Captain America First Avenger- Budget 140M
Domestic- 176M, studio gets approx 55%= 96.8M
Foreign- 193M, studio gets approx 40%= 77.2
Total- 174M
Considering they showed loads of TV spot, trailers and posters flashing "The studio which brought you Iron Man". I am saying they spent 100M on advertising.
budget+marketing- Total=240M

Last but not least Ant-Man- Budget 130M
Domestic- 180M, studio gets approx 55%= 99M
Foreign- 234M,(Excluding China) studio gets approx 40%= 93.6M
China- 105M studio gets approx 25%= 26.5M
Total- 219.M
Considering Ant-Man also created some buzz on youtube with loads of TV Spots and trailers, not only that but also chinese trailers, posters and stuffs were promoted in china. Still I won't put absurd amount of marketing budget saying 80M domestic and 80 million foreign. But we can all agree 50-50 here too.
budget+marketing- Total- 230M



I mean damn... why are we making sequels if we are loosing money?

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

I mean damn... why are we making sequels if we are loosing money?

Those films are not flops in the traditional sense, it all depends why a film gets made and what it sets out to achieve. For films that need to start a franchise, making a big profit is less important than creating huge brand awareness and being a embraced by fans and critics. Batman Begins, Captain America I, Thor I, X-Men: First Class and Ant-Man are all good examples for this.

And yes, all those fims are so expensive to make (even more once the actors become stars with huge back end deals like R.Downey Jr) that they all only make big profits through ancillary revenue - unless they make a billion dollars. But this is corporate filmmaking: the studio is well aware they will not make a huge profit on most of those films, especially not if it's a first entry in a planned franchise.

It might sound paradoxical to most people, but the film business is responsible for such a tiny part of the overall income of the huge conglomerates the studios are part of, that despite smaller and smaller profit margins for huge tentpoles, they still can afford to make those gambles.

And while a film with a net production budget of 175 million only doing 600-700 million is a disappointment, it's a calculated disappointment, because a lot of money will come through merchandising, TV rights and home entertainment (which is of course the main source of revenue for all these mega-budget films). It's also about market shares and creating brand awareness.

But if one of those tentpole works, it creates opportunities for all the other divisions of the conglomerate for years to come (it will spawn sequels, TV/Film spin-offs, sell soundtracks, toys, inspire theme park rides, video games, books and comic books and so on).

That's the sole motivation why those films get made. It's also the reason why most of them are so bad.

Read these two interviews, they're rather educational (especially the one with Bill Mechanic, former head of studio 20th Century Fox):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/mechanic.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/interviews/natale.html

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] NoLANIST 8 years ago

Those films are not flops in the traditional sense, it all depends why a film gets made and what it sets out to achieve. For films that need to start a franchise, making a big profit is less important than creating huge brand awareness and being a embraced by fans and critics. Batman Begins, Captain America I, Thor I, X-Men: First Class and Ant-Man are all good examples for this.

Yeah But that's not point of this thread. All those movies were in red. I am sticking to the point.
And you see No Phase 1 movie was good as Batman Begins OR First Class. Those movies are classic, they picked up the collection after good word of mouth weeks after weeks, and had strong DVD and Blu Ray sales and had demand on cable. That's why BB and First Class were are rare examples, you can't mix Captain America First Avengers in it. Which wasn't that leggy or sold on that much DVDs to begin with.

And yes, all those fims are so expensive to make (even more once the actors become stars with huge back end deals like R.Downey Jr) that they all only make big profits through ancillary revenue - unless they make a billion dollars. But this is corporate filmmaking: the studio is well aware they will not make a huge profit on most of those films, especially not if it's a first entry in a planned franchise.

You do realize that also applies to DCEU.... right?

reply
formatting help
[–] terminaltrip421 8 years ago

And you see No Phase 1 movie was good as Batman Begins OR First Class. Those movies are classic
gotta love when some idiot brings opinions to a fact fight.



if you don't have anything nice to say ...you're probably a butthole

reply
formatting help
[–] NoLANIST 8 years ago

You actually think movies like Captain America First Avenger OR Thor in on par with Batman Begins or X-Men First Class regarding quality??

reply
formatting help
[–] QCTeamkill 8 years ago

What does it matter? We've been given a source from somebody who knows both the production and marketing budget ( Mark Hughes ) and sources that say the 700+ rumors aren't true. You just keep insisting on using whatever source helps paint your narrative.

Just use common sense. Suicide Squad is Warner's 2nd best grossing movie this year. As of today, it will have made more than the 3rd and 4th best movies from this studio combined, which have a listed budget far exceeding Suicide Squad's. For this studio in particular, Suicide Squad is a success. You could claim that a studio in dire straights would claim the least bad news as its best success, until you realize this studio is in second place in market share by a fare margin BASED on the success of the two films you keep painting as failures. Apparently, the second place studio is in its position mainly due to 3/4ths of it's top 4 being flops?

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Just use common sense. Suicide Squad is Warner's 2nd best grossing movie this year. As of today, it will have made more than the 3rd and 4th best movies from this studio combined, which have a listed budget far exceeding Suicide Squad's. For this studio in particular, Suicide Squad is a success. You could claim that a studio in dire straights would claim the least bad news as its best success, until you realize this studio is in second place in market share by a fare margin BASED on the success of the two films you keep painting as failures. Apparently, the second place studio is in its position mainly due to 3/4ths of it's top 4 being flops?


To be fair, if you haven't dived a bit into the financial side of blockbusters, I understand how you can be awed upon reading a film like Suicide Squad made 500! or 600! or 700! million. And that's particularly true for the market share: 15%! or 20% or even 30%!. That's part of what corporate Hollywood is all about. When you read an interview with Bill Mechanic (former head of 20th Century Fox) where he admits that the studio made more monye on 'Dude, Where's my Car' than they did with 'Cast Away', a film making (on the page) 5x as much, that is very telling. But as Richard Natale, another industry insider (wrote for New York Times, Washington Post, Variety), said in an interview years ago:

"The big financial stories are the fact that tentpoles are not that profitable, ultimately. The amount of expenditure that goes into them does not make a movie very profitable anymore. And because they are subsumed within a giant corporate culture, with so many people who have to be employed and so many different fees and distribution and profit participation, there's very little profit made anymore. What you're doing is throwing big numbers at people.

The studios are very fond of something called market share. ... They want to have 20 percent of the market or more in a given year and be the number one, but that says absolutely nothing about how profitable that particular studio was. They may have released 50 movies, each of which grossed X amount and gave them a 20 percent box office share, so they sold one out of every five tickets.

But those movies were also expensive. They didn't really make any profit. And the studio that's ranked third maybe released five or 12 movies, and all of them were profitable. Therefore, they're actually the success story of that given year. It's all become about numbers. It's all become about dazzle. It's become all about sizzle, and no steak."


And this:

Frontline interviewer: It used to be that your big film would carry little ones, but now they're all big.

... If you made a little miss and a big hit, you really covered yourself. But now they're making big misses and big hits, so you can see that the profit ratio is shrinking.


It seems like such a huge gamble, and every time it gets bigger.

The gambles are bigger because they want them to be bigger. Part of the corporate culture is to create a brand name. You want to go to your bosses and say, "I can bring you "Tomb Raider," and "Tomb Raider" will be two, three, four movies. Then we can spin it off and make a TV series out of it. We have a great soundtrack. We'll sell millions in DVD. It'll be a great title for when we go to television and syndication and cable." And the gamble is part of the excitement now. So it's become really a gamble, rather than a sort of curious mixture of business and art.


"Tomb Raider" is a huge franchise, but in reality, it shrinks down to a profit for very few people.

Well, of course. But the reason for that is that they have all these other divisions to feed. So you create a "Tomb Raider" so you can make your home video division happy. You create a "Tomb Raider" so that you can make your television division happy, because maybe at one point you want to do a syndicated series or a series on the WB that's based on "Tomb Raider." So you start to create that, because you want to make all the people happy in your company. And the happier you make the people in the company, the better you look, and the more the bosses smile down upon you."






"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

Captain America First Avenger- Budget 140M


It was a bit over 175 million:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html

Considering Ant-Man also created some buzz on youtube with loads of TV Spots and trailers, not only that but also chinese trailers, posters and stuffs were promoted in china


Apparently what studio add to what the local distributor do in promotion in China is extremely cheap, comparatively at the domestic promo.

He is not calling it a flop, simply still in the red after is theatrical release, almost all the movie ever made in the 2000's were like this.

reply
formatting help
[–] tiger86-2 8 years ago

Bullsh!t.
Horsecr@p.
Horsebull.
Bullhorse.
Bullcr@p.
Horsesh!t.
Cr@psh!t.
Sh!tcr@p.




---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Lol: you're in denial. The truth is, even a film like 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' (which made 1.4 billion at the worldwide box office), "only" generated a 382 million net profit, 370 million of which is ancillary revenue form TV rights and home entertainment. Now if a film like Age of Ultron only makes 12 million from its 1.4 billion box office gross without ancillary revenue, what do you think films like Suicide Squad and BvS make?

But don't take my word for it; there's enough Hollywood insiders and box office experts who can tell you these numbers - while by no means exact - are close enough:

https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/no._4_avengers_ultron/1?e=5873864/34394242



"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] QCTeamkill 8 years ago

Soon after BvS released and made a lot of cash, Warner announced two more movies to their slate. At the time, analysts believed this to be a sign of desperation to distract from BvS's poor legs. So, seemingly, whenever a DCEU movie approaches 300m, announcements to the future slate are made, and apparently, according to some, that's a bad sign.

reply
formatting help
[–] tiger86-2 8 years ago

No, I just find it funny that certain people keep moving the break even point up each time a movie they want to fail actually shows success. That is not how it works, sorry.




---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Whatever works for you, dude, chill. Peace 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Do you honestly believe it cost $85 million to release the film domestically? What is the $25 million in "overhead" for? Why would you believe that? The crux of the issue with you is that you believe the completely bogus production costs.

No "box office expert" would trust those numbers.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Sure bro, anything you say. You're the expert, chill. 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

It's a legit point, but that doesn't fit your narrative does it?

I asked a question. Do you really believe it cost $85 million to release the movie domestically? These are numbers you are using to try and prove a point...so tell me, do you believe that?

Also, what would $25 million in overhead be? Lots of pens? Printing ink is expensive, I'll give you that...then again, those costs are already factored in. It seems like a random number to inflate costs to me.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

It's a legit point, but that doesn't fit your narrative does it?

I asked a question. Do you really believe it cost $85 million to release the movie domestically? These are numbers you are using to try and prove a point...so tell me, do you believe that?

Also, what would $25 million in overhead be? Lots of pens? Printing ink is expensive, I'll give you that...then again, those costs are already factored in. It seems like a random number to inflate costs to me.


Well anything that "seems" something to you, as well as everything you "believe" must obvously be considered to have much more weight than what people like Bill Mechanic, Richard Natale or Amy Pascal say. By the way, the links I posted for you absolutely do mention the shady "Hollywood accounting". But shady accounting or not, not all figures sites like Deadline report are based on lies and deceptions. Some figures and calculations are well known, for a number of reasons (and with a little effort, even you can Google them). Believe it or not, but studios do have to report certain figures, because they have to pay taxes. And people like Amy Pascal do write e-mails (which, unluckily for her, tend to get hacked).

But far be it from me to dismiss your sophisticated sentiments and beliefs which are no doubt deeply rooted in even stronger beliefs and sentiments. So I'll adobt them henceforth and start preaching what you say. Your logic and your facts are simply too overwhelming.


"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Climb down from your mountain top for a moment. It's a simple question. Do you believe it actually cost $85 million to release the movie domestically?

It doesn't matter if Amy Pascal emailed me personally. I don't believe it cost $85 million to release the movie domestically. That's the point you miss over and over again. Your link showed $85 million domestically and $85 million internationally just to release it. How can you believe that?

You're good condescending insults or linking to articles. You don't seem to be able to think for yourself. You seem to be aware of Hollywood accounting, and don't deny it, yet you continue a pointless monologue about how movies are losing money.

What is your point you're trying to make?

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Climb down from your mountain top for a moment. It's a simple question. Do you believe it actually cost $85 million to release the movie domestically? It doesn't matter if Amy Pascal emailed me personally. I don't believe it cost $85 million to release the movie domestically. That's the point you miss over and over again. Your link showed $85 million domestically and $85 million internationally just to release it. How can you believe that?

I have no idea what you're talking about as I've posted no such link. And 85 million for domestic and 85 million internationally seems about 10 million too high overall. Again, learn how to read before posting angry accusations.

You're good condescending insults or linking to articles. You don't seem to be able to think for yourself. You seem to be aware of Hollywood accounting, and don't deny it, yet you continue a pointless monologue about how movies are losing money.
Lol: "pointless"- on that we agree. "Monologue"? Lol: I wish it were, as I really don't know why I even keep engaging you (hint: google the word "monologue"). Me claiming all those movies are "losing money"? That's a gross simplification and actually NOT what I said anywhere. Again: try reading even the first post and you'll learn that.
What is your point you're trying to make?

Wow: so many angry answers and you still haven't figured that out? Despite even accusing me of posting the same thing (hint: that "thing" was my point) over and over again in this thread? Ok, I'll tell you one last time (in the - probably vain - hope to give you some peace of mind).

The giant conglomerates all major studios are now part of no longer care whether their tentpoles break even or make a profit during their theatrical runs. They design their tentpoles to be global multimedia platforms for all their ancillary products, which is also the reason why they now only make tentpoles that are "franchisable".

So products like 'Suicide Squad' don't have to break even at the box office: all they have to do is reach a critical mass of viewers and guarantee x-amount of market share to fulfill their function as "ads" for all the things the corporations want to sell you later.

The real money for all those tentpoles comes in through an endless stream of ancillary revenue: TV rights, DVD and Bluray sales, sequels, toys, spin-offs, TV-shows and tie-ins, video games, books and comic books, soundtracks and even theme park rides and muscials.

When you hear "franchise", I take it you think of a series of films, but to the corporations, the actual franchise consists of all those ancillary products mentioned above, of which a film is only a small part (albeit an important one, because it has the biggest effect on the success of all the others products in the franchise). A film like Ant-Man or Suicide Squad doesn't have to be profitable in itself, as long as it helps the overall franchise to become more profitable.

Get it now?

To ensure that a film which is deemed crucial to the success of the overall franchise - like Suicide Squad or BvS - reaches that critical mass of viewers, the corporation will spend insane amounts of money (well, insane to us - to them it makes perfect sense). The films need to be huge, loud and with tons of action and expensive special effects (because those types of films will attract lots of viewers in any country) and have at least one - usually very expensive - very popular star like Jennifer Lawrence, Will Smith, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Cruise or Robert Downey Jr: all of which leads to those bloated budgets we've come to know from tentpoles. On a film like Avengers: AoU or Civil War, Downey alone will make 50 million through back end deals - and that's not "Hollywood Accounting".

And they need gigantic marketing efforts to make sure their tentpole opens as big as possible to reach that critical mass of viewers and get them enough market share during the small window of time before the NEXT blockbuster comes along or word of mouth kills it (a window which is getting smaller every year, as 2016 is living proof). In the case of Suicide Squad (and Batman vs Superman) that apparently worked.

And every once in a while, one of those tentpoles either manages to reach a certain level of quality (against all odds) or hype to gain more than the critical mass of viewers it is designed for, in which case the film will actually break even or even turn a profit during its theatrical run (which, of course, is a win-win scenario). But most of them don't: and, as I've explained above, they don't need to. It's a calculated loss, because the real money stream will follow later and ideally feed all divisons of the parent company for a long time.

Unless, of course, the film is considered to be so bad (by audiences - what critics think doesn't matter in the least) that it taints the franchise and has a negative effect on all other ancillary products. In some cases, you won't see any sequels getting made even if the films seem to have been successful at the box office - because audiences just didn't respond to them well enough ('Terminator: Genisys' would be a good example for that). A film like 'Genisys' is conisdered a "franchise killer". And it is in those cases where studios get nervous and really feel the pressure.

So BvS and SS not making a profit during their theatrical run is not the real issue - how audiences responded to them is, because that's what could have a negative effect on the prospects of the franchise as a whole.

The points about shady "Hollywood Accounting" you keep repeating like a broken record are not wrong (and they are common knowledge) but they are simply not relevant when it comes to modern tentpole filmmaking.

There: I explained my point again (just for you - despite knowing perfectly well that you won't even bother reading it). Peace.




"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

The giant conglomerates all major studios are now part of no longer care whether their tentpoles break even or make a profit during their theatrical runs. They design their tentpoles to be global multimedia platforms for all their ancillary products, which is also the reason why they now only make tentpoles that are "franchisable".


Well that almost never did for a long time now, arguably they care more now about the box office than in 2004-2006.

That said it is not a tentpoles thing, at least tentpole don't break even but do money from the theatrical run. Smaller movie almost systematically pay more to have the movie play in theater than what they get from tickets sales, it is rare for a small movie to make money from theater, let alone starting to pay production expense with it.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

That said it is not a tentpoles think, at least tentpole don't break even but do money from the theatrical run. Smaller movie almost systematically pay more to have the movie play in theater than what they get from tickets sales, it is rare for a small movie to make money from theater, let alone starting to pay production expense with it.

Very true, but even including marketing, small films like 'Don't Breathe', 'The Shallows', 'Lights Out' and similar fare only cost a fraction of a tentpole. Major studios can afford to make 5 of them with 4 of them failing: because if the 5th breaks out, the profit margin is huge. So the risk is relatively low, because the failures will also bring a little money back through ancillary revenue and will probably break even in the long run (or even turn a profit). This approach has worked well for studios: especially regarding horror films and comedies (which is why so many of them get made).

But I wanted to ask you something. I've recently stumbled over an article by the site Cracked which predicts some serious problems for tentpoles in 2018, because of the insanely crowded release schedule:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-blockbuster-movie-bubble-will-burst-in-2018/ What do you think of that? Do you think this could come true?

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-blockbuster-movie-bubble-will-burst-in-2018/ What do you think of that? Do you think this could come true?


I don't see why the industry would not gradually shift to a near 50 giant blockbuster schedule, one by weekend with almost nothing else in cineplex, it could happen and could theoretically work. Disney almost shifted exactly to that, 12 giant release a year, nothing else.

Many on that list could not happen (and probably won't), Gambit and ID 3 specially.

For the rest of that 26 movie list:
Avengers: Infinity War,
Ready Player One,
Pacific Rim 2,
Aquaman,
Toy Story 4,
Deadpool 2,
Black Panther,
The Flash,
How To Train Your Dragon 3,
Ant-Man And The Wasp,
Jurassic World 2,
The Predator,
Fifty Shades Freed,
Jungle Book: Origins,
Marry Poppins Returns,
Tomb Raider, Alita: Battle Angel,
Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 2,
The Secret Life Of Pets 2,
an animated Spider-Man movie,
Hotel Transylvania 3,
The Wolf Man,
Wreck-It Ralph 2,
the Star Wars Han Solo spinoff,
the Transformers Bumblebee spinoff,
Maze Runner: The Death Cure,
How The Grinch Stole Christmas, Gigantic

If you look at the top50 box office worldwide of 2015, you can find an equivalent release for pretty much everything in it.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Don't you think there is a danger the market will be so saturated with these franchises, that they will start eating into each other's ancillary revenue - not just the box office? There is this other article which you probably have read too, which seems rather well researched:

http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/03/02/future-of-film-iii-the-entertainment-as-a-service-crash/

What did you think of the points this analyst is making?

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

"The giant conglomerates all major studios are now part of no longer care whether their tentpoles break even or make a profit during their theatrical runs. They design their tentpoles to be global multimedia platforms for all their ancillary products, which is also the reason why they now only make tentpoles that are "franchisable"."

That's what you should have said in your OP. It's not that hard. Nobody needs your verbal diarrhea.

The numbers came from your Avengers link. I need to learn how to read? Know what it is your links say. If you seriously think 170 million is about 10 million too high (so you think it cost $160 million just to release the movie) then you're just delusional.

Your whole theory is based on nonsense. Why don't you understand that? These movies make money in the theatre. If you seriously think Suicide Squad isn't already turning a profit you're insane. It's hilarious that you're acting uppity about your opinions.

You really like that word "ancillary" don't you?

Edit: I just went back to your Avengers: Age of Ultron link and you're correct. It doesn't say it cost $85 million to release the movie internationally. I magnified the screen to see it more closely. It says it cost $95 million to release it internationally.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

 officially insane (lol)

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

How am I insane? You don't even know what your own links say.


https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/no._4_avengers_ultron/1?e=5873864/34394242

This is your link. Read it.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

lol - that's a picture of me, not you: because according to your previous post, that's what I must be (christ, you really are a bit thick, no offense).

My unsuccessful attempt at humor was alluding to this:

Your whole theory is based on nonsense. Why don't you understand that? These movies make money in the theatre. If you seriously think Suicide Squad isn't already turning a profit you're insane. It's hilarious that you're acting uppity about your opinions.


Apparently you do not only have trouble reading and understanding things, remembering what you wrote also seems to be a bit of a problem. You should probably nap more (that's what my wife advises me to do when I have some senior moments).

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

What?

Also, if you're going to call someone thick why would you say "no offense"? Clearly an offense was intended.

Again, the numbers are in your link. You've kind of lost the plot.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

I really do have lost any coherent line of thinking during this conversation with you, and I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. 85 million, then 95 million, then Avengers: just take a nap and come back when you feel refreshed. This thread is about Suicide Squad's box office as an example for how corporate filmmaking works. What you are talking about I have no idea. But that's fine. You're kind of fun (not a LOT of fun, but still fun). It's as good a means to pass the time as any. And I kinda feel the urge to get drunk now.

Cheers 

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

You're a joke. It's become obvious you're some sort of troll. You post links and then deny it? Sad.

Here's your entire post. It's obviously yours because the word ancillary is used.


Lol: you're in denial. The truth is, even a film like 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' (which made 1.4 billion at the worldwide box office), "only" generated a 382 million net profit, 370 million of which is ancillary revenue form TV rights and home entertainment. Now if a film like Age of Ultron only makes 12 million from its 1.4 billion box office gross without ancillary revenue, what do you think films like Suicide Squad and BvS make?

But don't take my word for it; there's enough Hollywood insiders and box office experts who can tell you these numbers - while by no means exact - are close enough:

https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/no._4_avengers_ultron/1?e=5873864/34394242



"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

..."only" generated a 382 million net profit, 370 million of which is ancillary revenue form TV rights and home entertainment.....Now if a film like Age of Ultron only makes 12 million from its 1.4 billion box office gross without ancillary revenue,


Some of the expense come after the theatrical windows not just the home media cost, like the residual and some part of the participation bonus, but yes with the real budget and real participation Whedon , RDJ, Feige and all the others got, maybe it was very low or no profit without the ancillary revenue.

That just show how rare it is for movies to turn a profit from theatrical alone and how that metric (that people only started this year to care about it seam) is useless, it is not like someone somewhere care much if the money is from the box office, tv or dvds.

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

You're a joke. It's become obvious you're some sort of troll. You post links and then deny it? Sad.


Lol: now this really takes the cake. And I do apologize, because now I finally get what you were referring to. But, dude: you have to learn to use quotes in your answers to people's posts; once there are several other posts between the post you're answering to and your answer, the people you address end up having no clue what you're talking about. And it doesn't help if you cite numbers wrongly (as you've admitted). What you wrote was this, and you didn't even give the name of the movie you were talking about - which is why I assumed you were referring to my estimate about Suicide Squad's domestic and foreign releasing costs:

Do you honestly believe it cost $85 million to release the film domestically? What is the $25 million in "overhead" for? Why would you believe that? The crux of the issue with you is that you believe the completely bogus production costs.

No "box office expert" would trust those numbers.


Go back to the thread where you posted this, and you'll see how hard it is to put your post in the right context, especially since you're citing the numbers wrong. And you kept referring to those numbers without ever mentioning what movie you're talking about (this is like 3 posts later):

It doesn't matter if Amy Pascal emailed me personally. I don't believe it cost $85 million to release the movie domestically. That's the point you miss over and over again. Your link showed $85 million domestically and $85 million internationally just to release it. How can you believe that?


To which I responded (because I naturally assumed it was all about my estimate in the original post where I put SS's domestic/foreign releasing costs at 80 million each - which would be 10 million lower):

I have no idea what you're talking about as I've posted no such link. And 85 million for domestic and 85 million internationally seems about 10 million too high overall. Again, learn how to read before posting angry accusations.


As for your question: those numbers posted by Deadline analysts for 'Age of Ultron' ARE calculated by box office experts who have excellent knowledge of the matter as well as many inside sources. They get to those numbers because it is well known what the costs for posting huge ads (posters), print media, online media or airing trailers are, even down to what each trailer costs during a specific air time (like cheaper mornings relative to evening "prime time" slots). They could theoretically even factor in the subtraction of costs for trailers which get "free" air time because they are aired "in house" (i.e. a 'Deadpool' being aired on a network owned by Fox).

And yes, I do believe those numbers provided by box office anlysts are pretty accurate. Not down to every penny or dollar spent, naturally, but overall they are not wrong.

But now let me ask YOU a question for once. The studio and the filmmaker have every interest to paint Suicide Squad as a winner. If there's one thing they really can't afford at this point it's that their films SS and BvS are perceived as failures. Now if they publish numbers for their budgets intentionally far too high in classic "Hollywood Accounting" fashion, they risk exactly that: the films will be perceived as failures and taint the brand - which will in turn hurt all their ancillary revenue (yes, you're right I love the word "ancillary", sue me). Why on earth would they do that?

If anything, all the numbers published by the studio will be lower than what they actually are, so the film are perceived as winners.

And btw, as poster Cornetto has pointed out correctly several times in this thread, the shady "Hollywood Accounting" mostly comes into practice in relation with specific contracts regarding a specific artist.

Anyway, mate, seems to me, you just choose to believe whatever fits your narrative: you choose to believe the studio when they claim their film is a success, and you choose to believe they are liars when they claim a film didn't make a profit during its theatrical run.

As for me, no offense, mate, but I tend to believe there is more weight to what Deadline's box office analysts say than to anything you believe.




"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Verbal diarrhea yet again. Learn how to say something in a more concise manner. Also, you're very obviously lying about not knowing what I was referring to.

Who are these "box office experts" you put so much weight behind? Just because it's reported on Deadline doesn't make it so. Like I said, Amy Pascal could show me a breakdown of production costs and I wouldn't believe it. On paper it's easy to inflate costs if that is what's desired. There is an expression that any accountant worth his salt can turn a profit into a loss.

As for your question...what a stupid question. As if it matters what the perception of a films success is. You're really reaching now. They claim it's a success because it is. They don't ever intend for you to see the accounting so it doesn't matter what they send into the IRS. It's not really supposed to be your business anyway. Your talk of "perception" is ridiculous. Do you care how a movie is perceived? I surely don't. In the end your numbers regarding Suicide Squad are all speculation because there is nothing official...talk about choosing to believe things.

The funny thing is I don't even care. You talk about choosing to believe a studio or whatever...who cares? Get a life. Get a hobby. As if I care about what a studio claims their movie makes. I initially engaged in conversation because I'm tired of all you moronic amateur accountants obsessing over box office results. Who cares?



reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Verbal diarrhea yet again. Learn how to say something in a more concise manner. Also, you're very obviously lying about not knowing what I was referring to.
As any decent person would, I stopped reading after that. Not being the smartest cookie in the jar is something you obviously can't help, but calling anything you don't understand "stupid" or "verbal diarrhea" as well as accusing the people of lying who try to be patient with you and even help you overcome your problems - that has a lot to do with manners. And bad manners I can not tolerate. So as the naughty man-child that you are, I'm putting you on ignore now. Please refrain from spamming my thread further with your angry and (and increasingly paranoid) posts, as henceforth I won't answer them.

Yours sincerly

Gogo

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

Figures. You can call me all sorts of names and that's okay, right?

Sorry your ridiculous numbers provided by "box office experts" don't do anything to help your pointless stance.

What a sad sack.

reply
formatting help
[–] Umbragom 8 years ago

Did you just realize that when somebody says "no offense" they do mean offense? That's like when somebody says "don't take this personally" they really mean the opposite.

Now, no offense and don't take this personally, but you're an asshat.

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

What are you talking about? Try and make some sense and stop trying to be clever because it isn't working.

Still haven't read the numbers in the link you posted, eh? They're there for you when you get around to it. I mean, you said they don't exist when in fact they do, so I figured you might want to check it out...

reply
formatting help
[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Still haven't read the numbers in the link you posted, eh? They're there for you when you get around to it. I mean, you said they don't exist when in fact they do, so I figured you might want to check it out...

As long as you're not hearing voices and it's just numbers that worry you, chill. They can't harm you.

"The complication had a little complication."

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

You're pretty pathetic. Have fun in your fantasy world.

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

Your link showed $85 million domestically and $85 million internationally just to release it. How can you believe that?


National tv spot cost a fortune, prime time is often above 100k for 30 second, couple of example of price:

http://adage.com/article/media/ad-pricing-chart-sunday-night-football-empire-broadcasts-most-expensive-ad-buys/300516/

A big movie, can easily buy between 3000 and 5000 national tv spot:

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7Gnw/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-trailer
Number of Versions 74
National Airings 4,668

Sucide squad:
Number of Versions 30
National Airings 4,791

If they cost an average of 12k each, suicide squad would already be at 59.65 million dollar in the US alone, from television marketing alone (domestic marketing also include all marketing cost in Canada).

TV is most of the cost, but they sometime bought time during the Superbowl or other specially costly event, trailer's before other movies in theater, ads on buses, radio, magazine, building, Internet, etc... And needed to pay a little bit to create the material and the popular songs right if the original version are used in them.

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

The cost of marketing is different...but also, if people want to talk about the conglomerate nature of entertainment let's remember that potentially the parent company is also tied into the TV channels being advertised on. It may cost a lot, but when you're paying yourself does it matter?

The $85 and $95 million costs are just to release it. Explain that (keep in mind that production companies are masters at inflating costs to keep profits low).

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

It may cost a lot, but when you're paying yourself does it matter?


It does if you could have sold the air time to someone else you loose those revenues, maybe it is a good deal tax wise and better than paying a competitor for the time, but they still have to take into account all that unsold air time as a form of cost for the movie.

The $85 and $95 million costs are just to release it. Explain that (keep in mind that production companies are masters at inflating costs to keep profits low


The releasing cost or P&A, is mostly the marketing cost I was referring too, it include prints cost(or helping theater shift to digital bonus) and some others, but it is mostly marketing.

reply
formatting help
[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

You don't lose revenues. I'm not an accountant so I don't know the ins and outs...to be honest I don't care enough anymore to try and find links for you either. If you want to believe they legitimately spent that much money and needed to recoup $180 million in advertising before even worrying about the production budget then go for it.

It also cost 80 something million to release it on DVD and bluray, it cost $70 million for "participations", whatever that is...these figures seriously seem legit to you? You have to be kidding.

Anyway, you all have fun believing fairy tales about movie budgets. Personally I'll stick to watching them.

reply
formatting help
[–] cornnetto 8 years ago

It also cost 80 something million to release it on DVD and bluray, it cost $70 million for "participations", whatever that is...these figures seriously seem legit to you? You have to be kidding.


participation is the bonus depending on the movie performance people like RDJ/Whedon/Feige/all the rest of the cast got, it seem a bit low to me.

You don't lose revenues.


If instead of selling for 10 million of airtime to people, I used it to promote my own movie, I loose that revenue opportunity.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp
An opportunity cost refers to a benefit that a person could have received, but gave up, to take another course of action.

It also cost 80 something million to release it on DVD and bluray,


Even if dvd and bluray cost much less than VHS to do, you are still making a lot of them, shipping them, it is normal that it cost a good amount of money for movie selling so much of them all around the world like an Avenger movie. That and some publicity when it get the dvd release.


these figures seriously seem legit to you?


I compared some (well 2) deadline estimate with the actual Sony accounting numbers that leaked in 2014, and they are very good. Obviously they were wrong about the movie actual production budget and participation bonus, those are secret and hard to figure, but all the rest of the numbers were in the good ballpark. They are also consistent with studio annual financial result and theater chain financial result statement.

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Gladiator II Discussion | The Substance Discussion | Red One Discussion | Heretic Discussion | Wicked Discussion | Anora Discussion | Venom: The Last Dance Discussion | Terrifier 3 Discussion | Megalopolis Discussion | The Wild Robot Discussion | Emilia Pérez Discussion | Smile 2 Discussion | Conclave Discussion | Juror #2 Discussion | Small Things Like These Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit