WEEKEND THREAD | Wonka 14.4, Night Swim 12, Aqua 10.6, Migration 10.2, Anyone But You 9.5 (increased from last weekend!)

[Napoleon]

12 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

 

Aquaman 2 having great reception and Wonka destroying the absolute garbage 2005 remake, I love to see it 

[Mulder]

Its having decent legs but I'd still call an under 150 total a loss. Not as big of a loss as other superhero films this year, but nothing to really celebrate too much.

[M37]

6 hours ago, grim22 said:

IIRC, didn't we get an article saying that WB pretty much cheaped out on the marketing only spending 100M as opposed to the 200M these tentpoles cost? Might end up slightly in the black once all is said and done. 

Also helping to keep marketing cost down was that WB had 3 major releases for December, and did a fair amount of combined promos, advertising all 3 at once and so reducing the budgeted ad spend per film 

[Mulder]

If marketing was only 100, the breaking even point is still 600 which the film's 200 million away from with those 400 end goals. We can just say it's a disappointment instead of a flop or bomb.

[dallas]

10 minutes ago, Mulder said:

If marketing was only 100, the breaking even point is still 600 which the film's 200 million away from with those 400 end goals. We can just say it's a disappointment instead of a flop or bomb.

Wouldn't it be closer to $500M?

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, dallas said:

Wouldn't it be closer to $500M?

Closer to 400 or closer to 500 by rounding at the end of its run, either way it wouldn't be anywhere close to what it needed to make. 

[lorddemaxus]

Considering that Aquaman will very likely make more money on home video, wouldn't be surprised if it loses less money for WB than Color Purple lol.

[Mulder]

2 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Considering that Aquaman will very likely make more money on home video, wouldn't be surprised if it loses less money for WB than Color Purple lol.

EDIT: Nvm looked further and the initial result had the wrong information. How on earth is it 90-100 million? That's insane.

Edited January 9 by Mulder

[Liiviig 1998]

15 minutes ago, Mulder said:

If marketing was only 100, the breaking even point is still 600 which the film's 200 million away from with those 400 end goals. We can just say it's a disappointment instead of a flop or bomb.

More like low 500s .

 

600m of a 205m production budget is almost 3x . It would be profitable with that amount.

 

Settling 470ish Million at best. Gonna lose money but not much . 

 

2023 has been so terrible for CBMs that this is considered respectable in comparison.

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

More like low 500s .

 

600m of a 205m production budget is almost 3x . It would be profitable with that amount.

 

Settling 470ish Million at best. Gonna lose money but not much . 

 

2023 has been so terrible for CBMs that this is considered respectable in comparison.

If the marketing amount listed above which is what I was replying to, 100, is added the budget is 300 million. Yes it's not losing as much money as flops like Flash or The Marvels but I don't think barely surviving thanks to a lack of competition, holiday legs, and China (The country which Hollywood gets the least amount of money from) is what WB's going to be looking at when they're still in the red of 100+ million with it. I think we need to be able to separate a decent performance from profitability, otherwise Dial of Destiny'd be talked about way differently.

[dallas]

13 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Closer to 400 or closer to 500 by rounding at the end of its run, either way it wouldn't be anywhere close to what it needed to make. 

I meant the break even point. The marketing budget was reported as "possibly" being $100M, meaning it wasn't an official number but rather an estimate. So it's closer to breaking even at $500M rather than $600M 

[Mulder]

Just now, dallas said:

I meant the break even point. The marketing budget was reported as "possibly" being $100M, meaning it wasn't an official number but rather an estimate. So it's closer to breaking even at $500M rather than $600M 

I can believe WB whittled the marketing budget down to 100 million, even like 90. I can't see it any lower than that. Marketing costs are way more then just trailers or red carpet premieres. The break even point is definitely close to 600.

[titanic2187]

2 minutes ago, dallas said:

I meant the break even point. The marketing budget was reported as "possibly" being $100M, meaning it wasn't an official number but rather an estimate. So it's closer to breaking even at $500M rather than $600M 

I don’t think that 100m is an understated number. In many part of Asia, aquaman did receive some big marketing push, more than barbieheimer. 

[dallas]

2 minutes ago, Mulder said:

I can believe WB whittled the marketing budget down to 100 million, even like 90. I can't see it any lower than that. Marketing costs are way more then just trailers or red carpet premieres. The break even point is definitely close to 600.

I mean, sure, but there's still no way it needs 3x its production budget to break even IMO. It's having good legs too so the studios are going to be receiving a larger cut of the final gross. 

[Mulder]

Just now, dallas said:

I mean, sure, but there's still no way it needs 3x its production budget to break even IMO. It's having good legs too so the studios are going to be receiving a larger cut of the final gross. 

...No that's not how it works. Theaters get more of the profits as it goes on. Studios get most of their profits from opening weekend. Theaters like leggy films because they get more profit from them. And 300 million wouldn't be 3x its production+marketing budget, it'd be 2x. Marketing being excluded from film budgets is Hollywood financing trickery, there's a reason why the rule of thumb is to triple the production budget because that's how you account for the subtracted marketing budget.

[TRISTAN]

18 minutes ago, Mulder said:

...No that's not how it works. Theaters get more of the profits as it goes on. Studios get most of their profits from opening weekend. Theaters like leggy films because they get more profit from them. And 300 million wouldn't be 3x its production+marketing budget, it'd be 2x. Marketing being excluded from film budgets is Hollywood financing trickery, there's a reason why the rule of thumb is to triple the production budget because that's how you account for the subtracted marketing budget.

The plain and simple conclusion is that Aquaman 2 is a flop while Aquaman 1 was a blockbuster. And it is astonishing to think that in 2022 Aquaman 2 was scheduled to release on the same day of Avatar 2 !! What a disastrous situation it would be for Warner Brothers !!

[Kon]

45 minutes ago, Mulder said:

EDIT: Nvm looked further and the initial result had the wrong information. How on earth is it 90-100 million? That's insane.

I'm still surprised the budget for The Color Purple was so big.

 

It's interesting because cast members has complaint about the terrible way the studios treated them in an attempt to reduce expenses. That said, Oprah said the studio solved these issues (after Taraji complaint), so I guess the money was spend at the end.

Edited January 9 by Kon

[TwoMisfits]

11 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

I am curious what the demo split for Aquabro is looking like. Feel like females are carrying it (despite straight up rejecting The Marvels) 

 

It has great messaging about parent/child relationships and sibling relationships...catnip for moms, on top of any visuals...I'm sure just like they were 5 star givers OW, they have passed on how good the movie is for family viewing to others...

[John Marston]

8 hours ago, grim22 said:

IIRC, didn't we get an article saying that WB pretty much cheaped out on the marketing only spending 100M as opposed to the 200M these tentpoles cost? Might end up slightly in the black once all is said and done. 

 

they had to have. They didn’t even have a red carpet premiere. When’s the last major movie that did that?

[Liiviig 1998]

27 minutes ago, Mulder said:

...No that's not how it works. Theaters get more of the profits as it goes on. Studios get most of their profits from opening weekend. Theaters like leggy films because they get more profit from them. And 300 million wouldn't be 3x its production+marketing budget, it'd be 2x. Marketing being excluded from film budgets is Hollywood financing trickery, there's a reason why the rule of thumb is to triple the production budget because that's how you account for the subtracted marketing budget.

2-2.5* production budget. Ancillaries cover marketing in the long-run.

 

Did we all forget TLM brokeven on 250m budget with just 570m.

 

It's the rule deadline uses for breakeven

 

Stratrek into darkness made profit with a box office of 440m against  190m budget. Due to heavy domestic skew.

 

Lots more examples .

 

Malifificent brokeven on  490m off a 170m+ . That's less than 3x it's production budget.

 

They are numerous films with sub 3x production budget that have broken even or made profit . 

 

It's all in the Domestic/Overseas minus china /china  ratio .

 

Domestic -52-55% comes back to studio.

Os - china - 38-40%

China 25%

 

Maybe Movies with very low domestic ratio and way higher OS ratio is where I think something like 3x production budget may come in.

 

Breakeven conversation here gets confusing.

 

You will have some users say fast X broke even or will make  with lows 700s on a 340m production budget. 

 

Before 70m write off on MI8 budget . Some were saying 600m breakeven on 290m production budget which is below even 2.5* production budget. Now it may breakeven on a 570m box office off like 220m budget. Below your 3* production budget threshold.

 

They are alot of variables in calculation of brokeven.

 

It's why the range is wide 2-2.5* 

 TLM made 2.2* it's production budget and brokeven.

 

That range is used by trades and it's the one I will stick by.