Coming off of Aquaman and Shazam! this is a franchise that can do no wrong at the moment...and with responsible budgets.
The huge profits are pure gravy for Warner Bros. as the rest of their slate is so successful they aren't having to use DC to bail out a disasterous, money-losing slate outside of their DC films.
I don't know if Joker will be on fire at the box office, but I'm impressed they gave Todd Phillips the freedom to make such a serious, grim, rather quiet character study for a comic book movie.
DC is clearly trying to course correct after a few stumbles. I wish there was more cohesiveness in the universe (Ben Affleck out, Henry Cavill likely out, Ezra Miller reportedly out as the Flash) and that the Justice League actors stayed the same (or that we actually GOT a Justice League sequel).
But Joker, Suicide Squad reboot, Wonder Woman 2 and Shazam seem a lot more interesting now than the first wave of DC films.
so many nerds and chinamen out there eating this shit up
shareBest and funniest reply here lol...
Even though I will be one of the nerds watching this.
strange, because chinamen are normally busy torturing and murdering innocent animals...... great to see they now also have time to support the libcunts in hollywood
shareHuge profits? Shazam is shaping up to be a money-loser. Made on a budget of $100 million, and with a massive ad campaign that cost at least as much, the total cost was certainly more than $200 million. The film has made only $162 million so far, and likely needs to earn $300-350 million to break even. Remember, studios don't get 100% of that profit. When it comes to foreign box office profits, they get between 25-30% of it, and they don't get 100% of the domestic take either.
Do the math: right now Shazam has made $60 million domestically and $102 million overseas. About $75 million of that goes to Warner Brothers, meaning they're currently about $225 to $275 million in the hole. They have a looooong way to go before seeing a profit on this turkey.
Yet another disappointment for WB. :(
Boxofficemojo is the only site claiming this to have a 100 million dollar budget as all other sites are pegging it at 80 or 90 million.
Only China is 25%, most other foreign territories the studio keeps around 40%..
The breakeven point is around 360 million and there is not one site or analyst that thinks it will fall below that. At this point it looks heading towards 500 million or above. Hardly a money-loser and very much a profit-maker.
Oops another failed queen prediction
shareAnd... Shazam ended up making $364.5 million worldwide, most of it internationally, i.e. less profitably. So by your reckoning it ended up with a profit of less than $5 million. Hardly on fire, that one, and nowhere near the "500 million or above" you anticipated.
shareTrue. My prediction was wrong.
But if we are to believe billbrown, marketing and distribution costs are not to be a factor in a film's profitability during its theatrical release. Those costs are covered by the home market he says.
Sooo...using billbrown's financial model, this 90 million dollar production had a breakeven point of 180 million. Everything after that was pure gravy so it seems the film was QUITE successful! Tens of millions in profit!
I believe the budget has been reported as $100 million. In the past, when movie studios kept the bulk of the ticket sale revenue, a good estimate of profitability was to say that if a film earned, domestically, double it's production cost, then it was a break even. I don't think that holds true any more. My understanding is that now, studios get a majority of the money from the opening weekend, then a lower share as time passes. Studios take 70 to 80% of gross box office sales from the 1st week. That drops each week, and by the 5th or 6th week they take only 35% of the box office gross.
Shazam made about $70 million in its first week, and we can assume Warner Bros. made about $56 million. They probably made another $35 million from the rest of its run, giving them $91 million total from its domestic run.
International revenue is a different story. Every studio has its own deal with each country, making it hard to come up with a precise figure. The general estimate is that studios get 40% of the international sales, except in China where they get only 25%.
$44 million of Shazam's take came from China, giving the studio $11 million. They made $72 million from the remaining international box office.
56+35+11+72 = $174 million.
A common estimate is that studios spend an amount equal to the production budget to promote the film, but I've always felt that overestimates the cost. Nonetheless, the budget for the film was $100 million, and they probably spent at least $74 million promoting it, so it's hard to imagine that Shazam made money during its theatrical run. It likely broke even, or came close to doing so, and may turn a profit down the road from video sales, streaming revenue, toy sales, and so forth.
"My understanding is that now, studios get a majority of the money from the opening weekend, then a lower share as time passes. Studios take 70 to 80% of gross box office sales from the 1st week. That drops each week, and by the 5th or 6th week they take only 35% of the box office gross."
My understanding is that is no longer the practice. It starts at 50% and stays at 50$ for a film's entire run. Now it was widely reported that Disney got a special deal domestically for The Last Jedi and Endgame but I've seen nothing on The Lion King.
One thing's for sure...even Endgame didn't get 55% of it's international gross lol. No film that I know of ever has.
I often read that the former is the case, but if you're correct, Shazam did even worse, and earned back only $153 million of the approximately $200 million spent to make and promote it. It's unlikely it will make another $47 million in post-theater income.
shareI had always heard the diminishing % for the studios as the run went on as well. But I've been told by a number of people with closer knowledge of the exhibition business that it's no longer the case this past decade and it's basically a 50/50 split for the entire run.
Hard to tell for sure, though, as it's a very secretive business.
If it's really just a straight 50/50, and then 50% of foreign, but only 25% of China, then it seems that only Disney's films are making any money. How soon before they're the only studio left?
shareIf we use your math-- 50% of all but China, and 25% of China, and assume a film needs double its production budget to make money, the year's top films look like this:
Money Makers
Avengers: Endgame made $533 million
The Lion King made $229 million
Captain Marvel Made $222 million
Spiderman: Far From Home made $190 million
Aladdin made $142 million
Toy Story 4 made $109 million
The Secret Life of Pets made $41 million
Money Losers
Hobbs and Shaw lost $129 million
How to Train Your Dragon lost $12 million
Detective Pikachu lost $107 million
Alita: Battle Angel lost $171 million
Godzilla, King of the Monsters lost $176 million
Tough year for companies not named Disney!
why did you suddenly increase the P&A from 74 to 100mil? you added 26 mil despite claiming that you think it's often exaggerated number.
shareWhat is P&A? Where did I change something from 74 to 100?
All I'm doing above is plugging numbers into a formula Queen Fan provided. According to him, a film needs to earn double it's production budget to make money, and the formula for money earned is to subtract Chinese profits from total global profits, divide what's left in half, then add 1/4 of the Chinese profits.
I am skeptical about the idea that a studio will spend $100 million dollars to promote a film that cost $100 million to make, then spend $300 million to promote a film that cost $300 million to make. It seems to be based more on the film itself than the budget. The MCU films don't seem to be as heavily advertised as other blockbusters, probably because they have a built-in audience. I didn't see anywhere near the promotion for Endgame that I saw for, say, Hobbs and Shaw, and I'd be astonished if Disney actually spent anywhere near $356 million promoting it. Again, I used Queen's formula to generate the numbers above, which is how Endgame's profits were declared to be $533 million.
you first said it cost 174 to produce and promote. then to make Shazam look worse when talking to Queen, added 26 to that total. We both know the prod budget is 100, so you added 26 to the promotion cost --ie, P&A
And for the record, I thought Shazam sucked. I'm not part of the studio/CBM wars here. I'm a Godzilla nerd but I can't pretend that it was more successful than it was. You seem to process Godzilla films differently than others. I was just reminding you of your old posts after you tweaked mine.
I see what you are referring to... $174 million is the total profit Shazam earned if one assumes the studio takes 80% of the opening week's ticket revenue. $200 million is the estimate of the total cost of Shazam if we use Queen's method of doubling the cost of making the film.
I used the same formula for all of the films above, Godzilla included. I mentioned somewhere that the word of mouth seemed to favor Godzilla over Shazam, but I didn't do so out of any bias for Godzilla or against Shazam. I work as a bartender 4 nights a week, and film is a very common topic at my bar. From those who had seen Godzilla I nearly always heard how great it was, while those who saw Shazam had less positive things to say. Not scientific by any stretch, hence my focus on numbers and math.
If you used that formula 3 weeks into Godzilla's run, you'd conclude that it was far from profitability rather than far from a flop. Films that fail every benchmark from their opening weekend, to their early week-to-week holds, never suddenly grow legs. Its theatrical fate was already sealed. Everything else is covered in my other post.
Without a doubt, this film will easily be in the black.
In retrospect, you should have doubted.
shareUsing your same formula, still think Godziila: King of the Monsters wasn't a flop?
shareI recall that I posted at some point that with the various after-theater profit possibilities it had the potential to turn a profit, but don't ever recall saying it didn't flop, at least not in a financial sense.
What constitutes a flop, anyway? Did Shazam flop? Did Godzilla? I tend to think of a flop as a film that loses a huge amount of money.
Shazam seems to have fallen $47 million short of profiting, and Godzilla seems to need another $60 million. If we consider what they can earn after their theatrical runs end, my hunch is that Godzilla will turn a profit, but Shazam won't. Godzilla is going to sell a lot more toys, t-shirts, lunchboxes, and such than Shazam, and when it comes to video sales/streaming, I think Godzilla's overwhelmingly positive word of mouth will generate higher sales than Shazam's rather disappointing word of mouth. All that said, I wouldn't consider either a flop.
https://moviechat.org/tt3741700/Godzilla-King-of-the-Monsters/5cffbeffc9b49d62dcd60674/Looks-like-a-flop?reply=5d0fc4e4806e74670ae803e7
Not sure how you came up with only 107 but...
Using your formulation:
63mil in the first US week = 50
47mil rest of run = 24
135mil from China = 34
140mil from the rest = 56
164mil -170= -6
-126 (p&a)
= 132 in the red after its theatrical run
Now. let's look at the most successful of the franchise in total...
https://deadline.com/2019/06/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-opening-weekend-china-global-international-box-office-1202624942/
From the link above (which I showed you long ago when you were arguing the "2x" theory of box office success)
"The 2014 Godzilla made an estimated $52M-plus in profit after all post theatrical streams off combined global P&A and production costs just under $300M and $529M worldwide B.O."
The production cost of the first was 10mil less than this one (160). The P&A cost was $140mil for that one -- which makes my 126mil P&A estimate above on the much lighter side (I used 74% from your formula even though I know its higher for films like these). It took $529mil plus all the post-run stuff to make $52mil for the most successful film of the three.
And tell me where your perception that GKOTM has "overwhelmingly positive" word of mouth when compared to Shazam -- despite Shazam selling more tix in the US -- with higher audience scores from RT and metacritic and Cinemascore - comes from
Using your formulation, GKOTM is in a huge hole after its theatrical run. Using actual data from deadline.com, you see that even the best performer of the franchise didn't make even half of what's needed in downstream to dig out of that hole.
Wow Shazam hasnt made much money.... surprised! Queen made it sound huge.
shareThe Joker befits you, QueenFanUSA.
shareShazam says high , another failed post by Queen
shareShazam says "I cost less than half what Dumbo cost but made tens of millions more worldwide."
shareDo you know that for sure ? Break it down for me , what were the marketing cost for shazam v dumbo ? I take it you have this information?
shareShazam says "I cost less than half what Dumbo cost but made tens of millions more worldwide."
^^^
sorry by your own words and standards Shazam is a Failure that Made NO PROFIT!
now to your thread
DC Films absolutely ON FIRE at the box office.
posted 5 months ago by QueenFanUSA (2091)
19 replies | jump to latest
^^^
Title should have been "DC Films are batting 50/50 at the box office, hardly on fire"
You know because 2 of the last 4 DC films have NOT been box office Successes
Wonder Woman(Hit....although not nearly the hit that Marvel Studios Captain Marvel was becoming the highest grossing female superhero film of all time KILLING WW in every possible way)
Justice League(complete failure, lost at least 60 Million, KILLED the DCEU)
Aquaman(Hit)
Shazam(according to the studio a complete disappointment, but judging but your own standards Queen, A total and complete failure)
again I repeat, your title is factually NOT TRUE...you can not accurately say "DC films are absolutely on Fire" when literally 50% of them are FLOPPING
seriously nice try though
Coming off of Aquaman and Shazam! this is a franchise that can do no wrong at the moment...and with responsible budgets.
^^^^
I think you mean coming off The success of Aquaman and The Disappointment of Shazam, This franchise is doing at least 50% wrong.....and whats worse somehow they are made a failure in Shazam with a Completely "responsible budget"
The huge profits are pure gravy for Warner Bros. as the rest of their slate is so successful they aren't having to use DC to bail out a disasterous, money-losing slate outside of their DC films.
^^^
again, This is just not factually true
as DC made absolutely zero profit from Shazam...
Lost over 60 Million on Justice League
WB did make profiit on WW and Aquaman but I'd hardly call that "HUGE PROFIT".....
for an example of "HUGE PROFIT"...you can look no further than Disney with Their MCU films which are netting upwards of 390 Million +
in Profit...
The Avengers netted 500 M+ in Profit
IM3 netted 390 M+ in Profit
AOU netted 390 Million+ in Profit
Black Panther Netted 475 Million + in Profit
Avengers IW Netted 500 Million + in Profit
Captain Marvel netted 350 M+ in Profit
Avengers EG netted 700 Million + in Profit
These are PROFITS WB and DC can only dream about and literally barely even HIT 50% of with WW and Aquaman...
and as for DC films not having to bail out Disastrous money losers....lol Godzilla 2 says hi!
I bet WB wishes they were Like Disney, and NOT ONLY had Superhero Films Making them BILLIONS in Profit....but also had 6 other films TOP 1 Billion + that also NETTED them BILLIONS in Profit!
Just an epic fail like usual Queen!....this time though...the statements you made were actual factual NOT TRUE!
lol
PS
even though your title is factually NOT true...
I do thank you at least Noting "DC films"....
Instead of incorrectly calling them "DCEU films"...
Since the DCEU is a failed and now DEAD creation....It would have been even MORE factually incorrect to use "DCEU" in The title....
lol
Wait a minute...how did Shazam make "zero profit"?
You said that marketing and distribution costs are not factored in to the profitability. They are financed by the home market, remember? LOL
Now I know that's lunacy and ignorant beyond belief but using YOUR math Shazam was highly profitable! 90 million budget means breakeven was 180 million.
Again...how did Justice League lose money?
Using your moronic finance model means that the breakeven point would be around 600 million.
How much did it make...650 million? Looks like another profitable movie to me.
LOL
It’s common knowledge JL made very little profit for your precious WB, wrong again
shareNot according to billbrown's financial model. Using THAT would mean that JL is in the black since it made its production back and then some. Marketing and distribution costs were covered by home media according to him.
LOLOLOLOL
Oh...and furiousstyles?
Once again you are proving yourself to be an idiot. You can't even glean from my posts that I'm being sarcastic?
You get ridiculed with each post you make , you got ridiculed on the old IMDb forum , it’s you that is the idiot.
shareBeing "ridiculed" does not make me an "idiot".
Now...believing that Disney is getting 55% of International ticket sales even though no major site is reporting this HUGE news certainly would.
;)
Also, believing that TLK2019 "netted 30 million in profit" from DOMESTIC ALONE on a 260 million production budget is also the belief of an "idiot".
You're welcome for the education.
You don’t half talk shit queen , you have no idea how much profit TLK will make , absolutely none because you’re an idiot that doesn’t understand the box office nor the industry, you just write utter shit about Disney because it eclipses the studios you like such as universal and WB
Game, set , match
So you're buying what billbrown is selling?
LOLOLOLOL
Did I say that? Nope but I’d take his opinion over yours anyway cause you always get it wrong , how on earth you can say dc is killing it and then say the lion king has under performed is just absolutely ridiculous.
shareIt's not an "opinion" he is giving. He is flat-out saying that it is CONFIRMED that Disney is getting 65% of the domestic ticket sales and a whopping 55% of international.
Now I ask you again...do you believe this is true?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
I dream of living long enough to see an entire year go by without even one damned comic book movie. So f'ing tired of this crap. I know, I know, you don't like me, but just ask yourself this: do you think I actually care?
shareLol...you're not bothering me with your wish. Sounds good and refreshing to me.
share