Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just used a convenient (and recent) example. (I thought I said I loved First Class?) DoFP really did finish at a loss. (Maybe they got some profit from DVD sales.) It's got nothing to do with anyone's opinion of the film.
I just used a convenient (and recent) example. (I thought I said I loved First Class?) DoFP really did finish at a loss. (Maybe they got some profit from DVD sales.) It's got nothing to do with anyone's opinion of the film.
...your own figures prove you wrong. What are you even talking about? You said the production and marketing cost $375M and that it made twice that in theaters. How is 100% profit finishing at a loss?
In the end, the movie will make whatever the studio bosses tell the accountants it made. Studios are so good at cooking the books these days that it is almost impossible to gauge how much money a movie really made.
Just one example: Return of the Jedi. One of the most successful movies of the 1980s. A monster, monster hit. But according to Lucasilm, the movie has yet to turn a profit. Why? Because when it does, they owe the actors and some of the other filmmakers a cut of the profits. Therefore, that movie will never be profitable.
...your own figures prove you wrong. What are you even talking about? You said the production and marketing cost $375M and that it made twice that in theaters. How is 100% profit finishing at a loss?
That's how it was reported, dude. Look at the domestic (where studios get more money). Look at the overseas (where they get much less). Look at how long it took to get there via Box Office Mojo and their daily calendar. It's a fair comparison because it's also a major event film. $373M isn't how much the studio took home and stuffed into the proverbial pillow case. That's the kind of accounting everyone would love.
That's how it was reported, dude. Look at the domestic (where studios get more money). Look at the overseas (where they get much less). Look at how long it took to get there via Box Office Mojo and their daily calendar. It's a fair comparison because it's also a major event film. $373M isn't how much the studio took home and stuffed into the proverbial pillow case. That's the kind of accounting everyone would love.
Without some sort of proof to show how much it "really" made you're just talking out of your ass.
After estimating marketing and advertising spend, Days of Future Past will have cost Fox nearly $365M to produce and distribute – representing a nearly $25M increase over 2006’s X-Men III: The Last Stand and 40-90% more than each of the last three X-Men films.
After appropriating for participation and back-end fees from actors, writers and investors, Fox will have spent roughly $450M on the film. With theater operators retaining approximately 45% of box office receipts domestically and 60% internationally, Days of Future Past would need to gross between $775 and $980M (depending on participation) just to break even. Large though those figures are, they’re not entirely outlandish in today’s franchise-obsessed market. 49 films have crossed the $775M barrier globally – half of which were released in the last five years. Twenty of those films have even exceeded the billion-dollar mark, including Fox’s last big bet (Avatar) and Disney’s own star-studded Avengers. Yet, the X-Men franchise has never been as lucrative as its hundred million dollar ad campaigns would suggest (or as Fox likes to believe).
The highest grossing X-Men film topped out at only $460M globally, with the series averaging only 60% of Days of Future Past’s $775M low-target. While The Avengers’ $1.5B box office haul surprised both industry analysts and series precedents, the film’s star (Robert Downey Jr.) had previously led two of the franchise’s five films to $585M and $625M highs – exceeding the best-performing of the six X-Men films by 27% and 36%. It’s also worth noting that 2011’s First Class, which dominates Days of Future Past’s cast and screen time, represented the series’ lowest entry since the original X-Men (which actually sold 20% more tickets).
Quote:
X-Men’s box office receipts (or audience size) have remained relatively stable around the $400M since the original X-Men film’s release – despite dramatically varied cast sizes, production costs or creative ambitions. As a result, increased film investment (a la Days of Future Past) has continually worsened theatrical returns (which are then amplified by that escalating investment cost). Conversely, Marvel (which is famously cost-conscious) has seen enhanced returns as it builds out its cinematic universe.
It just didn't do what was expected (like BvS, I guess). I, myself, expected DoFP to join the One Billion Club or get near it.
^Still chuckling over that "100% profit" assumption, too...
It wasn't an assumption, it was the math that you presented. If you make twice as much as you spent then you made 100% profit. That's how math works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
