Jaydogrules

On 12/30/2022 at 2:35 PM, paperheart said:

obviously a huge step down from BP1 but at least in the US it kept chugging along, an outside shot at $450M

The final kicks of a beheaded turkey.  

-J.

On 12/30/2022 at 12:44 PM, Bosco685 said:

With this Avatar 2 budget assumption discussion, I was playing around with a model based on today's latest box office to determine what an estimated studio revenue goal would be to break even. Also, recognizing with James Cameron's correction that Avatar 2 needs to land around the Top 10 of total box office results. I'll stretch it to Top 12 for this analysis.

Current box office distribution: Ballpark the portion of the individual markets making up the total worldwide box office. So of a total worldwide box office, we can distinguish what is required across all three box office regions.

Budget assumption model: Based on the high, moderate and low estimations for the Production Budget and Print & Ad Budget (assuming both account for all theatrical expenses).

Worldwide box office revenue model: Based on the budget assumptions, we can estimate the studio revenue breakeven point. I had to play with the worldwide box office total to get as close as possible to the budget assumptions.

Final Analysis:

• High Budget: Flawed assumption, as Cameron would have noted Avatar 2 would need to land in the Top 6 in order to achieve $1.7B (around $710M studio revenue to break even).
• Low Budget: Flawed assumption, as Cameron would have noted Avatar 2 is already profitable since it now sits at #23 beating Minions (2015).
• Moderate Budget: More valid assumption, as it places the goal for Avatar 2 closer to the Top 10. So a $400M Production, and $200M for P&A (Marketing).

I'll even update my production budget chart to reflect $400M based on this more informed analysis.

I think that is perfectly reasonable.  

-J.

On 12/30/2022 at 7:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

It looks like James Cameron has now announced he was being hyperbolic about that $2B claim.

REDDIT: James Cameron refutes the rumor that Avatar needs 2 billion dollars to "break even"

Now back to talking about the movie itself.

"...it needs to be like the 10th highest film.."

So then 1.5B to break even. 

And we are talking about the movie. 

-J.

On 12/30/2022 at 5:19 AM, Gatsby77 said:

1. He's not wrong.

The primary point, in case you've lost it among your many many posts, is that $450 million production cost + $250 million P&A for this single film is *far* more likely than a $350 million production cost & $100 million P&A.

It's not the break-even point - it's your intentionally low-balling the cost on your chart (as @Jaydogruleswould say "putting your thumb on the scale") despite multiple credible reports to the contrary.

The "but Avatar 3 is done too -- so the costs should be split" is hogwash - as we will ultimately see two years from now when both films are long finished their runs and total costs (and revenue) have been publicly reported.

Given that time will bear this out, it's just a stupid hill to die on - and posting 1/3 of the posts in this whole thread doesn't change that -- shouting louder and repeating oneself doesn't make someone, you know...correct.

2. Just an FYI, but Scott Mendelson hasn't worked for Forbes for months. 

Isn't it funny how none of those "Cameron Whisperers" who, evidently, like to think they know more about Cameron's own balance sheet than he does, didn't start publicly calling him "wrong" about his own movie, until after it became clear the movie wouldn't touch 2B? 

-J.

On 12/29/2022 at 3:27 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

When is this fool going to stop it with the "pandemic era" BS?

-J.

On 12/29/2022 at 4:14 AM, Bosco685 said:

The back-to-back filming financial benefits noted by Forbes. And the analysts predict another $400M to $500M in the next week.

 

Somehow I suspect most people will still be taking Cameron at his word over the speculative musings of Forbes' resident fanboi.

-J.

On 12/28/2022 at 10:48 AM, Bosco685 said:

All these films that bombed because they didn't reach 4.3X revenue. If only Iron Man (2008), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men (2000) had tried harder. Amongst many others.

I'm not taking about those movies.  I'm talking about THIS one, and what your own quoted sources are saying.  

-J.

On 12/28/2022 at 9:18 AM, Bosco685 said:

Seems like you are fixated on a few reporting sites as long as they are excessive, and claiming this is all sites. Yet reality:

TheNumbers which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

Box Office Mojo which normally reports a film's budget once confirmed still has no budget noted.

The Hollywood Reporter, one of the most recognized industry reporting sites, still can't nail it down.

THR - Avatar: The Way of Water

But I think you said all reporting sites are noting $460M. Right?

Oh, add Variety to that list.

 

Even if it's 350M , and the "threshold to profitability" is 1.5B, that's a 4.3x multiple (not 2.5x).  The necessary multiple to break even remains basically  the same regardless.  

-J.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:44 AM, Gatsby77 said:

That makes logical sense, but it hasn't historically held true for the reported budgets of blockbuster sequels - even those shot back-to-back.

• The Two Towers was not cheaper than Fellowship of the Ring.
• Matrix Reloaded was not cheaper than The Matrix - it actually cost more than 2x as much. But in terms of back-to-back shoots, Matrix Revolutions was not cheaper than Matrix Reloaded.
• Attack of the Clones was not cheaper than The Phantom Menace.
• Rise of Skywalker was not cheaper than The Force Awakens.
• Insurgent was not cheaper than Divergent.
• Every Twilight film cost progressively more.
• With the exception of the second film (Chamber of Secrets), the eight Harry Potter films got progressively more expensive, not less.
• Even among the MCU, each sequel for a given character cost more than the original.

Again, what you say makes logical sense - it just doesn't jive with reality -- particularly not with James Cameron, who tends to break "most expensive film ever" records regularly.

And again, no accountant is going to allow for the co-mingling of budgets since the pay outs of multiple profit participaters would be impacted.  That would just be begging for a lawsuit. 

Which makes Boscos presumptions about the actual budget for THIS FILM (it's $460M, not $350M)  particularly specious.  

-J.

On 12/27/2022 at 7:41 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

React to his post.

 

I think I can take his response as a positive react. 

-J.

On 12/27/2022 at 5:19 PM, Bosco685 said:

In case you missed this important detail. Avatar 2, Avatar 3 and parts of Avatar 4 were shot back-to-back.

Avatar 2 & 3 Filmed Back-To-Back To Avoid A Stranger Things Problem

 

 

...except nowhere here or anywhere  does he say he is conflating the budgets of the movie with the others.  Obviously, those movies will have their own reported budgets, no Hollywood bean counter (or any accountant worth a whit) in their right mind would do what you are proposing.), especially with the profit participation of Cameron, other producers and likely even some of the cast.  

In fact he makes it a point to NOT say this.  

Until or unless he says something definitive to the contrary, you should report what's in nearly ALL industry media - and that is 460M for this movie.  

You did the same thing with the aquaman and the GOTG 2 budgets.  I appreciate your charts and input but you should try to at least report the data in a non-partisan manner, if you are going to do it, basing it on publicly available info and not your personal preferences/wish casting.

-J.

On 12/27/2022 at 9:43 AM, Bosco685 said:

A successful film needs to surpass 2.5x-2.8x production budget. So the 4.0x would be a massive success for a film with an expense of this size.

Except James Cameron himself has debunked this number, and I don't think it has been accurate since at least the early 2000s when the international / world marketplace became a larger factor.  Even Mark Hughes at forbes put it at a "minimum" of 3x for Black Adam (although most industry observers that aren't fanbois put the multiple for that bomb higher than that).

It's more like 3x on an absolute minimum to break even theatrically, and up to 4x-4.5x for a typical MCU film or something like avatar 2. You're also putting your thumb on the scale (again) by putting a lowball estimate of the budget for avatar 2.  The number is 460M, not 350.

-J.

On 12/22/2022 at 6:17 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Poor Black Adam 2.

It's now joined the ranks of:

• Justice League 2
• Man of Steel 2 (twice)
• Green Lantern Corps
• New Gods
• The Trench
• Deathstroke
• Gotham City Sirens
• Deadshot
• Cyborg
• The Wonder Twins
• Batgirl

Over 9+ year's DCEU's batting average of announced vs. actually produced is <50%.

Meanwhile, WBD's share price is hovering around $9.00, less than the price of a movie ticket.

Even worse when you factor in the flop factor/ratio of the ones they actually followed through with.  

-J.

On 12/26/2022 at 8:19 AM, paperheart said:

Based on tracking vs Rogue One, $56M made no sense. X-Mas Eves were nearly identical and yet Disney expected Avatar2 to do $5M less on X-Mas day. Now only lagging by 8% with a clear runway for 6 weeks, only $490M isn't anywhere in the picture.

Megan is a buzzy dark horse.  

-J.

Differences in budgets notwithstanding, it is noteworthy that avatar 2 has already made a significant amount of more money in 10 days than wakanda forever has made in SEVEN WEEKS (STILL not even at 800M). 

-J.

On 12/25/2022 at 9:38 AM, Bosco685 said:

Cameron making that wild statement definitely leaves people wondering. But like Drotto noted, Avatar 2 and 3 were filmed back-to-back. So where the budget breakoff point is may be slightly tricky. And especially if Avatar 3 could benefit from some of the set expenses being covered by the second movie.

But we also see folks that one moment discredit an industry source - yet refer to them when they convey something more in line with their views on a film. Then they are most credible. Odd.

I think the source people are using is Cameron himself.

-J.

On 12/25/2022 at 8:46 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Well, Deadline's reported the budget (before P&A) is actually $460 million.

Assume a $200 million marketing budget on top of that and $2 bn. or so is just ~3x for a breakeven.

If it's $460M budget (ridiculous) then $2B would be a 4.3X multiple of the production budget (people don't directly factor in P&A on the multiple, they bake it into the necessary multiple to pencil out a rough break even). 

Even in a best case scenario, I think it's safe to assume that most of these movies need a MINIMUM of 4X production these days just to break theatrically.  

Food for thought. 

-J.

So now that James Cameron is on the record saying this needs to make 2 BILLION dollars to turn a profit, or a 5X multiple of its $400M budget, are people going to finally stop pretending that these movies with huge and even mid-level budgets and 2-2.5X multiples are "breaking even"? 

-J.

On 12/23/2022 at 10:55 AM, Math Teacher said:

As I understand it, CGC does not factor Marvel chipping into the grade. I am more than willing to be corrected.

You're right.  Marvel chipping is considered a "production defect", and is not factored into the grade, at least not until about 7.0.  Then maaaaybe it could hit the grade, but I can't think of too many instances where a 9.4 otherwise silver age book has marvel chipping.  

As for that "sale" on comicklink of that chipped up 4.0 with "white pages" for "78k"..

Yeah. Sure guys. 

-J.

On 12/20/2022 at 4:58 PM, drotto said:

Granted the ousted CEO green lit like none of the stuff coming out now.  These are really all Iger's films.

 

This one has got to get people to take note at Disney.  All the people virtually promising this film would hit $1 billion. Then people saying it would be a  embarrassment if the final did not have a 9 in front of it.  Now it is going to limp to $800 million. 

 

I know I harp on this, but you can not keep making $250 billion budget films with at least $150 million in marketing possibly more.  It was WDW Pro's (you can judge if he is trustworthy or not) reporting they may have spent $250 million to market this film. Those spends are not sustainable.  If the $500 million number is true, BP2 may end up losing money.  That is bonkers to think about.

Chapek may not have been the guy to greenlight all this nonsense but he was clearly the scapegoat and fall guy.  Somebody needed to go and it wasn't going to be Kevin feige.  

I agree that the prior business model Disney has been using on these is obsolete.  To think that this cost 2.5X what Venom did and will make 50M less is just pathetic.  There is just no papering over how bad that is.  They literally wrecked a billion dollar franchise because they caught some sad "feels".   This will have to go down as one of the biggest unforced errors ever.  

-J.

On 12/19/2022 at 1:18 PM, paperheart said:

after $9M WW weekend, this will ultimately scrape past $800M or nearly $550M less than BP1

#notchallanoticket

I called this months ago. 

And the pain is even worse when you factor in the $50M larger budget this one had- that's a $600M negative swing between the two movies all so the cast and crew could indulge in some group therapy. 

No wonder the CEO was fired shortly after the subpar numbers on this started coming in.  

-J.

On 12/17/2022 at 9:58 PM, JoeBrrr said:

I’m really in love with this recently new Del’Otto variant - going to get one slabbed but I also want to just frame one of the virgins as an art piece. 
 

 

That is nice.  Love dell'ottos "angry spidey" pieces.  

-J.

On 12/13/2022 at 1:14 PM, Bosco685 said:

Have the link?

So as long as the 'source' fits the narrative, then Puck must be credible. Got it.

If you say so

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/weekend-box-office-results-wakanda-forever-leads-one-of-the-slowest-weekends-of-2022/

"Creative accounting is not going to change the narrative that this film is a theatrical failure."

-J.

On 12/13/2022 at 9:31 AM, Bosco685 said:

Although I am sure PUCK has been the go-to source for those by default wanting to detract from the Black Adam movie. Big-time industry news source.

Rotten tomatoes published an article this morning basically calling Dwayne out on his pathetic attempts at "creative accounting".

Instead of leaking BS to a known industry shill site like deadline, he should have just taken the "L" with some grace.

But that may be hard to do since the massive failure of this movie basically ended the DCEU as we know it.  

The straw that finally broke the camel's back, as it were.

-J.