MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > How much money does this need to make to...

How much money does this need to make to be a hit??

posted 8 years ago by OrdinaryDay
18 replies | jump to latest

I have read stuff online talking about how this movie has tanked, flopped bad and killed the Blair Witch franchise - nevermind that the franchise had been dead for 16 years anyway.

I don't understand why people are calling it a flop - according to Box Office Mojo - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=woods2016.htm - it has made over $21 million dollars world wide. considering that it was done on a budget of about $5 million, it has quadrupled its production costs!

sure, there was never enough interest in this movie for it to make $500 million, but a return of $21 million (so far, it is still playing in cinemas and will go up) on a budget of $5 million doesn't seem THAT bad. it is hardly Zyzzyx Road, the movie which made a grand total of $30 (that's not a typo, it made thirty dollars) at the box office!

so how much more money does this need to make to be a 'hit'?

Definition of troll on IMDb - anyone who expresses a view different to mine.

[–] pecinqa 8 years ago

Because the 5 million figure is purely production budget, there's other costs associated to films.

For example, THWP had a production budget of 60k, but the actual cost was somewhere between 500-750k. I think it would be fair add a few million on top of the 5 million production budget.

Also, the studio only sees about half of the box office, and sometimes less in foreign markets.

So, the film has seen an approximate 10 million return on a budget of over 5 million dollars.

[–] Dobbsyisonfire 8 years ago

Yep. Other costs involved, but it's still made 21 million at the box office and rising. For a 5 million cost, that's a good gross return in any business.

[–] Rob_Brown78 8 years ago

By no means does that make it a "hit" though. Profitable, maybe, but not what anyone that has any stake in it would consider a hit. It doubled, tripled, quadrupled its budget, but it was a low budget, and it's still going to be the lowest grossing installment in the series, which only really consists of ONE successful film, which was a bonafide phenomenon when it came out. I'm sure someone will chime in though and say "But if it would have opened in China, it would have made another fifty for sure!", because that's the new "It'll make so much more on DVD", which isn't a thing anymore.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

[–] gotmyorangecrush 8 years ago

Ad the 10 million that this will very likely make on Blu Ray/ DVD and you could another 5+ million for Netflix, Hulu, or other on demand sites and at the end of the day, this film will be more than profitable and will certainly extend the series eve longer.
Still Shooting With Film!

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

I wouldn't be too sure about that. It will perform under BoS and it took 15 years and a company rebrand for another installment after that. Word of mouth for this one is bad, which damages the Blair Witch name even more. Sequels are made not because of that the last film made, but what the projections for the sequel might make. Considering this one alienated a lot of people, I wouldn't bet there'll be another especially since there's not many places to go storywise.

[–] gotmyorangecrush 8 years ago

I am 100% confident on that fact. There are so many people in the world now and so many different avenues for films to make money (domestic theatre, overseas theatre, home video, tv, on demand, etc.) that it basically guarantee's small budget films like this, which carry a strong brand name behind them, will wind up becoming profitable. And the general consensus on this film is pretty much split down the middle with half of the people hating it and half liking it and that will be more than enough to make this film successful.

The funny thing is, even if this film lost money it would still wind up making money for the studio as they would just write off the losses. Thats why Hollywood rarely ever turns down these kinds of films. They know they will come out ahead in the long way, one way or the other. The people and techniques that are behind hollywod accounting are nothing short of brilliant. Of course, Hollywood is perfectly content to let people think that it wasn't profitable, including the government. That's why Hollywood inflates production figures, brain washes the public into believing that films need to make back up to 3 times its production budget before they see a profit, and other ridiculous notions concering how successful film are and need to be to become profitable.

Still Shooting With Film!

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

I don't disagree with 90% of what you said, especially Hollywood's money manipulation.

However, the cinema score for this was I believe a D+. It managed to lose money from it's first Fri to Sat with no real competition in the genre (Don't Speak had been out a long time by then). It's already been pulled from theaters all over. That's hardly split down the middle. What's more I'd point out the long time period from BoS and this flick--15 years. There doesn't seem to be a lot of push for this franchise. This movie was probably more driven because of the 90s remake boom and them trying to push out a new Big Thing since vampires and zombies and The Witch did well.

Sure, Lionsgate could turn out another, but I would not expect it, at least any time soon.

[–] gotmyorangecrush 8 years ago

The production budget was 5 million. Its already made 35 million worldwide so its already made at least 10-15 million in profit and I guarantee with 100% certainty that this film will make at least another 10-20 million on DVD/Blu Ray and its not even done at the box office yet. So when all is said and done its looking like this will make at least around 50-70 million. For a film with a 5 million dollar budget, that is more than enough to deem it a success.

Again, as I said before, given the sheer number of people on the planet, the overall size of the worldwide box office, and the number of DVD's that even lesser quality films wind up selling, films like these are literally guaranteed to be profitable. Its smaller films that have production budgets of 65-75+ million where you can really start to lose money if the film does really poorly at the box office. Films with production budgets below 25 million, especially those with big names like Blair Witch, are literally guaranteed to be profitable.

Still Shooting With Film!

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Sweet Jesus, you are naive. I repeat, again, this movie was yanked faster than Book of Shadows. Lionsgate admitted it failed with that. Tiny production budget or not, it opened wide, not tiered.

[–] gotmyorangecrush 8 years ago

It doesnt matter how fast it was yanked. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is how much money it made. The reason Lions Gate was ok pulling it so fast is becasue they knew it was already profitable at that point. Now they will move it to PPV and DVD/Blu-Ray as fast a s possible and get thier money from that segment of the industry. Hell, many of these lower budget films doen't even have to make a profit at the box office. The DVD/Blu Ray sales are considered the profit. As long as the film breaks even at the box office, the studio's are just fine with that. And you calling me niave when your suggesting a film with a budget of 5 million, which will go on to make over 40 million in profit, is a failure is really laughable at best. Thats almost 10 times the production budget. Talk about calling the kettle black, lol. All this post shows is that you know absoluely nothing about this industry and can't admit when your wrong even when its literally plain as day. Blair Witch might have come in under expectations, but it was FAR from a failure.

And this films profitability guarantee's we will see another Blair Witch somewhere down the line. As long as these films continue to have ridiculously low budgets and continue making 40+ million in profit, they will continue to pump them out every so often.

Still Shooting With Film!

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

I call you naive because you have no clue how cinema works. Firstly, 5 million is the prod. budget, not the marketing and distribution budget. All told, it probably cost around 35-40 million factoring in print costs and marketing.

Secondly, studios get, on average, 50% of the WW box office. When they want a film to break even at the BO, it's domestically. Foreign prints cost more to make and they get less of the take.

Thirdly, they yanked it because they got all the money they wanted out of it? El-OH-EL. That must be why the first one was killed so quick. Oh, wait, it ran for weeks and weeks.

While it's true home sales are where the money USED to be for films, that's not so true anymore. Piracy has taken its toll there, which is why so many films are front-loaded now. What's more, this film has horrible word of mouth and a near failing cinemascore. It is NOT going to do well on DVD.

There probably will be another BW flick eventually. It'll be straight to disc like Hellraiser sequels.

[–] Rob_Brown78 8 years ago

Again, I think people are confusing profitability with whether or not the film could be considered a hit. A movie like this doesn't get made with the goal of making back a small budget several times over. No, they wanted to make the kind of money that the original made. It was never going to lose money because it was so cheap, but it only did about 1/6 to 1/7 of what the original made nearly 20 years ago. It didn't even match what the dud of a sequel did a year later. Compared to other films in the series, or even just similar films in the genre, it is NOT a hit. This thing did "The Gallows" money on a larger budget, and no one talks about that movie at all.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

[–] Karnaige 8 years ago

it didn't do as well as they wanted but it certainly didn't make them lose any cash. they just yanked it before they did

[–] samgiannn 8 years ago

They are calling it a flop because that gets more clicks for their website. It didn't flop. The marketing was only $20M, and considering it's already made $35M, it has made a profit.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

25M by your numbers there. The studio gets 50% of gross. That means it needs 50M WW to start making a profit.

It might, *might* break even on DVD/BR. They call it a failure because it is.

Movies that are making money do not get a near 50% reduction in screens before the 3rd week.

[–] FullColor 8 years ago

Where'd you get that twenty million marketing number?

[–] samgiannn 8 years ago

http://deadline.com/2016/09/blair-witch-bridget-joness-baby-sully-box-office-preview-1201819332/

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]