Speaking about the domestic Box Office, this thing is barely holding its head above The Grinch the last two days. FB isn't some serious adult drama, it's more child friendly so there isn't some big discrepancy between these two title's audiences.
shareThe box office for “The Grinch” doesn’t matter for the success of “Crimes of Grindelwald”.
What matters is the “Crimes”/FB2 box office compared with its costs.
A standard formula for box office success is for it to first be 2x the production budget to pay for that and 3x the production budget to also pay for advertising.
(One part of this formula is that the studio only gets about 1/2 of the box office money.)
- The production budget for FB2 is $200 million.
3x the production budget = $600 million box office (the studio would get about 1/2 of that which = $300 million).
- Can FB2 reach $600 million? Yes.
BB ;-)
For studios when it comes to big franchises like the HP it's more than just breaking even. When a movie that doesn't have that big of a fanbase and that's been out seven days longer finishes ahead even by a small margin that's a reason to be worried. Hopefully for WB FB2 will earn enough internationally.
shareI focus on the box office formula I mentioned.
Films that even had box office less than 3x the production budget have gotten sequels like Batman Begins, Captain America the First Avenger and Thor.
- The first hurdle is for a film’s box office to get to 2x the production budget, otherwise it’s almost always a flop. Examples of flops which killed big budget sequels; Solo and Green Lantern.
“Crimes”/FB2 is almost at $500 million box office or 2.5 the production budget.
It hasn’t been out a month yet. I’ll wait until February. By then I think the numbers will be fine.
Compared to FB1 it's performing significantly worse, over 40M behind what FB1 did at the same time domestically, internationally it isn't roses and sunshine also https://www.the-numbers.com/news/235090830-International-Box-Office-Grindelwald-Falls-But-Remains-in-First-Place
It's not a failure, but a franchise of this magnitude performing like this when we're only two movies in?
Star Wars: A New Hope, Worldwide box office: $775,398,007
The Empire Strikes Back, Worldwide box office: $538,375,067
Sequel made $237 million less.
Again, all that matters is that FB2 makes some money to keep the franchise going.
I’ve explained the formula which shows that the film needs to get to about $600 million.
I think it can get there. We’ll see.
Those were different times. If your logic was true then simply because the trend of dropping the BO numbers continued with Return of the Jedi (EpIV 775M, EpV 538M EpVI 475M) the Star Wars franchise would be dead and gone 35 years ago. Yet still it's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, franchises ever made, despite the titles that followed later with EpI etc.
share* You wrote;
“If your logic was true then simply because the trend of dropping the BO numbers continued...”
That’s not my logic. I never mentioned the 3rd or 4th film in a franchise.
- I responded to your comment about the first two films in a franchise.
That’s all that’s being discussed here; film #1 and film #2.
* You wrote;
“Compared to FB1 it's performing significantly worse, over 40M behind what FB1 did at the same time...
It's not a failure, but a franchise of this magnitude performing like this when we're only two movies in?”
- Again, pay attention to the Star Wars box office when it had only two movies in it.
* “Empire Strikes Back” made $237 million less than “A New Hope”.
Was “Empire” a failure? No.
Comparison to the previous movie means very little. What is most important is costs, box office and making a profit for each movie.
* You also wrote;
“Those were different times.”
Please, all the box office formulas I mentioned still applied in 1977 - 1980. “Empire Strikes Back” made money according to those formulas. That’s all that matters imo.
- Another example;
Spider-Man 1 worldwide box office $821.7
Spider-Man 2 worldwide box office $783.8
The sequel made about $38 million less. Doesn’t matter. Spider-Man 2 made a profit.
- One more example with the same conclusion.
Deadpool 1 $783.1 worldwide box office
Deadpool 2 $734.2 worldwide box office
The sequel was $49 million less. Yet, I’m sure the franchise will continue.
It's not the same making 50M less and making 200M less. Pay attention that's 4 (FOUR) times less. If FB2 ended its BO run with 50M less than FB1 then that wouldn't be a cause for concern. However that was 50M AT THE MOMENT, in the end the difference will be significantly bigger - not to mention that 50M was DOMESTIC ONLY whereas you're bringing Spider-Man's and Deadpool's WW numbers. Worldwide FB2 is behind FB1 by 300M, sure it will earn some money more but 100M at best though it will probably be less. FB1 was a lot better movie than FB2, the fans and the critics liked it better than FB2. Which means the difference will continue to grow as time goes by.
Speaking of your logic, the issue here is movie making enough money to keep the franchise going - your words not mine. So since you pulled SW into the argument it's reasonable to mention the titles that followed the second part. Pay attention after the second part comes the third and fourth.
You go on comparing SW with FB saying it's the same. So let's focus on only the first two parts to make you happy. First two parts of SW had a budget of 29M COMBINED. First two FBs cost 380M. You obviously have some problems with your math, that's more than 10 times bigger. Those truly were different times, as it was insane to spend 200M $ on a movie 40 years ago it silly to make a movie like that nowadays on a 11M budget.
Here's a Box Office for dummies lesson, it seems you need one: both Deadpool and Spider-Man titles were a success. Did the sequel made more than the original? No. But they both managed to cover the production budget by a hefty amount. That's not the case with FB2, it's time to wake up and smell the roses. There's plenty of sites that are bringing into question the FB's future and if they'll give up the five-part-franchise and turn it into a trilogy. You'll have a lot of trouble finding someone calling FB2 a glowing success.
Update; FB2 is now at $611 million box office. (And it will make more.)
Divide that in half (approximate studio take) = ~$305 million.
That covers the production & advertising costs.
Box office 3x + production costs in a continuing franchise almost always gets another movie.
The FB franchise will continue.
It surely won't make much more in the States, it made less than 1M this weekend. Internationally there's plenty of better more appealing movies not to mention it has been out for more than a month so it made 98% of its money already. Christmas won't give it any significant push. A movie in HP universe, written by JKR and you're arguing about it covering its budget?
We have a movie that's not that well accepted by either the critics or the audience (average rating 3.5 not that great, 61% liked it that's borderline rotten, critics' score 38%). That means this is not only the first HP universe movie that wasn't certified fresh, no it's the first that was rotten, also the least like be the audience. The situation on MC is pretty much the same. If there was more of the public's interest this would at least match FB1 but it underperformed. Rest assured the studio expected much more than what they got, they'll think twice about investing in three more movies. It's a risky business.
1. FB2 will continue to make more box office and from now on ~1/2 of box office is profit.
Why does that matter? Because franchise films that make 3x+ their production budget get sequels/prequels.
2. Professional critics scores mean nothing when the topic is “BO (box office) is dropping”.
The first 4 Transformers films were all rotten on RT.
And our personal feelings don’t about this either. I can’t stand the Transformer films. But I recognize that they made money & that they got sequels.
Why?
In terms of sequels all that matters is box office. And the formula which accurate predicts a sequel is what I’ve explained multiple times; making make 3x+ their production budget.
3. As for the studio, Warner Brothers, with this BO performance, imo they will make another Fantastic Beasts film.
WB made “Justice League” which had ~ a $300 million production budget (due to reshoots)! WB probably after streaming/disk sales just broke even with JL.
* Yet, WB didn’t give up on the DCEU. That is important in predicting what WB will do with the FB franchise.
WB released “Aquaman’. It it looks that will be a hit.
- Considering that, and with FB2 making some money in theaters and with streaming/disk sales money coming, yes WB will make another one.
Hobbit was in similar shoes as FB. It too came years after the original story ended, they were both prequels, Hobbit's story wasn't that much of a stretch compared to how poorly FB crew was mentioned in HP movies, an army of fans backing the franchise too. Hobbit had a decline, though much smaller than FB, between the sequels, and it earned significantly more WW than both FB titles. Yet still there were questions asked why was it filmed and its necessity.
It was crazy to expect LOTR numbers but still a decline in profits wasn't expected, same thins is happening now. WB can't make FB3 with the plan they have now, they will have to make some radical changes. Audience "endured" Hobbit for its three title run, there's already market saturation to some lesser extent present with FB and it still should have three more movies.
You're probably right with the multipliers, but you can't argue WB expected more from FB2 and it was a disappointment. If it was a standalone movie, or the final episode of a franchise then a movie earning +600M would be a success. But the engine is already slowing down and we're not even half way there yet. That's the problem here.
FB2 is $520m after the 3rd weekend. $80m more is a sure thing.
I'd like to know how much streaming revenues are now, and what cut the studios get. Must be the second biggest revenue.
$600m now, should make $30m over the holidays.
shareRather dark and not all that child friendly.