Flop?


Hi All,

I have only seen small parts of this movie, but have rented it recently because the small parts I'd seen looked really good. Now reading up a little bit i see that it had a budget of 70,000,000 and grossed 14,000,000 (GBP I admit). Doesn't that mean it's a huge flop?

What the?

SpiltPersonality

reply

It had a budget of 70 million and made 135 million worldwide I wouldn't call a 65 million profit a flop

reply

I'd agree, but it didn't make a $65 million profit. Subtracting the production budget from the worldwide gross does not tell the whole story.

Marketing costs also need to be considered. In the modern film industry, the general rule of thumb is that the studio sets a marketing budget at about 50% of the production budget, so that would probably be another $35 million, leaving a profit of $30 million.

After that, other expenses get a bit harder to pin down. The distribution costs can suck up anywhere from 10-50% of the net profit, which whittles down the studio's profit to the $15 million to $27 million range. This tends to be lower if the distributor (in this case Paramount) is partnered as a production company. But Stardust was independently produced by Vaughn's own production company (paired with an outside investment company), and this was only the studio's second release, and their first released through Paramount, so it's likely that Paramount took a percentage at the higher end to make up for the risk.

Finally, the movie theaters take their piece, which probably would be a rather small percentage due to the brief time it was in theaters (general rule: the longer a film is in the theaters, the larger the percentage the theaters take). However, it wouldn't be surprising to see the theaters take 10% of the movie's gross box office, leaving very little meat on the bone.

So in the end, the movie may have made a relatively small profit during its theatrical run (although given the vagueries of what was spent for marketing and distribution, it may have even been in the red by a small margin). It avoided being a complete flop, but its profit for the studio would have been nowhere near $65 million.

reply

I don't think they spent even a million on marketing this movie. Sad because it's really a fantastical film.

reply

I never heard about this movie until today...that's how badly it must have been marketed. I LOVED it. It's something I might have seen twice in the theaters.

Sadly, unless a movie breaks 500 million plus another 500 million in tie-in sales from toys and promotions, it's considered a flop now days.




----------------- Church ||||||||||||| State .

reply

I never heard about this movie until today...that's how badly it must have been marketed. I LOVED it. It's something I might have seen twice in the theaters.

Sadly, unless a movie breaks 500 million plus another 500 million in tie-in sales from toys and promotions, it's considered a flop now days.




----------------- Church ||||||||||||| State .

reply

Unfortunately the movie did not make a profit.
A film does not make 100% of the money that it receives in theaters. There is the money taken by theater owners, and distribution costs for instance (as well as advertising).

So to come up with a rough guess about whether a film made a profit or not, the production budget should be doubled.
- For this film that is 140 million. That would be about the breakeven point.
And "Stardust" made 5 million less than that.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

reply

According to Pro.boxoffice http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/stardust-2007?q=stardust, production plus marketing cost is $98 Millions. Added another $27 Millions of DVD sales http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Stardust#tab=summary. The gross of the box office has to cut for distribution. So it probably does make a small profit at the end. Vaughn did talk about there was once a mention of Stardust 2 but was quickly killed bcos the box office result didn't shine as hoped.

reply