Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023

[Sckathian]

12 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Iron Man and Captain America were not A-listers at all. They became it through the MCU. MCU and their actors made them A-listers. Nobody expect nerds (like me) gave a shit about them before they become popular in the MCU. 

100% I mean Captain America as a film was not a box office success. They had to build the character by sticking him with Iron Man. Iron Man itself flipped the table on depictions of superheroes. 
 

Marvel imo could run the MCU with entirely new characters. All they need is for them to have some actual engagement/interactions. That’s what made the MCU.

[scytheavatar]

30 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Iron Man and Captain America were not A-listers at all. They became it through the MCU. MCU and their actors made them A-listers. Nobody expect nerds (like me) gave a shit about them before they become popular in the MCU. 

 

Nerds giving a shit about them already makes them A listers......... problem is that they can't even get nerds to give  a shit over the current batch of characters!

[stripe]

25 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

 

A flop is a movie that loses money. If the budget is $250m without marketing and it only grosses $500m it is a flop.

 

Is 250M the real reported budget?

 

Anyways, I have always doubted that a film would need to earn twice its budget in order not to be a flop. If that were the case, many studios would have gone bankrupt long ago.

[ThomasNicole]

7 minutes ago, stripe said:

 

Is 250M the real reported budget?

 

Anyways, I have always doubted that a film would need to earn twice its budget in order not to be a flop. If that were the case, many studios would have gone bankrupt long ago.

There´s no reports about the budget, i have no idea where people see 250M but it wasn´t in a big outlet 

[kayumanggi]

 

[ChipDerby]

26 minutes ago, stripe said:

 

Is 250M the real reported budget?

 

Anyways, I have always doubted that a film would need to earn twice its budget in order not to be a flop. If that were the case, many studios would have gone bankrupt long ago.

 

Because it's not true! And anyone who claims that it is doesn't actually know anything about how movies work. In my PERSONAL opinion, I see a movie in trouble if it doesn't make back its budget Domestically. But even then, we don't ACTUALLY know the budget, just an estimate put out by the trades, or what the studios TELL us (which LOL they're not going to tell us).

 

People need to chill. Stop acting like you're all in the know and have decided how movies success is determined.

 

This film will do fine. It's going to open above $100 mil, and probably finish over $300 mil Domestic. Anything else is gravy.

[scytheavatar]

40 minutes ago, stripe said:

 

Is 250M the real reported budget?

 

Anyways, I have always doubted that a film would need to earn twice its budget in order not to be a flop. If that were the case, many studios would have gone bankrupt long ago.

 

That is why investors are not happy when their movies break even, heck why they are not happy even with 2X returns. They need their successful movies to be gigantic hits that earn several times their budget cause they need to pay for their money losing flops somehow. Hollywood would crash and burn without those movies that earn 1 billion WW in box office.

[Maggie]

Deadline reported a few days ago that it's tracking to 130M. I seuriously doubt it could go lower than, say110M. Reviews are gonna be great, so no need to worry about a last week fall. In the end it will probably do 120-130M

[Sckathian]

 

8 minutes ago, scytheavatar said:

 

That is why investors are not happy when their movies break even, heck why they are not happy even with 2X returns. They need their successful movies to be gigantic hits that earn several times their budget cause they need to pay for their money losing flops somehow. Hollywood would crash and burn without those movies that earn 1 billion WW in box office.

People underestimate the footprint required for this stuff. MCU requires a massive footprint to support its output. Fans don’t appreciate that often. MCU needs to be making hundreds of millions a film just to exist.

[RamblinRed]

8 hours ago, kayumanggi said:

I think one good thing this has going for it is that it has two weeks free of competition. FAST X is also not tracking very well so...

The issue with Fast X is less about how well that movie will do and more that it will take PLF/IMAX away.

Almost every movie we have seen recently had taken a big hit when it loses those since they account for a large percentage of the grosses.

[ThomasNicole]

love this 

 

 

 

 

[John Marston]

45 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Because it's not true! And anyone who claims that it is doesn't actually know anything about how movies work. In my PERSONAL opinion, I see a movie in trouble if it doesn't make back its budget Domestically. But even then, we don't ACTUALLY know the budget, just an estimate put out by the trades, or what the studios TELL us (which LOL they're not going to tell us).

 

People need to chill. Stop acting like you're all in the know and have decided how movies success is determined.

 

This film will do fine. It's going to open above $100 mil, and probably finish over $300 mil Domestic. Anything else is gravy.

 

if Guardians 3 cost 250 million not including marketing it has to make over 600m just to break even 

[kayumanggi]

3 minutes ago, RamblinRed said:

The issue with Fast X is less about how well that movie will do and more that it will take PLF/IMAX away.

Almost every movie we have seen recently had taken a big hit when it loses those since they account for a large percentage of the grosses.

 

Ah, forgot about that. Is it possible for it to retain certain screens, let's say after holding well in the succeeding weekends, or it's a done deal kind of thing between Universal and theater owners that FAST X automatically gets all PLFs/IMAXs once it opens?

[ChipDerby]

2 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

if Guardians 3 cost 250 million not including marketing it has to make over 600m just to break even 

 

According to who lmao. That's just patently not true. Need I remind everyone, again, that Men in Black cost "$90 mil", made $589 mil, and is reported to have lost money. 

[MovieMan89]

Dropping in to mention that it’s possible as well for this movie to get a big critics/audience disconnect since it already kinda happened with 2. 2’s “meh” critical reception completely baffles me to this day when it improved over 1 in every way.
 

If that were to happen again here, it could really spell disaster that this might not be able to recover from even with the WOM. 

[Deep Wang]

2 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

According to who lmao. That's just patently not true. Need I remind everyone, again, that Men in Black cost "$90 mil", made $589 mil, and is reported to have lost money. 

 

 

yeah, there's so much funny business going on that I'm just always assuming the worst unless it made a billion, and even then....

[fabiopazzo2]

if this film gets great reviews and is received well by the public but fails at the box office then in my opinion it will be for the first time in all the years I've been on this forum just say "superhero fatigue"
 

movies like the marvels, cap4, thunderbolts will fail. people don't care about these movies.

 

But, that's not to say it's the end of the genre.
Because I believe that a giant event film like Avengers can still attract a lot of people

[TerwillikerInst]

Hollywood's dirty little secret is that pretty much every studio movie that got a proper theatrical release followed by home video and tv/cable sales, turned a profit.

 

Even the massive flops, eventually.

 

Budgets are fudged because it lets them decide whether or not the movie was "a hit", "underperformed", "flopped", or "broke even" on their balance sheets.

 

It's only now in the era of pointlessly bloated megabudgets* for MCU-style films, combined with burning money on streaming services, that studios have gotten into the habit of writing off basically everything they release just to make the stock line go up. 

 

And surprise, surprise, they've realized it's not a workable model. 

 

*Seriously, if you know anything about film production and effects work, that money is so clearly not up there on the screen.

[PlatnumRoyce]

59 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

According to who lmao. That's just patently not true. Need I remind everyone, again, that Men in Black cost "$90 mil", made $589 mil, and is reported to have lost money. 

No, the claim there is at Sony created paper losses on MiB to basically steal money from talent. A recent article in deadline's profit series alluded to Spielberg's massive cut from MiB so that's probably also playing a major role. 


Also, isn't Wikileaks a trump card? MiB3 made 650M WW on a 245M budget (less 60M financing benefit) but is credited on Sony's books as a $27M loss due to 88M in participations + 40M in investor share. Why would Sony lie to Sony execs lie to each other about Men in Black's success or failure?  That gave us "real" non-cherry picked numbers on over 100 films. 

 

Quote

Because it's not true! And anyone who claims that it is doesn't actually know anything about how movies work. In my PERSONAL opinion, I see a movie in trouble if it doesn't make back its budget Domestically. But even then, we don't ACTUALLY know the budget, just an estimate put out by the trades, or what the studios TELL us (which LOL they're not going to tell us).

The "all budget numbers are b.s." point is important but these sorts of rules of thumb seem to be supported by genuinely reputable sources. SNL Kagan's film revenue model from a decade ago is floating around online and basically supports generic rules of thumb and it is mirrored by seemingly credible sources like "movie business book" I picked up a few months ago. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[thajdikt]

55 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Dropping in to mention that it’s possible as well for this movie to get a big critics/audience disconnect since it already kinda happened with 2. 2’s “meh” critical reception completely baffles me to this day when it improved over 1 in every way.
 

If that were to happen again here, it could really spell disaster that this might not be able to recover from even with the WOM. 

But was there really a disconnect with critics and audiences regarding vol 2? I personally agree with you about Vol 2 being better than Vol 1 in every way but the general consensus from audiences and critics was that it was a step down from the first one yet still good ? Vol 2 has very good scores across almost every metric it but not as good as the first one. I would also aruge that we´re yet to have an MCU movie that has had any critics/audience disconnects.

 

Of course metrics aren´t everything but it can give some idea:

 

Some audience metrics - Vol 1 vs Vol 2

IMDb: 8,0 vs 7,6

Letterboxd: 3,8 vs 3,5

RT audience score: 92% (4.4 avg rating)  vs 87% (4.1 avg rating)

CS: A vs A

 

It kinda lines up with the same difference critics had with Vol 1 vs Vol 2