Chris Hu said:
Too make a profit a movie got to make over twice its bugdet since the studios only get back about 50% of the box office gross and is some contries like China its a lot less then 50%. |
Why do you think it needs to make that much more profit to be considered a profit. Anything made over the budget is a profit.
It's basic math like I said before a movie only gets about 50% of its box office totals, so in order to be profitable it needs to make at least twice as much as its budget. Most movies will make their money back eventually even if they bomb at the box office due to pay per view and other home video sales but movies that don't make at least twice as much as their budget will loose money at first. Like this years bomb for example:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-flops-tomorrowland-820498
| Chris Hu said: It's basic math like I said before a movie only gets about 50% of its box office totals, so in order to be profitable it needs to make at least twice as much as its budget. Most movies will make their money back eventually even if they bomb at the box office due to pay per view and other home video sales but movies that don't make at least twice as much as their budget will loose money at first. Like this years bomb for example: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-flops-tomorrowland-820498 |
Tomorrow Land deserved to flop it was promoting the wrong message witht he adult child interactions...
Aeolus451 said:
|
No it doesn't. Like Chris Hu said, the studios typically only get around 50% of the box office gross from the exhibitors. The rest they need to make up with things like DVD sales and rentals, broadcast satellite sales, merchandising, soundtrack sales, etc.
Also, the budgets usually listed are only for production costs. Marketing costs are often 20-30% of the production budget, especially on big budget movies. So if the production cost of Pan is $150m, they probably spent more around $30-35m on promoting the damn thing. So all told, the movie has to make close to $350m worldwide just to breakeven, and a lot more to be called a success.
AlfredoTurkey said:
I didn't see Cinderella though. But even so, leave the classics alone! It's almost like no one can come up with something original anymore. |
Well I kinda agree with that, but I don't think it ruined the film nor the character, I thought it was decent at least.
About the rest... It's nothing new that almost everything lacks originality these days though. Heck, take Disney themselves as example. They deserve the credit for their movies because they are top notch in every aspect (most of them) yet they are based off books from centuries ago with some changes for the young audience.
And going more on topic. Personally doesn't surprise me this was a flop. I mean, I went to see Hotel Transylvania 2 the other day and only because of that I find out this movie even existed.. it's likely that I'm not the only one.
Aeolus451 said:
Total WW Gross = $183,887, 723 No profit? That's from your own source. |
Box office usually doesn't know the advertising budget costs. That's what causes movies to usually to be a failure. I don't get why people think this way. These people are basically saying all the theaters, advertising campagins, and various other promoters/companies of the film, do it for free.
| Chris Hu said: It's basic math like I said before a movie only gets about 50% of its box office totals, so in order to be profitable it needs to make at least twice as much as its budget. Most movies will make their money back eventually even if they bomb at the box office due to pay per view and other home video sales but movies that don't make at least twice as much as their budget will loose money at first. Like this years bomb for example: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-flops-tomorrowland-820498 |
Well, damn I guess I was wrong. *shrugs*
Aeolus451 said:
|
Because it makes sense? A studio doesn't get all the money generated at the BO. Typically, Jupiter Ascending needed $445M to break even.
Well people seemed to really like him in Les Miserables, so that's something.
Otherwise, who the heck thought we needed yet another Peter Pan movie?
| Johnw1104 said: Well people seemed to really like him in Les Miserables, so that's something. Otherwise, who the heck thought we needed yet another Peter Pan movie? |
No one really. But more than that, do movies with kids really do well other than animated movies?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
