|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 22, 2018 22:23:15 GMT
It's budget is 160 million. It seems a little high at first, but it's going to be effects heavy. It's going to be underwater and all. (And lets hope they don't have to do the Air bubble to talk gag from Justice League). Using the the simple metric of doubling budget it needs to make $320m to break even. Lets say $400m would be a good total and $500m to be a hit. First, would you take the over or under for a $400m total. Second do you think a $500m+ total would turn around some of the negative view some people have of the DCEU? Third would a $500+m and a Solid total for WW1984 convince WB and Ben to continue on? (I know it's just rumors at this point but I got to think Ben Affleck is questioning his involvement with further Batman projects.) That would give the DCEU 3 wins out of the last 4 movies. That is an upward trend. For now I'm am just hoping Shazam breaks even a dollar above break even is a win for me. I could be completely wrong Shazam could be the DCEU's Guardians of the Galaxy. In so far as to be a dark horse that turns out to be good. I just have a sinking feeling about it. As for Aquaman I'm quietly hopeful and WW1984 I'm mildly confident about it's quality. Steve being back is troubling, but I'm not going to second guess it for now.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 22, 2018 22:35:49 GMT
I think the frustrating part is you can see the potential for great movies in each movie. And when the movie misses the mark for whatever reason it makes the disappointment a little more painful. It's like if the movie was utterly useless it would only sting a little. You can see the shadow of goodness in each failure so its like salt in the wound.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 22, 2018 22:42:20 GMT
That's not to say that the DCEU has failed in each movie. Man of Steel has some problems but I liked it for the most part. BvS and Suicide Squad I would consider a failure (Green Lantern too if we are counting it). Justice League had problems, but did make it's money back. Although it did nothing to shake off the feeling that the DCEU is failing. WW was obviously a win.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 22, 2018 23:24:06 GMT
It's budget is 160 million. It seems a little high at first, but it's going to be effects heavy. It's going to be underwater and all. (And lets hope they don't have to do the Air bubble to talk gag from Justice League). Using the the simple metric of doubling budget it needs to make $320m to break even. Lets say $400m would be a good total and $500m to be a hit. First, would you take the over or under for a $400m total. Second do you think a $500m+ total would turn around some of the negative view some people have of the DCEU? Third would a $500+m and a Solid total for WW1984 convince WB and Ben to continue on? (I know it's just rumors at this point but I got to think Ben Affleck is questioning his involvement with further Batman projects.) That would give the DCEU 3 wins out of the last 4 movies. That is an upward trend. For now I'm am just hoping Shazam breaks even a dollar above break even is a win for me. I could be completely wrong Shazam could be the DCEU's Guardians of the Galaxy. In so far as to be a dark horse that turns out to be good. I just have a sinking feeling about it. As for Aquaman I'm quietly hopeful and WW1984 I'm mildly confident about it's quality. Steve being back is troubling, but I'm not going to second guess it for now. $400 million wouldn't be a "good total." It would mean the movie lost money in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 22, 2018 23:41:40 GMT
It's budget is 160 million. It seems a little high at first, but it's going to be effects heavy. It's going to be underwater and all. (And lets hope they don't have to do the Air bubble to talk gag from Justice League). Using the the simple metric of doubling budget it needs to make $320m to break even. Lets say $400m would be a good total and $500m to be a hit. First, would you take the over or under for a $400m total. Second do you think a $500m+ total would turn around some of the negative view some people have of the DCEU? Third would a $500+m and a Solid total for WW1984 convince WB and Ben to continue on? (I know it's just rumors at this point but I got to think Ben Affleck is questioning his involvement with further Batman projects.) That would give the DCEU 3 wins out of the last 4 movies. That is an upward trend. For now I'm am just hoping Shazam breaks even a dollar above break even is a win for me. I could be completely wrong Shazam could be the DCEU's Guardians of the Galaxy. In so far as to be a dark horse that turns out to be good. I just have a sinking feeling about it. As for Aquaman I'm quietly hopeful and WW1984 I'm mildly confident about it's quality. Steve being back is troubling, but I'm not going to second guess it for now. $400 million wouldn't be a "good total." It would mean the movie lost money in theaters. I said using the simple metric of using double the budget. 160m budget means at 320m would be the break even point. $400m would mean that the movie would've make $40m over break even. There is more going on than this simple metric. Such as in foreign markets like China gets more than 50%, but i was going simple. There are ancillary costs and revenue that this doesn't take into account. Such as Marketing Budget, Distribution Cost, Insurance Cost, Merchandising Cost, Home entertainment production cost etc. On the flip side Merchandising Revenue, Home Entertainment Revenue, Marketing Partnership (think product placement and product movie tie-ins), State and Federal Grants, etc. As these costs and revenues basically cancel each other out so the double metric works still for most people.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 23, 2018 11:34:08 GMT
$400 million wouldn't be a "good total." It would mean the movie lost money in theaters. I said using the simple metric of using double the budget. 160m budget means at 320m would be the break even point. $400m would mean that the movie would've make $40m over break even. There is more going on than this simple metric. Such as in foreign markets like China gets more than 50%, but i was going simple. There are ancillary costs and revenue that this doesn't take into account. Such as Marketing Budget, Distribution Cost, Insurance Cost, Merchandising Cost, Home entertainment production cost etc. On the flip side Merchandising Revenue, Home Entertainment Revenue, Marketing Partnership (think product placement and product movie tie-ins), State and Federal Grants, etc. As these costs and revenues basically cancel each other out so the double metric works still for most people. I read what you said the first time. There was no need to repeat yourself. I don't see the point in "going simple," if you end up with an incorrect answer. When you were doing math in school, instead of finishing your proofs with QED, did you ever try using "GS"?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 23, 2018 15:38:34 GMT
I said using the simple metric of using double the budget. 160m budget means at 320m would be the break even point. $400m would mean that the movie would've make $40m over break even. There is more going on than this simple metric. Such as in foreign markets like China gets more than 50%, but i was going simple. There are ancillary costs and revenue that this doesn't take into account. Such as Marketing Budget, Distribution Cost, Insurance Cost, Merchandising Cost, Home entertainment production cost etc. On the flip side Merchandising Revenue, Home Entertainment Revenue, Marketing Partnership (think product placement and product movie tie-ins), State and Federal Grants, etc. As these costs and revenues basically cancel each other out so the double metric works still for most people. I read what you said the first time. There was no need to repeat yourself. I don't see the point in "going simple," if you end up with an incorrect answer. When you were doing math in school, instead of finishing your proofs with QED, did you ever try using "GS"? Ok then to prove that it will lose money at 400m then you will need to show first proof that it's production budget is 160m that's just an estimate. Then you need to know what it's marketing budget is. Studios never release the actual marketing budget. You will need to show proof the reshoots budget. Then you will need to show how much money companies paid to put their products into the movie. Also how much money companies cover the cost of ads in deals to market their products in commercials along with footage for from the movie. You'll need to show how much money was spent in Australia specifically, on what they spent it on, as Australia gives a 16.5 rebate on all money spent there for movie productions if they qualify. It also shot in Morocco they have a 20% rebate on all money spent if it fits certain qualifications. We'll need to see how long they were there. How much money they spent on actual production there. To see how much money they saved. They filmed in Canada too will need to well need to see if they qualify again will need to know how long they filmed there, how much they spent specifically and on what in Canada to qualify for the 25% tax credit. Will need to know exactly what the percentage each theater takes of ticket sales in each territory. We have estimates for places like China but we don't know for sure. For each territory we will need to find out if they have a sliding scale deal with the distributors. It's less common now but the Distributor used to get more of the ticket revenue in the first few weeks. That figure varies according to the usual supply and demand principles — an extremely hot first-run movie may start out with distribution fees up to 90 percent (in other words, 90 percent of the fees during that time are going back to the studio). As the film stays in distribution longer, the fees go down since demand goes down until eventually the theater replaces it with a different film. So we will need to know if the distributor still does this and each deal with each foreign market. We will need to know the Distribution cost to the Studio too. If the theaters are digital and approved by the company to receive the movie digitally there is little cost to the distributor, but if not there is more cost. Also there are cost that we only estimated like:The industry feels that the average Sales Agent commission is 19%, International Distributor commission is 27% , US Distributor commission is 30% Cinema / Movie Theatre commission is 44%. Again this is all estimation. So unless you can provide proof of your claim that 400m would be a loss goes unsubstantiated.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 23, 2018 17:16:04 GMT
I read what you said the first time. There was no need to repeat yourself. I don't see the point in "going simple," if you end up with an incorrect answer. When you were doing math in school, instead of finishing your proofs with QED, did you ever try using "GS"? Ok then to prove that it will lose money at 400m then you will need to show first proof that it's production budget is 160m that's just an estimate. Then you need to know what it's marketing budget is. Studios never release the actual marketing budget. You will need to show proof the reshoots budget. Then you will need to show how much money companies paid to put their products into the movie. Also how much money companies cover the cost of ads in deals to market their products in commercials along with footage for from the movie. You'll need to show how much money was spent in Australia specifically, on what they spent it on, as Australia gives a 16.5 rebate on all money spent there for movie productions if they qualify. It also shot in Morocco they have a 20% rebate on all money spent if it fits certain qualifications. We'll need to see how long they were there. How much money they spent on actual production there. To see how much money they saved. They filmed in Canada too will need to well need to see if they qualify again will need to know how long they filmed there, how much they spent specifically and on what in Canada to qualify for the 25% tax credit. Will need to know exactly what the percentage each theater takes of ticket sales in each territory. We have estimates for places like China but we don't know for sure. For each territory we will need to find out if they have a sliding scale deal with the distributors. It's less common now but the Distributor used to get more of the ticket revenue in the first few weeks. That figure varies according to the usual supply and demand principles — an extremely hot first-run movie may start out with distribution fees up to 90 percent (in other words, 90 percent of the fees during that time are going back to the studio). As the film stays in distribution longer, the fees go down since demand goes down until eventually the theater replaces it with a different film. So we will need to know if the distributor still does this and each deal with each foreign market. We will need to know the Distribution cost to the Studio too. If the theaters are digital and approved by the company to receive the movie digitally there is little cost to the distributor, but if not there is more cost. Also there are cost that we only estimated like:The industry feels that the average Sales Agent commission is 19%, International Distributor commission is 27% , US Distributor commission is 30% Cinema / Movie Theatre commission is 44%. Again this is all estimation. So unless you can provide proof of your claim that 400m would be a loss goes unsubstantiated. Dude, I am not even bothering to read all of that. The bottom line is that there are ways to estimate BO and there are shitty ways to estimate BO. Doubling the production budget is one of the shitty, inaccurate ways. Add the marketing budget to the production budget, then double it - much more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 23, 2018 17:17:29 GMT
Ok then to prove that it will lose money at 400m then you will need to show first proof that it's production budget is 160m that's just an estimate. Then you need to know what it's marketing budget is. Studios never release the actual marketing budget. You will need to show proof the reshoots budget. Then you will need to show how much money companies paid to put their products into the movie. Also how much money companies cover the cost of ads in deals to market their products in commercials along with footage for from the movie. You'll need to show how much money was spent in Australia specifically, on what they spent it on, as Australia gives a 16.5 rebate on all money spent there for movie productions if they qualify. It also shot in Morocco they have a 20% rebate on all money spent if it fits certain qualifications. We'll need to see how long they were there. How much money they spent on actual production there. To see how much money they saved. They filmed in Canada too will need to well need to see if they qualify again will need to know how long they filmed there, how much they spent specifically and on what in Canada to qualify for the 25% tax credit. Will need to know exactly what the percentage each theater takes of ticket sales in each territory. We have estimates for places like China but we don't know for sure. For each territory we will need to find out if they have a sliding scale deal with the distributors. It's less common now but the Distributor used to get more of the ticket revenue in the first few weeks. That figure varies according to the usual supply and demand principles — an extremely hot first-run movie may start out with distribution fees up to 90 percent (in other words, 90 percent of the fees during that time are going back to the studio). As the film stays in distribution longer, the fees go down since demand goes down until eventually the theater replaces it with a different film. So we will need to know if the distributor still does this and each deal with each foreign market. We will need to know the Distribution cost to the Studio too. If the theaters are digital and approved by the company to receive the movie digitally there is little cost to the distributor, but if not there is more cost. Also there are cost that we only estimated like:The industry feels that the average Sales Agent commission is 19%, International Distributor commission is 27% , US Distributor commission is 30% Cinema / Movie Theatre commission is 44%. Again this is all estimation. So unless you can provide proof of your claim that 400m would be a loss goes unsubstantiated. Dude, I am not even bothering to read all of that. The bottom line is that there are ways to estimate BO and there are shitty ways to estimate BO. Doubling the production budget is one of the shitty, inaccurate ways. Add the marketing budget to the production budget, then double it - much more accurate. Wouldn’t the marketing expenses be covered by a number of other factors?
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 23, 2018 17:20:09 GMT
Dude, I am not even bothering to read all of that. The bottom line is that there are ways to estimate BO and there are shitty ways to estimate BO. Doubling the production budget is one of the shitty, inaccurate ways. Add the marketing budget to the production budget, then double it - much more accurate. Wouldn’t the marketing expenses be covered by a number of other factors? Eventually. But that has nothing to do with whether a movie is or isn't successful in theaters.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 23, 2018 17:23:09 GMT
Wouldn’t the marketing expenses be covered by a number of other factors? Eventually. But that has nothing to do with whether a movie is or isn't successful in theaters. It should be noted that part of a movie’s succcess in theaters depends on how much it makes domestically, since studios generally gain a greater share of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do the international earnings.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 23, 2018 17:25:28 GMT
Eventually. But that has nothing to do with whether a movie is or isn't successful in theaters. It should be noted that part of a movie’s succcess in theaters depends on how much it makes domestically, since studios generally gain a greater share of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do the international earnings. Did I say that wasn't the case?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 23, 2018 17:27:51 GMT
So you want to use a estimated production and an estimated marketing budget that noone actually knows except the people in WB. And you don't want to estimated the revenue that comes product placement and movie tie-ins. So basically you are picking and choosing the estimates you want. And I hate to tell you but you only have 1 more step to my simple metric which makes yours simple too. If you are going to use market budget and basically guess at it's total why not guess at how much revenue for movie tie-ins and product placement?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 23, 2018 17:29:53 GMT
It should be noted that part of a movie’s succcess in theaters depends on how much it makes domestically, since studios generally gain a greater share of a movie’s domestic earnings than they do the international earnings. Did I say that wasn't the case? Just pointing it out.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 23, 2018 17:31:51 GMT
So you want to use a estimated production and an estimated marketing budget that noone actually knows except the people in WB. And you don't want to estimated the revenue that comes product placement and movie tie-ins. So basically you are picking and choosing the estimates you want. And I hate to tell you but you only have 1 more step to my simple metric which makes yours simple too. If you are going to use market budget and basically guess at it's total why not guess at how much revenue for movie tie-ins and product placement? WTF has product placement got to do with a movie's success in theaters? Nothing.
Nearly all superhero movies recoup their outlay........eventually.
And I never said I had a problem with "simple." It's complete inaccuracy I don't like.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 23, 2018 20:12:08 GMT
Actually, no, 160 mil budget does NOT sound high. "WHAT?!" you say. I know, I know. Used to be a time when you could get movies made for less than that.
But consider these budgets:
Thor Ragnarok - 180 guardians 2 - 200 black panther - 200 SW rogue one - 200 avengers - 220 SW TFA - 245 cap civil war 250 BvS - 250 Justice League - 300 SW Solo - 300 Avengers Infinty War - 321
Even Thor the Dark World cost 180!
Aquamans 160 is actually on the lower end! I only hope its good.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 1:21:09 GMT
So you want to use a estimated production and an estimated marketing budget that noone actually knows except the people in WB. And you don't want to estimated the revenue that comes product placement and movie tie-ins. So basically you are picking and choosing the estimates you want. And I hate to tell you but you only have 1 more step to my simple metric which makes yours simple too. If you are going to use market budget and basically guess at it's total why not guess at how much revenue for movie tie-ins and product placement? WTF has product placement got to do with a movie's success in theaters? Nothing.
Nearly all superhero movies recoup their outlay........eventually.
And I never said I had a problem with "simple." It's complete inaccuracy I don't like.
marketing partnership/movie tie-ins and product placement directly effects the Marketing Cost you are adding to the Production cost.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 1:30:53 GMT
Actually, no, 160 mil budget does NOT sound high. "WHAT?!" you say. I know, I know. Used to be a time when you could get movies made for less than that.
But consider these budgets:
Thor Ragnarok - 180 guardians 2 - 200 black panther - 200 SW rogue one - 200 avengers - 220 SW TFA - 245 cap civil war 250 BvS - 250 Justice League - 300 SW Solo - 300 Avengers Infinty War - 321
Even Thor the Dark World cost 180!
Aquamans 160 is actually on the lower end! I only hope its good. It sounded high to me to begin with in comparison to Wonder Woman's 150m and Antman 130m. The CGI effects alone for the underwater shots are going to be expensive, so yeah 160m is on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 1:38:23 GMT
So you want to use a estimated production and an estimated marketing budget that noone actually knows except the people in WB. And you don't want to estimated the revenue that comes product placement and movie tie-ins. So basically you are picking and choosing the estimates you want. And I hate to tell you but you only have 1 more step to my simple metric which makes yours simple too. If you are going to use market budget and basically guess at it's total why not guess at how much revenue for movie tie-ins and product placement? WTF has product placement got to do with a movie's success in theaters? Nothing.
Nearly all superhero movies recoup their outlay........eventually.
And I never said I had a problem with "simple." It's complete inaccuracy I don't like.
Also the Marketing Budget estimates fluctuates from article to article. Take BvS during the debate on how much that movie needed to make to break even. Articles and People arguing about it varied the Market Budget from 100m to 250m.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 24, 2018 4:12:20 GMT
Dude, I am not even bothering to read all of that. The bottom line is that there are ways to estimate BO and there are shitty ways to estimate BO. Doubling the production budget is one of the shitty, inaccurate ways. Add the marketing budget to the production budget, then double it - much more accurate. Wouldn’t the marketing expenses be covered by a number of other factors? This the point I was trying to make. He is adding the Marketing Budget to the Production Budget and then doubling it to get the Break Even point for the Theater Run. A lot of the time for big budget movies the studios strike marketing deals while the movie is still being made. They will either put products in the movie for a fee or they will put footage of the movie in a commercial. This would directly effect the Marketing Budget. Also the estimates for the Marketing Budget is just a guess and varies greatly from person to person. That's why adding the Marketing Budget Estimate to the Production Budget Estimate and doubling isn't accurate at all for it's break even point. In my opinion with all the variables into the calculation of the final cost to get a movie into a theater, it's better to go with doubling of the production budget.
|
|