DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE WEEKEND THREAD | 211 DOM, 233.1 OS, 444.1 WW | Disney does it again!

[Jaxon5]

1 minute ago, Assassin said:

Most movies would flop if you didn't include incillary. They are part of the equation.

Yes but a flop is determined before it gets to that point based on the box office breakdown. Otherwise articles would have to read like 'marvels failed to make it's budget back at the box office but we wont know if it's a flop until a year from now after all the ancillaries are counted'

[Jaxon5]

4 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Deadline =/= Variety 

Sorry for some reason i always assumed they were the same company

[Assassin]

4 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

Sorry for some reason i always assumed they were the same company

They are owned by the same parent company, PMC.

 

But they have completely different staff

[Assassin]

6 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

Yes but a flop is determined before it gets to that point based on the box office breakdown. Otherwise articles would have to read like 'marvels failed to make it's budget back at the box office but we wont know if it's a flop until a year from now after all the ancillaries are counted

Regardless, the "2.5x rule" that is sometimes used by us amateur box office enthusiasts already account for incillary market.

[Jaxon5]

3 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Regardless, the "2.5x rule" that is sometimes used by us amateur box office enthusiasts already account for incillary market.

Ok so we can say Wakanda Forever was a box office flop? But not a flop overall

[thajdikt]

Movie makes 859M at the box office with 453 being domestic and it’s apparently a flop. Jeez this forum some times.

[JustLurking]

57 minutes ago, Geo1500 said:

 

That is plus Home Entertainment and Television and streaming included...! From a cimematic prospective alone it flopped.. But if you include ON Demand and Television and streaming rights then it made profit tho Thor was a bigger flop

Marketing costs are generally looked as something that will be recouped post-theatrical run. If you go and add marketing costs to budget and expect to make it back solely through theatrical then the vast majority of films would be in the red.

[eddyxx]

19 minutes ago, Assassin said:

They are owned by the same parent company, PMC.

 

But they have completely different staff

Weirdly PMC bought all of the Hollywood trades. You’d think such a thing would be illegal.

[Jaxon5]

7 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Movie makes 859M at the box office with 453 being domestic and it’s apparently a flop. Jeez this forum some times.

It dropped 500m from it's predecessor despite costing more money. 859 may seem big but when your budget approaches close to 500m with ads, it's hard to deny it flopped at the box office. Don't know why this is being rejected so much

[thajdikt]

9 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

It dropped 500m from it's predecessor despite costing more money. 859 may seem big but when your budget approaches close to 500m with ads, it's hard to deny it flopped at the box office. Don't know why this is being rejected so much

Because it made a ton of money? Just because it’s dropped from its predecessor which over performed hard don’t make it flop. What you’re arguing for is a completely different conversation. If it’s being rejected so much, maybe stop to think what that is.

Edited July 27 by thajdikt

[thajdikt]

Avatar 2 dropped 600M from Avatar 1! What a flop!

[wildphantom]

As others have said, basically if you can break even theatrically then there’s plenty of upside.

 

For studios they continue to gamble with huge budgets as when one of them hits big the profits can be staggering for one single production. 
 

Consider how much money Disney are going to make out of both Inside Out and Deadpool in profit.  Maybe three quarters of a billion plus  - on TWO MOVIES. Which will be about three quarters of a billion more than the Disney+ profit for the year.  Theatrical matters. 

[Assassin]

25 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

Weirdly PMC bought all of the Hollywood trades. You’d think such a thing would be illegal.

Except TheWrap, which is independently owned.

[TomThomas]

1 hour ago, Joyous Legion said:

I agree it’ll probably be bad like the first two but GA clearly doesn’t mind at this point. V3 has a bigger hook imo with the symbiote planet invasion/final chapter stuff, but most importantly is China — V2 was a casualty of marvel/hw relations there at the time but v3 will very likely get a release given that DPW did

I guess "final chapter" kinda counts as hook, but symbiote planet invasion is just generic stuff like blue alien portals in the sky. Carnage is a very famous Marvel villain and his live action debute was a big deal, I don't think V3 hook, whatever it is, is nearly as strong.

[Liiviig 1998]

2.5* rule is on production budget. Assumption is marketing costs are recouped from the an ancillary market.

 

WF 

250*2.5 = 625M

 

Made 859M on theatrical alone . 

 

WF is on deadline most profitable movies of 2022. Jeez.

 

Is the 2.5* rule 100% best . No but it's the one used by trades especially deadline which is very experienced in that field( budgets and costs ,revenue ,losses and profits).

 

You can have reservations on the rule but what's annoying when some users say it's "made up" then give their own estimates that way off and not based on much information!!

 

 

[Jaxon5]

18 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Because it made a ton of money? Just because it’s dropped from its predecessor which over performed hard don’t make it flop. What you’re arguing for is a completely different conversation. If it’s being rejected so much, maybe stop to think what that is.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/12/14/rumor-black-panther-wakanda-forever-needs-a-box-office-total-of-1-billion-to-break-even/#:~:text=In other words%2C Disney is,full budget to %24500 million.

 

Using thw 40-45% rule for overseas and 55%-60% rule for domestic,  that gives the following for studio

 

248- 270m domestically off a 453m gross

163m- 183m internationally off a 406m gross

411m-453m in total for the studio

 

If the marketing budget is over 203m then it's a flop. The first link suggests its 250m but i dont know how reliable that site is. Best case scenario, it may have broken even at the box office but with my math i have a hard time seeing it being profitable in theatres alone, unless there is something I'm missing that you can make me aware of

 

Edited July 27 by Jaxon5

[Assassin]

46 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

Ok so we can say Wakanda Forever was a box office flop? But not a flop overall

If you want to use that logic, then Top Gun: Maverick, Oppenheimer and numerous other "hits" are also box office flops since the expenses aren't covered by theatrical revenue alone 

[Assassin]

2 minutes ago, Jaxon5 said:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/12/14/rumor-black-panther-wakanda-forever-needs-a-box-office-total-of-1-billion-to-break-even/#:~:text=In other words%2C Disney is,full budget to %24500 million.

 

Using thw 40-45% ruoe for overseas and 55%-60% rule for domestic,  that gives rhe following for studios

 

248- 270m domestically

163m- 183m internationally

411m-453m in total for the studio

 

If the marketing budget is over 203m then it's a flop. The first link suggests its 250m but i dont know how reliable that site is. Best case scenario, it may have broken even at the box office

 

Bounding into comics is a right wing sight which will do anything to make Black Panther 2 look like a flop. STOP, lol

 

You are doing waaay to much to make BP2 look like a flop. Why is that? 🤔

Edited July 27 by Assassin

[Liiviig 1998]

1 minute ago, Jaxon5 said:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/12/14/rumor-black-panther-wakanda-forever-needs-a-box-office-total-of-1-billion-to-break-even/#:~:text=In other words%2C Disney is,full budget to %24500 million.

 

Using thw 40-45% ruoe for overseas and 55%-60% rule for domestic,  that gives rhe following for studios

 

248- 270m domestically

163m- 183m internationally

411m-453m in total for the studio

 

If the marketing budget is over 203m then it's a flop. The first link suggests its 250m but i dont know how reliable that site is. Best case scenario, it may have broken even at the box office

 

That site is not reputable. And it has the whole "WOKE" sentiment  at times.

[Jaxon5]

10 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Bounding into comics is a right wing sight which will do anything to make Black Panther 2 look like a flop. STOP, lol

 

You are doing waaay to much to make BP2 look like a flop. Why is that? 🤔

It was the first site to come up on google when I typed 'wakanda forever maketing budget'. 

 

I just want a realistic gauge of what profits MCU movies ended up with in the theatres. If i'm wrong in my calculations, tell me how so i can learn from it and apply a different calculation method for other films. 

 

11 minutes ago, Assassin said:

If you want to use that logic, then Top Gun: Maverick, Oppenheimer and numerous other "hits" are also box office flops since the expenses aren't covered by theatrical revenue alone 

How? Oppies budget was only 100m and marketing was likely less than 150m. Thats a combined budget of 250m and it made almost 4x that?

 

And Maverick made 1.5b

Edited July 27 by Jaxon5