• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guardians of the Galaxy news

Started by fingfangfoom,

3,692 posts in this topic

paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted
paperheart will be very pleased at the site relaunch.

 

BOXOFFICEMOJO: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

Domestic Box Office: $326,077,000

Foreign Box Office: $361,000,000

-------------------------------------------

Worldwide Box Office: $687,077,000

 

i'm a #'s guy, so you're right. based on comparable superhero openings, GOTG may do $80mm in China and $750MM WW still looks probable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
paperheart will be very pleased at the site relaunch.

 

BOXOFFICEMOJO: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

Domestic Box Office: $326,077,000

Foreign Box Office: $361,000,000

-------------------------------------------

Worldwide Box Office: $687,077,000

Still behind ASM 2 which had = Worldwide: $708,982,323. :o

Kind of hard to believe, but true.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted
paperheart will be very pleased at the site relaunch.

 

BOXOFFICEMOJO: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

Domestic Box Office: $326,077,000

Foreign Box Office: $361,000,000

-------------------------------------------

Worldwide Box Office: $687,077,000

Still behind ASM 2 which had = Worldwide: $708,982,323. :o

Kind of hard to believe, but true.

 

 

won't be for long, will pass X-Men: DOFP for highest grossing superhero movie of the year

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
paperheart will be very pleased at the site relaunch.

 

BOXOFFICEMOJO: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

Domestic Box Office: $326,077,000

Foreign Box Office: $361,000,000

-------------------------------------------

Worldwide Box Office: $687,077,000

Still behind ASM 2 which had = Worldwide: $708,982,323. :o

Kind of hard to believe, but true.

 

If straight revenue # was the concern, ASM2 had to go much higher to overcome that $300-$330 MM budget. Guardians already blows past ASM2's revenue ratio, and will most probably push past the $700 MM barrier with no problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bababooey

bababooey

Posted
Posted
paperheart will be very pleased at the site relaunch.

 

BOXOFFICEMOJO: Guardians of the Galaxy

 

Domestic Box Office: $326,077,000

Foreign Box Office: $361,000,000

-------------------------------------------

Worldwide Box Office: $687,077,000

Still behind ASM 2 which had = Worldwide: $708,982,323. :o

Kind of hard to believe, but true.

 

If straight revenue # was the concern, ASM2 had to go much higher to overcome that $300-$330 MM budget. Guardians already blows past ASM2's revenue ratio, and will most probably push past the $700 MM barrier with no problems.

 

Why do you use revenue ratio rather than just look at profit when you compare these flicks? I'm just curious if it's something Hollywood uses when deciding on sequels or whatever - the only time my costs directly impact my return is when I'm betting on the horses. lol

 

I googled & found some blogger who used this revenue ratio & took a few examples, he ranked MadMax ahead of Rocky in his most profitable list just because of the ratio. :screwy:

Rocky

Budget: $1,000,000

Box Office Revenue: $225,000,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:225

Mad Max

Budget: $200,000

Box Office Revenue: $99,750,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:499

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Why do you use revenue ratio rather than just look at profit when you compare these flicks? I'm just curious if it's something Hollywood uses when deciding on sequels or whatever - the only time my costs directly impact my return is when I'm betting on the horses. lol

 

I googled & found some blogger who used this revenue ratio & took a few examples, he ranked MadMax ahead of Rocky in his most profitable list just because of the ratio. :screwy:

Rocky

Budget: $1,000,000

Box Office Revenue: $225,000,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:225

Mad Max

Budget: $200,000

Box Office Revenue: $99,750,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:499

 

Utilizing a Revenue Ratio is the cleanest financial comparison that doesn't require you having to research profit deductions that even the industry has a difficult time pulling together all the details.

 

- Profit sharing relationships with any creative contributor or even actors (e.g. someone like Robert Downey JR took $50 MM right off the top of 'Avengers' as his cut of the gross).

 

- International distributor costs which differs by country.

 

- Having to determine actor real salaries versus what Hollywood allows as publicized salaries to maintain an actor's image for later movie negotiations.

 

So the straight shot to have a common comparison reference is the Revenue Ratio. Anything after that becomes challenging to determine real profit figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bababooey

bababooey

Posted
Posted
Why do you use revenue ratio rather than just look at profit when you compare these flicks? I'm just curious if it's something Hollywood uses when deciding on sequels or whatever - the only time my costs directly impact my return is when I'm betting on the horses. lol

 

I googled & found some blogger who used this revenue ratio & took a few examples, he ranked MadMax ahead of Rocky in his most profitable list just because of the ratio. :screwy:

Rocky

Budget: $1,000,000

Box Office Revenue: $225,000,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:225

Mad Max

Budget: $200,000

Box Office Revenue: $99,750,000

Budget/Revenue Ratio: 1:499

 

Utilizing a Revenue Ratio is the cleanest financial comparison that doesn't require you having to research profit deductions that even the industry has a difficult time pulling together all the details.

 

- Profit sharing relationships with any creative contributor or even actors (e.g. someone like Robert Downey JR took $50 MM right off the top of 'Avengers' as his cut of the gross).

 

- International distributor costs which differs by country.

 

- Having to determine actor real salaries versus what Hollywood allows as publicized salaries to maintain an actor's image for later movie negotiations.

 

So the straight shot to have a common comparison reference is the Revenue Ratio. Anything after that becomes challenging to determine real profit figures.

Well I'm not talking about dissecting the studio data or methodology, I'm taking that at face value - whatever they report as their costs to produce/advertise is the budget.

 

I guess my point is that whether your first dollar of profit starts at 170 million or 330 million, from a studio perspective, that is when you start earning a profit.....if these two same movies with different budgets both make half a billion dollars of profit - the only thing separating them is the difference in cost/budget (calculated once)

 

So once the difference in budgets is covered by the larger budget film, I would then see them as equally successful from a studio perspective.

 

This revenue ratio would argue that the lower budget film is more successful even if it is less profitable - the blog I looked at listed Blair Witch as #1 most "profitable movie ever" - but that's a gambling mentality - look at the Rocky/Mad Max numbers, would a studio rather spend a million to make 224M or spend a fifth of that & make "only" 99M?

As a measure of quality or success this revenue ratio doesn't seem logical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Well I'm not talking about dissecting the studio data or methodology, I'm taking that at face value - whatever they report as their costs to produce/advertise is the budget.

 

I guess my point is that whether your first dollar of profit starts at 170 million or 330 million, from a studio perspective, that is when you start earning a profit.....if these two same movies with different budgets both make half a billion dollars of profit - the only thing separating them is the difference in cost/budget (calculated once)

 

So once the difference in budgets is covered by the larger budget film, I would then see them as equally successful from a studio perspective.

 

This revenue ratio would argue that the lower budget film is more successful even if it is less profitable - the blog I looked at listed Blair Witch as #1 most "profitable movie ever" - but that's a gambling mentality - look at the Rocky/Mad Max numbers, would a studio rather spend a million to make 224M or spend a fifth of that & make "only" 99M?

As a measure of quality or success this revenue ratio doesn't seem logical.

 

Actually, all you are doing is trading out one financial variable for another to determine movie success.

 

But the method you are suggesting requires assumptions about each of the costs in order to get to the final profit level of a movie. And depending on the strength of the studio involved, its negotiation benefits put it on a stronger footing than other studios can achieve. So all things are not equal when attempting to determine Profit Ratio. And to determine the final profit figure, you would need access to agreements and contracts that even analysts in the industry would love to have and don't. It's a very complicated industry, with some different ways of looking at the financials.

 

Example: How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

So the Revenue Ratio makes a lot of sense as no matter the genre, market focus or distribution method (other than things like 3-D or Imax ticket sales), it is a single financial measurement that can be used across them all to determine success or failure. What's not logical about that?

 

zAOFens.png

 

Just looking at this sample of 2014 movies, it is clear The Lego Movie was a huge hit for a number of reasons without having to gain access to its balance sheet.

  • Solid story.
  • Characters that complemented the story.
  • Really funny lines.
  • Low casting costs because it most probably did not have to pay live production rates (other than Will Ferrell's brief appearance).
  • Brand name known around the world by adults and children.

To determine how it compared across the various movies, all we had to do is take a quick snapshot of the Revenue Ratio. And yes, not having to pay for live performances, props or studio space allowed for a much lower budget than live movies. That does factor into it success.

 

7iV4uJ3l.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bababooey

bababooey

Posted
Posted
Well I'm not talking about dissecting the studio data or methodology, I'm taking that at face value - whatever they report as their costs to produce/advertise is the budget.

 

I guess my point is that whether your first dollar of profit starts at 170 million or 330 million, from a studio perspective, that is when you start earning a profit.....if these two same movies with different budgets both make half a billion dollars of profit - the only thing separating them is the difference in cost/budget (calculated once)

 

So once the difference in budgets is covered by the larger budget film, I would then see them as equally successful from a studio perspective.

 

This revenue ratio would argue that the lower budget film is more successful even if it is less profitable - the blog I looked at listed Blair Witch as #1 most "profitable movie ever" - but that's a gambling mentality - look at the Rocky/Mad Max numbers, would a studio rather spend a million to make 224M or spend a fifth of that & make "only" 99M?

As a measure of quality or success this revenue ratio doesn't seem logical.

 

Actually, all you are doing is trading out one financial variable for another to determine movie success.

 

But the method you are suggesting requires assumptions about each of the costs in order to get to the final profit level of a movie. And depending on the strength of the studio involved, its negotiation benefits put it on a stronger footing than other studios can achieve. So all things are not equal when attempting to determine Profit Ratio. And to determine the final profit figure, you would need access to agreements and contracts that even analysts in the industry would love to have and don't. It's a very complicated industry, with some different ways of looking at the financials.

 

Example: How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

So the Revenue Ratio makes a lot of sense as no matter the genre, market focus or distribution method (other than things like 3-D or Imax ticket sales), it is a single financial measurement that can be used across them all to determine success or failure. What's not logical about that?

 

zAOFens.png

 

Just looking at this sample of 2014 movies, it is clear The Lego Movie was a huge hit for a number of reasons without having to gain access to its balance sheet.

  • Solid story.
  • Characters that complemented the story.
  • Really funny lines.
  • Low casting costs because it most probably did not have to pay live production rates (other than Will Ferrell's brief appearance).
  • Brand name known around the world by adults and children.

To determine how it compared across the various movies, all we had to do is take a quick snapshot of the Revenue Ratio. And yes, not having to pay for live performances, props or studio space allowed for a much lower budget than live movies. That does factor into it success.

 

7iV4uJ3l.png

OK again, I'm just looking at your numbers on your spreadsheet if a number is wrong in a profit model it's still wrong in a revenue ratio - so if we accept the numbers...

 

ASM2 & the Lego movie made the same amount ($408 million) of net profit using worldwide revenue/budget from your spreadsheet. Yet one is a bomb & one is a raging success? It's not a level playing field for comparison if the costs to produce aren't in the same ballpark.

 

It's actually quite an achievement that ASM2 did that well in spite of the fact that it lacked all the qualities you pointed out that made the Lego movie a success.

lol

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted

OK again, I'm just looking at your numbers on your spreadsheet if a number is wrong in a profit model it's still wrong in a revenue ratio - so if we accept the numbers...

 

ASM2 & the Lego movie made the same amount ($408 million) of net profit using worldwide revenue/budget from your spreadsheet. Yet one is a bomb & one is a raging success? It's not a level playing field for comparison if the costs to produce aren't in the same ballpark.

 

It's actually quite an achievement that ASM2 did that well in spite of the fact that it lacked all the qualities you pointed out that made the Lego movie a success.

lol

 

 

 

Look at it this way, the studio even thinks Amazing Spider-Man's numbers are a problem. That is why they are delaying the next movie and are shuffling around the releases they had planned. Word is they are even talking to Disney and are contemplating a change in direction. Why would they do this if they felt ASM2 was a success? Because that ratio is very important to a studio.

 

And you are correct. Some of the most successful movies are low budget movies. That is why studios make a mixture of low budget (less risk) and high budget (high risk) movies. They need a mix because there is a limit to how many movies a studio can release in one year and they want to optimize their investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted
Well I'm not talking about dissecting the studio data or methodology, I'm taking that at face value - whatever they report as their costs to produce/advertise is the budget.

 

I guess my point is that whether your first dollar of profit starts at 170 million or 330 million, from a studio perspective, that is when you start earning a profit.....if these two same movies with different budgets both make half a billion dollars of profit - the only thing separating them is the difference in cost/budget (calculated once)

 

So once the difference in budgets is covered by the larger budget film, I would then see them as equally successful from a studio perspective.

 

This revenue ratio would argue that the lower budget film is more successful even if it is less profitable - the blog I looked at listed Blair Witch as #1 most "profitable movie ever" - but that's a gambling mentality - look at the Rocky/Mad Max numbers, would a studio rather spend a million to make 224M or spend a fifth of that & make "only" 99M?

As a measure of quality or success this revenue ratio doesn't seem logical.

 

Actually, all you are doing is trading out one financial variable for another to determine movie success.

 

But the method you are suggesting requires assumptions about each of the costs in order to get to the final profit level of a movie. And depending on the strength of the studio involved, its negotiation benefits put it on a stronger footing than other studios can achieve. So all things are not equal when attempting to determine Profit Ratio. And to determine the final profit figure, you would need access to agreements and contracts that even analysts in the industry would love to have and don't. It's a very complicated industry, with some different ways of looking at the financials.

 

Example: How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

So the Revenue Ratio makes a lot of sense as no matter the genre, market focus or distribution method (other than things like 3-D or Imax ticket sales), it is a single financial measurement that can be used across them all to determine success or failure. What's not logical about that?

 

zAOFens.png

 

Just looking at this sample of 2014 movies, it is clear The Lego Movie was a huge hit for a number of reasons without having to gain access to its balance sheet.

  • Solid story.
  • Characters that complemented the story.
  • Really funny lines.
  • Low casting costs because it most probably did not have to pay live production rates (other than Will Ferrell's brief appearance).
  • Brand name known around the world by adults and children.

To determine how it compared across the various movies, all we had to do is take a quick snapshot of the Revenue Ratio. And yes, not having to pay for live performances, props or studio space allowed for a much lower budget than live movies. That does factor into it success.

 

7iV4uJ3l.png

OK again, I'm just looking at your numbers on your spreadsheet if a number is wrong in a profit model it's still wrong in a revenue ratio - so if we accept the numbers...

 

ASM2 & the Lego movie made the same amount ($408 million) of net profit using worldwide revenue/budget from your spreadsheet. Yet one is a bomb & one is a raging success? It's not a level playing field for comparison if the costs to produce aren't in the same ballpark.

 

It's actually quite an achievement that ASM2 did that well in spite of the fact that it lacked all the qualities you pointed out that made the Lego movie a success.

lol

 

 

 

this is not correct. first off, the movie theaters take 50% of the WW box office. then there is advertising which isn't in the production budget. Lego Movie box office $ to the studio was roughly $235 less the production budget ($60) less advertising (let's say $100MM) - that's a $75MM profit on the theatrical release. ASM 2 had roughly $350MM going back to the studio versus $425MM of production budget + advertising, that's a $75MM loss on theatrical release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
And you are correct. Some of the most successful movies are low budget movies. That is why studios make a mixture of low budget (less risk) and high budget (high risk) movies. They need a mix because there is a limit to how many movies a studio can release in one year and they want to optimize their investment.

 

Bingo!

 

And most probably when a studio business case is being built, they look at the raw estimates 'How much is this going to cost me' and 'How much is this movie potentially going to make' and little else at first.

 

So just because an animated movie is going to make much less than a live movie in certain instances (Frozen costs more than double The Lego Movie, yet that had to factor in the 'princess concept' with a soundtrack requiring more expense), that doesn't mean the studio isn't going to make it. If anything, if it can triple its money easily, it is going to pounce at the opportunity.

 

It's just business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted

 

Looking at GOTG numbers, it is sitting at roughly $690 million. Let's assume the theaters take half that. (Overseas, the foreign distributors also get a cut, so a studio makes less than half.) So, we are at $345 million. Minus the production budget of $170 million and Disney is looking at roughly $175 million profit.

 

Now compare it to The Fault in our Stars with a take of $303 million. Half that is $151.5 million. Minus the production budget of $12 million and Fox is looking at roughly $139.5 million.

 

Determine which movie is more successful depends. GOTG made the studio $35.5 million more. Clearly, on profit, GOTG is a winner. But when you factor in the risk (the studio had to lay out $170 million), The Fault in our Stars is a winner.

 

Studios balance these big budget movies with these low budget movies to protect themselves. If all they did was make big budget movies a couple of flops (ala Lone Ranger and John Carter), could drastically impact them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing