Jaydogrules

Very nice! -J.

I agree with most of what you just said. Remember, I wasn't trying to knock your charts, I was just performing a thought experiment to amuse myself. Although I don't think it will be long before we start seeing something closer to a 4X being the reported real "break even" point for "world wide tentpoles". -J. PS: You don't have to tag someone if you're already quoting their post. Lol

This is still incorrect. Deadline, Variety, and Forbes (when it is not a film that has failed that they are trying to run cover for) quite regularly reference a movie's P&A, at least in its first week or two of release. These things are not left in a vacuum. They are all upfronts to even get a movie into theaters so they matter. I am trying to find a way to shortcut the final analysis to include potential ancillaries, but it cannot be done while a movie is still in theaters, and the majority of that info will be unknown to the general public once the movie does move to the ancillary market. That, however, does not make the information (the P&A) irrelevant while a movie makes its box office run. If nothing else, it tells us how big a movie really is, if it hits a nice profit after production, P&A theatrically, the ancillary aftermarket is gravy. Or, as with Birds of Prey, a movie that will be $100MM in the hole and will need to say plenty of prayers to still not lose $40MM even after ancillaries. But just for fun, let's look at Halloween again. A movie with a measly $10MM production budget that still spent $75MM on P&A, but grossed $270MM worldwide. If @Bosco685 had made a chart for that movie, with its $270MM BO and only $10MM budget, he would have that as a 27X multiplier. Wow, that just sounds fantastic doesnt it? Except, it would be nowhere near accurate. For as we can see, the actual multiplier after all was said and done, would be more like 12.8X. Nearly 15X less. Still fantastic, but a loooong way from the basic and very misleading 27X that we would see on his chart. And this movie was made for peanuts from top to bottom. Kind of gives new perspective to all these 2-3X movies we see on his charts, doesnt it? Now, just for fun, let's look at what would happen if we took the production, P&A, all front end expenses studios spend just to get into theaters, and do my 50/40/25 calculation of the worldwide BO. Doing so gives the studio a $36MM profit before it even hits the ancillary market. But let's just say it stopped there. That would represent a 3.6X return (on only the production budget, if that's all we should be looking at on the front end, as you're suggesting). Now that 3.6X multiplier is a heck of a lot closer to the final 12.8X multiplier than the @Bosco685 method of 27X would be, without knowing a thing about or taking into account a thing that happens in the movie's after-theater life. Now granted, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, but I stand by the practicality of including the P&A in the discussion, because, as I said before, more info is better than less, and most trades do so as well, at least when there isnt an agenda. -J.

....Close. My argument, that I have repeatedly made a case for by showing actual comps, is that, much like whatever "PQ" CGC decides to put on a label, the sales data is also so random and inconsistent that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn or proven either way. It is all just anecdotal and guesswork and nobody can get inside the head of a buyer or know why he or she made a decision to pay "X" for a book. So what does it all mean ? It means nothing. -J.

You're right. I'm going to look at it again when I get another minute. -J.

This is pretty much accurate. There are a couple of guys who think they are impressing people with their vast box office knowledge by over complicating something that can in fact be reasonably ball parked quite easily with this basic formula: Domestic box office to studio- 50% Foreign box office to studio- 40% China box office to studio- 25% Do you need to know all the other ancillaries, off the tops, video/TV aftermarket deals etc to really know how much a movie has made or lost ? NO. Case in point, Halloween (2018). Let's only apply the above percentages to the box office numbers reported by Deadline to the actual net profit attributed to the movie, and ignore everything else, and see how close we get: Domestic- $159MM × 50%= $79.5MM Foreign- $94MM × 40%= $37.6MM China- $16MM × 25% ÷ $4MM For a total approximate net to studio profit of $121.1MM. Now let's look at the "Studio Net Profit" line on Deadline's chart. There, we see that Deadline calculates a profit of $128.5MM. Which is just a few million off from our shorthand calculation, essentially ignoring all the other fluff, that, as it turns out, do indeed generally cancel each other out. This is indeed the simplest, easiest way for a layman to figure how much a movie has/will make or lose a studio money. (Now get ready for someone to pretend I claimed that this is authoritative and not a thumbnail for a layman, and scour the internet trying to find an outlier example where this quick formula might be off by more than 15-20% to show us how smart they are .) -J.

I suppose.... the lack of the cat on the side of the left on the statue throws me. I still think the SSM 20 artwork, which this is obviously essentially a re-do of, would have commanded more. -J.

Exactly. And never forget that, according to Forbes as well, that the similarly budgeted Venom needed to make at least $350MM to break even and $400MM THEATRICALLY to be "worth it". -J.

You like arguing in circles and taking down imaginary strawmen. I refer you back to my last post as my response to this. Good day. -J.

If you still haven't figured out that I only look at the studios' all-in to actually get its movies into the theaters, I don't know what to tell you. And, once again, potential post-theatrical revenue streams also carry their own set of costs and there are additional off the tops that I don't factor in either. So to repeat myself once again, I ONLY LOOK AT WHAT A MOVIE SPENDS AND MAKES FOR ITS THEATRICAL RELEASE which is perfectly reasonable and gives a very good idea for what a movie "really" needs to make in theaters to hit the black theatrically. And as I said before, if your movie enters the post-theatrical market $100MM in the hole, you have a problem. -J.

Right. Basically $7k+ for re-purposed art for his own store. The more I think about it, the more I think it was actually a solid result for what it is. (And the statue they showed in the listing for reference was for SSM 20, not the cover they were selling.) -J.

Lol are you high ? Thus movie does not have a prayer at $200MM in its post theatrical life. Get a grip. And FYI- nothing "disinformation" about anything I posted. I literally do it just about the way Deadline does in their box office derbies. And my +/- numbers usually match up better there than with anyone else that bothers with this kind of info. Maybe you should look again at how much the likes of shazam made in its pitiful post-theatrical run for context. So spare me your lame editorializations. No matter how you try to slice and dice is, this movie tanked theatrically, and will limp into its post-theatrical zombie shuffle $100MM in the hole, give or take. -J.

This movie's all in for worldwide production, prints and marketing (all upfront, pre-theatrical release costs) is about $185MM. Right now it has made the following to the studio: North America: $80MM @ 50% = $40MM Foreign (no China): $110MM @ 40% = $44MM Total to studio so far: $84MM So right now this movie is about $100MM dollars in the red. Meaning it would need to make another about $200MM with a comparable domestic/foreign split that it has now, just to break even- or about $390MM (funny, that's also about what Forbes said the similarly budgeted Venom needed to make to be "worth it"). Considering that it is already just about at the end of its run, it will be a(nother) big money loser for WB. -J.

I think if it was the original version of that art that appeared on superior Spider-Man 20, it would have flirted with or even surpassed the $10k mark. -J.

First episode and a half were great. Downhill after that. Too much like "It". -J.

@Gary Strange Great looking books, and it's awesome that you managed to get both from the same collection. @ADAMANTIUM Those are some solid looking mid grade examples. -J.

Most likely $250 to Ebay and 3% to PayPal. Not too bad. -J.

Congrats on your epic pick up Jerome! -J.

Thank you! And likewise on your #700 haul. -J.

You don't get 4300 screens in north America and a worldwide wannabe tentpole release on a $50MM P&A budget. If you think that you're just being delusional. Even The Nun had a $100MM P&A budget. WB spent AT LEAST that much on this, putting its all in at or around $185MM, and yeah, as it stands now, it is a sizable money loser. Fortunately WB is playing with "found money" from Joker still, so they may not care. Though this certainly puts more pressure on Wonder woman to deliver the goods later this year. -J.

Thanks! I also think this is CGC's first foray with a "custom label", so that's also a neat little side perk. -J.

Really glad I picked this up a few years ago. It's the only Stan Lee signed book I have (and will ever have): -J.

Are the variants for #700 allowed in this thread? -J.

Sick book. First 9.8 offered publicly literally in years. Fasten your searbelts! This is what my LCS sold his graded 9.8 copy for privately about a year and a half ago. -J.

According to "the numbers', shazam only made about $31MM in video sales. Of which studios "also" do not get 100% of rev. Of which there are "also" associated costs of promotion, production, and marketing. Even with that, Shazam still did not hit $400MM, and still did not break even. Birds of Prey will enter that segment of the market $50-$100MM in the red. In other words, if you are relying on "ancillaries" to "break even", you've lost money on your movie. In the case if BoP, you have a flop. Does it matter where on a ledger a movie lists it costs ? No. The costs are the costs. The calculus of what it movie needs to make just to break even does not change. -J.