This is typical Hollywood news click bait. They love the smell of blood.

600 million without China would be good enought this is GotG and CAtWS territory.

Also, last year only 7 movies broke this mark (with China help). "The Martian" got 630M and Godzilla(2014) got only 520M and both were considered big successes. "Prometheus" only 403M and is getting a sequal. Both previous "Star Trek" were bellow 450M.

I don´t belive SS is that more expencive than all those movies.

Has there been any movie in the history of cinema that needed 800 million to break even?

I've seen the movie there no chance in hell it would cost 400 million plus 400 in marketing.

Where to begin?

$175 million movie budget.
$10 million for re-shoots.
$100 million for all marketing (advertising).

Those are the numbers that we've been consistently told and seem relatively verifiable. That total is $285 million and studios usually take, on average throughout a films theater run about .50 on the dollar (half). It can be more or less depending on the theater and/or market.

To say that this film needs $800 million to BREAK EVEN is either complete clickbait or is a way to degrade the film ala Batman v Superman. The latter it was said would need $800 million to break even, and once it did, people across the Internet said it needed $1 billion to be credited as any type of success. Go figure...

This film needs maybe $650 million to break even and start turning pure profit (would equal about $325 million back to the studios). I just don't understand why we have to have these debates (they turn into arguments instead of just being easy conversations). If studios are really pouring this much money into these movies for the product we receive (budgets seem really bloated relative to all in all mediocre or just decent finished products) and thus need x amount in return, they're doing something wrong.

Remember 800 million in box office does not mean the studio/distributor gets that money. 

Want to see someone break down the potiential of stars wars, because that one made potientially 2 billion from the movie and other revenue sources from release of movie on DVD/Bluray (not including merchandising, and the break down has it making 800,000 Million in Profit). 

http://deadline.com/2016/03/star-wars-the-force-awakens-movie-profit-2015-lucasfilm-disney-1201726142/

I'm probably missing something, but how is it not what we're talking about here? One article even clearly mentions talk of the marketing budget (which the article actually said were 'mostly' legit numbers):

"A studio funds A Movie with a production budget of $100 million. It sets up AMovieCo Inc. and gives it the production budget money. The studio then spends another $50 million on marketing and puts that down as an expense as well -- though, with some of the big studios, some of this money involves paying itself for advertising on its own properties. Still, even if we assume that's real money spent, you might think that AMovieCo now needs to make back $150 million to be profitable. But... the studio (which, again, controls AMovieCo completely) then tacks onto all of that, say, a $250 million "distribution fee." Now, while there may be some money spent on actually distributing the film, the number is almost completely bogus, and much higher than the actual expense for the studio. Very little actual money needs to change hands here -- it's just a fee on the books (a fee they are effectively charging to themselves). And it's not just "distribution" but a variety of additional charges. On top of that, the studio may then charge "interest" on that money, even though it's really just lending money to itself. What it all means is that rather than becoming profitable at ~$150 million (the actual money spent), AMovieCo now needs to earn over $400 million before anyone with a cut of the profits sees an additional dime from the movie, thanks to completely imaginary accounting entries on the books. "

I mean I'm no accountant or anything, but I'm curious: If we're talking about movies breaking even in this thread, and then you read that paragraph above, aren't they talking about similar things? I know the article is specifically looking at things like paying out money to people once a movie turns a profit, but look at how the money is trading hands here...isn't that also part of the breaking even problem? Combined with not taking a 100% cut from the box office revenues of course.

Reread that paragraph.  It is stating that the production budget and marketing budget are legit costs.  That's all we are talking about.  From the insiders, who probably have a damn good idea what this costs to advertise, they are saying its production and marketing budget together are probably close to $400M.  

What that article is talking about is additional (fake) fees the studio tacks on after those budgets to try and make it look like it cost even more.  This is mainly done to cut directors and actors out of any type of "x% of profit from the movie's net income" clause they may have in their contract.  This would probably make it seem the movie cost almost a billion to make and advertise.

An example I saw in another thread was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2.  The production budget was $250M.  Let's just say the advertising budget was $150M, which gives us a total of $400M, as well.  The movie made over $1.3B WW.  That means the studio saw $670M-$740M, or $270M-$340M in profit. However, with the addition of their bogus fees, they were able to make it look like they lost money on the movie, which is complete BS.  Like I said, this practice should really be made illegal.

A lot of my friends are telling me that it's better than Batman v Superman.

It has a worse/dumber plot and a worse villain, but it does do one thing BvS does not and try to occassionally have fun and not be so serious.

Though it still has the same "we shot the entire movie in a dark alley lit by a neon lit" depressing look to it. 

It's kinda of a toss up, I liked BvS better because there was still a plot in that movie that had some actual progression to it, and I actually kinda like the "Superman is a god-like figure" stuff. I just felt that film would've worked better if they just made it a standard "Bruce is getting played by Lex, at the end he realizes this, teams up with Supes" and not force fed all the Doomsday and Wonder Woman stuff in there. 

Suicide Squad just needs a new plot (mission for the "heroes") entirely and a new villian. 

It looks like the movie is not going to have legs though, early estimates are pinning down a $30 mill Saturday after a $65 mill midnight Thurs/Friday. It's dropping fast already but WB will eek out a nice opening weekend at least. The drop next weekend is not likely to be pretty. 

I am burned out on the superhero/villain movies so I wouldn't mind if it doesn't make a big profit, but I think it started off ok, critics hated it but angryjoe loved it, and he does have a good opinion about superhero movies, will see, its fine either way.

I don't need a sequel or hundreds of other big budget superhero movies however, I would like something else.

Having re-read the paragraph, I'm not seeing where it states that those are legit costs. The paragraph clearly states that marketing costs can often include paying itself for advertising, so I don't understand how that number is going to be on the up and up. And with the way they can clearly cook those books, I don't see why anybody should trust nameless insiders who have a damn good idea on what this costs to advertise and how to actually do the things mentioned.

I'm with you on the production budget, and I totally understand the fake fees in the article being a separate discussion, but the marketing budget hasn't proven to be a legit cost, and there's evidence to suggest otherwise. In about the early 2000s, BOM would frequently list production budgets along with marketing costs on their movies, but those numbers were often quite low, and nowadays, very hard to even come by. Perfect example is your Harry Potter example. Production budget is easy to state, marketing costs not so much. I see no reason to put faith in those numbers (the marketing budget numbers, not your hypothetical Harry Potter example).