Estimated Wknd Numbers - BD2(141.3M) Skyfall(41.5M) Lincoln(21M)

[baumer]

Oh yes, they are wildly profitable. Twilight gets to be part of the awesome club of movies that actually makes money from their theatrical run. Usually, like you say, the theatrical run acts almost like a loss leader marketing to where the profit comes from...home video and TV. A movie like Twlight though, will walk away with profit from the theatrical run...then proceed to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from the downstream markets. And it truly is a thing they've had here...a mega sized blockbuster franchise with really modest production costs. You're right to point that out...it's an impressive thing. Summit has definitely made a lot of money off these films, probably in the billions when talking profit. And that's even considering they probably pay a hefty portion of those profits to the author.

I don't have the link to this, but I think I remember reading that Meyer has basically full autonomy over the film in terms of the creative aspects of it. She is also the producer, or one of, but, and again, I'm not totally sure, but I think she gets a salary for each film plus small points on each one. I think when Twilight was first purchased by Summit, the books were big but they blew up even more with the films so I don't think she gets a massive part of the profits.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

I think its hilarious how people here are like "OH ITS A DISAPPOINTMENT. MM-HMM, IT'LL BARELY DO ANY PROFIT DOMESTICALLY. THE INTEREST IN TWILIGHT HAS DROPPED"

No, it'll make a nice profit. It's not a disappointment in that aspect. It's just not outperforming its predecessor like most thought it would. But, baumer was correct, Twilight films are consistently backed by their fanbase. None of the films were able to crossover. So from that point of view they left money on the table. Now Twi-Hards can claim that they weren't willing to compromise the source material to appeal to a broader audience and they might be right, at least partially. But the material itself was not broadly appealing and they cannot deny that either. They were popular...very popular, but only with a certain demographic. Which means, the fans should not be surprised that the movies are ridiculed. Just as I realize TASM did not break out very much from its fanbase and have no problem that it's ridiculed by people who don't share my enthusiasm.

[Jack Nevada]

Exactly, I mean it was of course, but the budget for the film was about 450 mill with all marketing costs, so it would need about 900 to break even, which it did.

what a bunch of horeshit. I bet movies go into profitability a lot more than people like to claim

Yeah, it definitely was. The theatrical release more than covered all the production costs and whatever the P&A was. With $1.5 Billion box office, you're talking at least $700M revenue to the studio. Even worst case scenario, where the movie costs say $300M and the P&A was $200M...that movie made a lot of profit theatrically.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

I didn't mean it like that. I obviously don't have a problem with gays per se.

No, I meant that it's childish to call someone childish for saying something is childish.

[baumer]

I would find it very very hard to believe that theaters have a 90/10 split during the first weeks of Twilight. Exhibitors aren't running charities and aren't stupid. I'd be interested in knowing the actual split if anyone is privy.Also my point wasn't that Twilight was some financial miscue, but rather that its not going to be the money spigot that the previous ones were.

I have first hand information that this is the case. I actually did a study on this after I read that Spielberg and Lucas can demand up to 94% of the films profits for the first two weeks of their films. So i went to my local theater, The Queensway in Toronto and I flat out asked the manager. I told him I was writing an article for the local paper. He confirmed the 90% figure. So believe what you want, but it is true.

[baumer]

No, it'll make a nice profit. It's not a disappointment in that aspect. It's just not outperforming its predecessor like most thought it would. But, baumer was correct, Twilight films are consistently backed by their fanbase. None of the films were able to crossover. So from that point of view they left money on the table. Now Twi-Hards can claim that they weren't willing to compromise the source material to appeal to a broader audience and they might be right, at least partially. But the material itself was not broadly appealing and they cannot deny that either. They were popular...very popular, but only with a certain demographic. Which means, the fans should not be surprised that the movies are ridiculed. Just as I realize TASM did not break out very much from its fanbase and have no problem that it's ridiculed by people who don't share my enthusiasm.

This is why I think Twilight is a miracle in a sense. It is hated by most people, doesn't appeal to anyone but the hardcore fans, is clearly aimed at females and more so teenaged girls, and yet its a franchise that has been as consistent as one could possibly be. 280-300 for domestic gross and about 700 mill WW every sequel. It's a series that their fans love and it has never needed to branch out to be successful....that's quite astonishing.

[fmpro]

Did TASM make a profit in theaters?

[baumer]

Baumer... Buddy.. Trust me..This dude KNOWS what he's talking about.Seriously..

I know he does.....I have said that.

[kowhite]

I have first hand information that this is the case. I actually did a study on this after I read that Spielberg and Lucas can demand up to 94% of the films profits for the first two weeks of their films. So i went to my local theater, The Queensway in Toronto and I flat out asked the manager. I told him I was writing an article for the local paper. He confirmed the 90% figure. So believe what you want, but it is true.

Yup, it's definitely true.But Derpity, you are right to think it'd be crazy to give 90% of the total box office. And they don't. I'll put a little numbers game here to show what really happens:Say the total take for a movie is $100. The exhibitor and the studio agree on a number which is called the house nut, let's say this is $30. The theater then deducts this house nut from the box office total.We now havfe $70. Only now do we apply the revenue percentage split you always hear about. 90% of $70 is $63.At the end of the day, the theater gets $63 of that $100 total box office. So, baumer is correct quoting high 90% rates for big movies like Twilight...you just have to keep in mind what that 90% applies to. It's not the gross box office.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Did TASM make a profit in theaters?

750m WW on a 230m budget.

[baumer]

Did TASM make a profit in theaters?

Going by the revenue split, then probably. The budget was 230, plus add say another 100 ,ill minimum to market and you have a gross of about 650 that was needed.

[fmpro]

I know he does.....I have said that.

I was just... Like in a few good men:ARE WE CLEAR?..... Crystal....

[baumer]

750m WW on a 230m budget.

We've been talking about marketing in the equation too.

[Derpity]

I have first hand information that this is the case. I actually did a study on this after I read that Spielberg and Lucas can demand up to 94% of the films profits for the first two weeks of their films. So i went to my local theater, The Queensway in Toronto and I flat out asked the manager. I told him I was writing an article for the local paper. He confirmed the 90% figure. So believe what you want, but it is true.

Not every film is the same percentage man. Each film is negotiated between the distributor and the exhibitor...I'd find it impossible to believe that Regal would be taking in 10% of revenues from the first couple weeks of Twilight. Edited November 17, 2012 by Derpity

[baumer]

I was just... Like in a few good men:ARE WE CLEAR?..... Crystal....

HAHAHAHAHA....Nice.

[baumer]

Not every film is the same percentage man. Each film is negotiated between the distributor and the exhibitor...I'd find it impossible to believe that Regal would be taking in 10% of revenues from the first few weeks of Twilight.

No offense, but it doesn't matter what you believe. I know what was told to me. And kowhite explained it as well.

[fmpro]

Going by the revenue split, then probably. The budget was 230, plus add say another 100 ,ill minimum to market and you have a gross of about 650 that was needed.

So we can call it a succes right

[kowhite]

Not every film is the same percentage man. Each film is negotiated between the distributor and the exhibitor...I'd find it impossible to believe that Regal would be taking in 10% of revenues from the first couple weeks of Twilight.

Derpity take a look at my post above. That 90% is true, but it's not against total gross box office.

[Fake]

BD2 wins that battle since it cost less to make.

It's not the profitability race. (But if it were, then you would have to account for OS too. )No, it is just a question of which grosses more and finishes in the yearly Top-5.

[TLK]

Yup, it's definitely true.But Derpity, you are right to think it'd be crazy to give 90% of the total box office. And they don't. I'll put a little numbers game here to show what really happens:Say the total take for a movie is $100. The exhibitor and the studio agree on a number which is called the house nut, let's say this is $30. The theater then deducts this house nut from the box office total.We now havfe $70. Only now do we apply the revenue percentage split you always hear about. 90% of $70 is $63.At the end of the day, the theater gets $63 of that $100 total box office. So, baumer is correct quoting high 90% rates for big movies like Twilight...you just have to keep in mind what that 90% applies to. It's not the gross box office.

Very informative post. Thanks.