A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Or simply Disney are more generous ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Edit: I think Paramount probably lost a decent chunk of money with ST09 theatrically (not nearly a hundred million, of course). Theatrically it probably lost a little money (386m WW, 150m budget, unknown marketing costs but likely 50m+) but that was because of overseas audiences really not being into the Trek brand prior to 2009. Paramount was definitely willing to take a minor up-front theatrical loss (easily made up by DVD/Blu-Ray and other fronts quickly) in order to sow the seeds for making Star Trek marketable overseas in the future. WIth Oz though it seems Disney plain overestimated overseas appeal and gave too much money to production, etc accordingly. Edited March 10, 2013 by 4815162342 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wileECoyote Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Simple cost benefit analysis says it makes more sense in multi-billion dollar money makers like Star Wars, PTOC, Pixar, and Marvel than rasky and marginally profitable Oz movies.How many James Franco Oz mugs do you think they can sell anyway?And those movies are in the pipeline, but Disney still wants more in their library. And maybe not so much Franco cups, but China Girl, Glinda, and Finley. And the possible theme park attractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I was looking for a term for different movie series.Is there a more fitting one to include movies like Inception and ET? I don't know... 250M+ movies without taking multiple movies (meaning you can take only 1 of them) in the same franchise into a consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Amazing how the difference between Oz's run and John Carter's will come exclusively from domestic sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Amazing how the difference between Oz's run and John Carter's will come exclusively from domestic sales. Oz is not a significant brand outside of US. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It's gonna lose between 50-100M. You say if this is enough for a sequel^^ We don't know this, the whole 2X the budget WW isn't real, it's just something people say because we don't really know how the finances work. And even with this "rule" the goalposts have apparently moved, it used to be 2X the production budget without marketing, apparently now people have lumped that in as well to make it even harder to be profitable. Under this new "rule" all kinds of films which received sequels would count a money losers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Yup, thanks to Dom, it's not John carter all over again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I heard that the budgets for Disney movies usually include these movie-based theme park or even video games/toys investments. Is it that case ? Since that could explain why Disney trend to have bigger budgets for their movies compared with other studios.No, I don't think that's the case. Budgets are for the movie production only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 We don't know this, the whole 2X the budget WW isn't real, it's just something people say because we don't really know how the finances work. And even with this "rule" the goalposts have apparently moved, it used to be 2X the production budget without marketing, apparently now people have lumped that in as well to make it even harder to be profitable. Under this new "rule" all kinds of films which received sequels would count a money losers. Even if we don't know how it works, how do you know for sure that this movie will turn out to be profitable? I doubt that... we thought OOTP was profitable until some time back when it was revealed that even though it make nearly 900M WW it still lost money. I don't think Disney is that clever to make things so they can profit on every single movie. They gotta lose sometime, and this honestly looks like a loss to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Amazing how the difference between Oz's run and John Carter's will come exclusively from domestic sales. And that's what hurts the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I don't know... 250M+ movies without taking multiple movies (meaning you can take only 1 of them) in the same franchise into a consideration?It's much easier to milk the same popular franchise over and over than build multiple franchises beyond 250+ m.Which is why only 4 or 5 directors have achieved the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) It's much easier to milk the same popular franchise over and over than build multiple franchises beyond 250+ m.Which is why only 4 or 5 directors have achieved the latter. Inception and Titanic aren't franchises, so you can remove both Nolan and Cameron from that list. Franchises are series of movies like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Dark knight Trilogy, The upcoming Hobbit Trilogy, Twilight and other movies like that. Not stand alone movie. Edited March 10, 2013 by ChFloppit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Even if we don't know how it works, how do you know for sure that this movie will turn out to be profitable? I doubt that... we thought OOTP was profitable until some time back when it was revealed that even though it make nearly 900M WW it still lost money. I don't think Disney is that clever to make things so they can profit on every single movie. They gotta lose sometime, and this honestly looks like a loss to me. OOTP did make money. And if you count it in a way in which OOTP lost money, than very few films ever make money, but since they keep being made, we know this isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 And those movies are in the pipeline, but Disney still wants more in their library. And maybe not so much Franco cups, but China Girl, Glinda, and Finley. And the possible theme park attractions.Why would Disney invest hundreds of millions for a mediocre Oz franchise when that money would be better spent looking for the next POTC or Toy Story?The home runs and grand slams are where the real money is. Not the base hits.It's a better investment to find the next billion dollar franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Even if we don't know how it works, how do you know for sure that this movie will turn out to be profitable? I doubt that... we thought OOTP was profitable until some time back when it was revealed that even though it make nearly 900M WW it still lost money. I don't think Disney is that clever to make things so they can profit on every single movie. They gotta lose sometime, and this honestly looks like a loss to me.Creative accounting is designed to show EVERYTHING loses money, so they don't have to pay out net points to actors, directors, etc. That doesn't reflect the real numbers at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted March 10, 2013 Author Founder / Operator Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) It's far from an exact science, but the general rule of thumb seems to now be that worldwide grosses should account for roughly 1.5 to 1.75 times a movie's combined budget (production + marketing) to be considered breaking even or close to profitable. That varies a lot, and films with merchandise to sell can obviously get away with lower profit margins at the box office. As far as the "old rule" goes, it was 2x the budget because marketing wasn't being factored in. But... Hollywood can't get away from the fact that they spend money to sell the movies they make, so they have to have a return on that too. Edited March 10, 2013 by ShawnMR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Inception and Titanic aren't franchises, so you can remove both Nolan and Cameron from that list.Franchises are series of movies like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Dark knight Trilogy, The upcoming Hobbit Trilogy, Twilight and other movies like that. Not stand alone movie.Yeah I was pointing out directors who made 250+ hit movies that weren't in the same series which I feel is an impressive achievement.I just used the term franchise because I wasn't sure how else to word it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted March 10, 2013 Author Founder / Operator Share Posted March 10, 2013 OOTP did make money. And if you count it in a way in which OOTP lost money, than very few films ever make money, but since they keep being made, we know this isn't true. OOTP is the perfect example of something that can have a lower profit ratio in theaters and still be acceptable. Those movies, like others, are partly just big advertisements for all of the ancillary revenue the studio gets in the post-theatrical stream. Even if they don't get their profit upfront after that the theatrical run, they still end up making a lot more money than most off that one movie in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 We don't know this, the whole 2X the budget WW isn't real, it's just something people say because we don't really know how the finances work. And even with this "rule" the goalposts have apparently moved, it used to be 2X the production budget without marketing, apparently now people have lumped that in as well to make it even harder to be profitable. Under this new "rule" all kinds of films which received sequels would count a money losers.I bet that's a short list.The 2x budget/marketing rule is used because for whatever reason it accurately predicts which movies get sequels better than any other basic litmus test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
