Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 10, 2014 - 10:30 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Too true! big grin Also add on promotional costs on top of production costs. Ten years ago that was another hundred million. Who knows what they spend on promotion/advertising today. That money needs to be recouped as well.

Well, yeah, but the rule of thumb is that you double the movie's budget to account for that sort of stuff. Which is why I don't know where this talk of $500 million dollars is coming from.

 
 
 Posted:   May 10, 2014 - 1:49 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Too true! big grin Also add on promotional costs on top of production costs. Ten years ago that was another hundred million. Who knows what they spend on promotion/advertising today. That money needs to be recouped as well.

Well, yeah, but the rule of thumb is that you double the movie's budget to account for that sort of stuff. Which is why I don't know where this talk of $500 million dollars is coming from.



Well, a $200 million movie is not profitable till at least a $500 million gross, probably they need more, because of the cost of distribution and marketing. The reason, as you said, we are talking about the goals being higher now is that the cost of these movies is double what they were. I agree a $500 million gross to make a profit is frankly stupid. That is why I say that way too many of these movies are being made.

 
 
 Posted:   May 10, 2014 - 6:03 PM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

Interesting you left out Captain America! Don't they have to change his name around the World?

Not intentionally....I wrote that when I got home after a big night...(I should know better than to drink and post on message boards). I would have remembered in other circumstances.

 
 
 Posted:   May 10, 2014 - 9:13 PM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Yeah, but is there a reason they shouldn't count the overseas totals? It's still money, after all. Is other countries' money somehow less desirable to you?

Point being if they had to rely just on domestic box office results these films would be colossal failures. So they are making movies for the world market. Good for them. I think the films are extremely dumb down because of it. Do french directors make films for the French market or for the American market? How about the Japanese? Russia? German? Nothing wrong with creating a universally assessable story of course. But American films lack any creative individuality nowadays because of it. The poor domestic box office also shows the American public are tiring of all these generic remakes, sequels, and reboots.


I don't think the MCU movies are any dumber than other typical superhero (or other comics) adaptations of previous decades - there's a great deal of wit and charm in them, and certainly it's hard to argue that they're fundamentally any dumber than, well... Just what previous movies in the genre do you think are so much better (and / or less dumbed-down)?

And whatever else it might be, Guardians of the Galaxy is hardly a generic remake, sequel or reboot. It can be argued to be a sequel to the other MCU movies generally, but it's not really a direct sequel to any of them so much as a brand-new story in that universe.



Ummm...most of the films you refer to have a universal appeal.

People all over the world read Spiderman comics.
People all over the world read Avengers comics
People all over the world read X-Men comics
People all over the world know who the Lone Ranger is.

So I guess that, yeah, these movies are being made for the world market because the target audience is scattered around the world.


Interesting you left out Captain America! Don't they have to change his name around the World? Seriously the average Russian or Chinese don't read Marvel comics. Look what they did to Superman, totally nurtured him of any patriotism. Their huge hits because of one common denominator- endless CGI action/violence. Which is universally loved. Characters and stories are flimsy at best.


Except that Marvel has diddly-squat to do with what "they" did to Superman. If you're going to argue against these movies, you might at least bother to know exactly what you're arguing for and against. Superman is put out by DC / Warner, Marvel's major competitor in this game, and there's a world of difference in the approaches and styles the two studios are taking with their respective comics movie projects. You might as well commingle the filmmaking outputs of David Lean and Ed Wood as basically the same if you're going to make boners like that.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2014 - 7:21 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Yeah I goofed with the Superman comment. embarrassment Though I am not sure what we are discussing anymore. The goal posts moved from what constitutes a hit, too the rest of the world apparently loves Marvel comics.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2014 - 2:34 PM   
 By:   Khan   (Member)

Khan
Almost all of these movies make more overseas than here in the US.
If they get to profit (IF) it is on the money from overseas auds.

Lone Ranger made $290 global, it had a budget around $200 million similar to GOTG.
So the break even on both of these pictures is about the same.

The forecast above did not specify $200 million US or overseas, but the point is that it has to make about $550 million to breakeven, that is pretty unlikely for this movie, since it looks pretty hard for even Amazing Spiderman 2 to reach that.


No, your point was that Guardians is going to bomb on a Lone Ranger level based off of a $200 million domestic take (some quick internet sleuthing shows that Hitflix is making domestic projections). You're moving the goalposts.

Furthermore, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is already at $450 million worldwide, so your doom and gloom comment about that movie will quickly be proven wrong.


Khan, as you often do you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Lone Ranger was a bomb that cost about $200 million to make, the comparison was Guardians of the Galaxy with a similar budget, even we assume the high end of the entire world like
Boxoffice Mojo it still only $430 and it still in the red. Spiderman might might a profit, still a really long way from that though, and it is a more marketable product than GOTG.


I don't make things more complicated. I just take your ludicrous claims and blow them up.

Also, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 hit $550 million this weekend. I thought that was pretty unlikely?

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2014 - 2:41 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

How a movie performs at the box office in its first few weeks is hardly an indicator of classic status.

 
 
 Posted:   May 11, 2014 - 3:00 PM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Yeah I goofed with the Superman comment. embarrassment Though I am not sure what we are discussing anymore. The goal posts moved from what constitutes a hit, too the rest of the world apparently loves Marvel comics.

Looking back at my previous comment I see I was a little snarkier than I really should have been; my apologies.

I'm not sure either, but my point is simply that at this point, Marvel Studios can afford to take risks like this newest one, and indeed, it's the desirable way to go from a creative standpoint, whatever the box-office prospects.

 
 Posted:   May 11, 2014 - 3:23 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Yeah I goofed with the Superman comment. embarrassment Though I am not sure what we are discussing anymore. The goal posts moved from what constitutes a hit, too the rest of the world apparently loves Marvel comics.

Looking back at my previous comment I see I was a little snarkier than I really should have been; my apologies.

I'm not sure either, but my point is simply that at this point, Marvel Studios can afford to take risks like this newest one, and indeed, it's the desirable way to go from a creative standpoint, whatever the box-office prospects.


No problem. We're all just a bunch of armchair quarter backs!

 
 
 Posted:   May 12, 2014 - 6:54 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)



I don't make things more complicated. I just take your ludicrous claims and blow them up.

Also, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 hit $550 million this weekend. I thought that was pretty unlikely?


Well, I never said that it was "unlikely" that statement applied to GOTG, and I still that that is true. I said that AS2 is a long way from $600 million, and it still is. The returns on that apparently monstrous overseas gross is not what it appears to be, the studios only bring home about 15 to 20% of that money from overseas due to higher distribution costs and the value of the dollar. So out of that $400 million (apparently they like it more over there than in the USA) Sony might being home only $80 or $100 million, out of the domestic gross of $150 million they are pretty much splitting it because of distribution and exhibition costs, so that brings it down to about $75 million. So the actual take home to the bank for the studio is really only about $175 to $200 million right now.

They spent:
$250 million production cost before marketing
$180 million on marketing

They are nowhere near a profit on this picture.

 
 
 Posted:   May 12, 2014 - 8:42 AM   
 By:   groovemeister   (Member)

I've always heard that a movie has to make twice its budget at the box-office (because of promotion etc) to break even.

 
 
 Posted:   May 12, 2014 - 8:45 AM   
 By:   groovemeister   (Member)

I've always heard that a movie has to make twice its budget at the box-office (because of promotion etc) to break even.

 
 
 Posted:   May 13, 2014 - 8:46 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Did you also hear message board posters have to make their posts twice in order to ensure they're read?

 
 Posted:   May 14, 2014 - 3:20 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)


STAR WARS---Disney CEO Bob Iger confirmed there will be "at least three" "origin story" movies that will alternate with the three "Saga" movies.


Star Wars Origins: Bib Fortuna

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.