• 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

InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
the movie theaters take 50% of the WW box office.

 

Studios get about 50% of the domestic box office and about 25-28% of the international box office

 

Since the Revenue Ratio column doesn't take this huge discrepancy into account, it is very misleading. e.g.: The ASM numbers don't look too bad, until you see that it was heavily weighted internationally. Compare that to GOTG which has smaller total numbers, but a huge domestic component for an action flick.

 

Rough numbers for projected studio revenue

ASM = 100M domestic + 125M foreign = 225M total

GOTG = 160 domestic + 90M foreign = 250M total

 

I would suggest reformatting the Revenue Ratio column to (50% + 26%) / budget and calling it a "Profitability Estimate". Then 100% would be the estimated break-even point for profitability. Under 100% the movie would be in the red and over 100% it would be in the black.

 

That would yield

ASM = 75%

Herc = 75%

TMNT = 108%

Godzilla = 113%

XDoFP = 122%

DoPotA = 132%

Cap = 143%

GOTG = 147%

Transformers = 157%

Lego = 301%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
the movie theaters take 50% of the WW box office.

 

Studios get about 50% of the domestic box office and about 25-28% of the international box office

 

Since the Revenue Ratio column doesn't take this huge discrepancy into account, it is very misleading. e.g.: The ASM numbers don't look too bad, until you see that it was heavily weighted internationally. Compare that to GOTG which has smaller total numbers, but a huge domestic component for an action flick.

 

Rough numbers for projected studio revenue

ASM = 100M domestic + 125M foreign = 225M total

GOTG = 160 domestic + 90M foreign = 250M total

 

I would suggest reformatting the Revenue Ratio column to (50% + 26%) / budget and calling it a "Profitability Estimate". Then 100% would be the estimated break-even point for profitability. Under 100% the movie would be in the red and over 100% it would be in the black.

 

That would yield

ASM = 75%

Herc = 75%

TMNT = 108%

Godzilla = 113%

XDoFP = 122%

DoPotA = 132%

Cap = 143%

GOTG = 147%

Transformers = 157%

Lego = 301%

 

This assumes theater revenue share is the only expense that comes out of the revenue. It isn't. There is so much more that goes on behind the scenes.

 

But that doesn't mean a guesstimation like this doesn't make sense. It is just limit in assumptions what the real results were. And that can be even more misleading.

 

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted
the movie theaters take 50% of the WW box office.

 

Studios get about 50% of the domestic box office and about 25-28% of the international box office

 

Since the Revenue Ratio column doesn't take this huge discrepancy into account, it is very misleading. e.g.: The ASM numbers don't look too bad, until you see that it was heavily weighted internationally. Compare that to GOTG which has smaller total numbers, but a huge domestic component for an action flick.

 

Rough numbers for projected studio revenue

ASM = 100M domestic + 125M foreign = 225M total

GOTG = 160 domestic + 90M foreign = 250M total

 

I would suggest reformatting the Revenue Ratio column to (50% + 26%) / budget and calling it a "Profitability Estimate". Then 100% would be the estimated break-even point for profitability. Under 100% the movie would be in the red and over 100% it would be in the black.

 

That would yield

ASM = 75%

Herc = 75%

TMNT = 108%

Godzilla = 113%

XDoFP = 122%

DoPotA = 132%

Cap = 143%

GOTG = 147%

Transformers = 157%

Lego = 301%

 

 

i believe domestic is closer to 55%. is int'l that low, i thought the blended # was closer to 40%? i know china is very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
i believe domestic is closer to 55%. is int'l that low, i thought the blended # was closer to 40%? i know china is very low.

 

And are all the country agreements the same distribution rate? There have been articles that state this varies greatly, depending on the infuence of a studio in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

Looks like Guardians has opened up another door for Dave Bautista.

 

Next Great BOND Henchman To Be GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY's Dave Bautista

 

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

Latino-Review's scooper supreme, El Mayimbe, is reporting that director Sam Mendes has chosen Guardians of the Galaxy star Dave Bautista to be a henchman in the next James Bond film.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
the movie theaters take 50% of the WW box office.

 

Studios get about 50% of the domestic box office and about 25-28% of the international box office

 

Since the Revenue Ratio column doesn't take this huge discrepancy into account, it is very misleading. e.g.: The ASM numbers don't look too bad, until you see that it was heavily weighted internationally. Compare that to GOTG which has smaller total numbers, but a huge domestic component for an action flick.

 

Rough numbers for projected studio revenue

ASM = 100M domestic + 125M foreign = 225M total

GOTG = 160 domestic + 90M foreign = 250M total

 

I would suggest reformatting the Revenue Ratio column to (50% + 26%) / budget and calling it a "Profitability Estimate". Then 100% would be the estimated break-even point for profitability. Under 100% the movie would be in the red and over 100% it would be in the black.

 

That would yield

ASM = 75%

Herc = 75%

TMNT = 108%

Godzilla = 113%

XDoFP = 122%

DoPotA = 132%

Cap = 143%

GOTG = 147%

Transformers = 157%

Lego = 301%

 

This assumes theater revenue share is the only expense that comes out of the revenue. It isn't. There is so much more that goes on behind the scenes.

 

But that doesn't mean a guesstimation like this doesn't make sense. It is just limit in assumptions what the real results were. And that can be even more misleading.

 

:foryou:

 

It doesn't really matter where you draw the line, as long we don't call it something, that it is not. When the studio's revenues from domestic box office outweigh foreign box office almost 2 to 1, it just isn't a revenue ratio. It is a WW box office to production budget ratio, which, as a number, doesn't really tell us much about profitability. Additionally the way most people interpret the current number is flawed, due to the underlying imbalance between domestic and foreign BO.

 

By concentrating the box office numbers down to projected studio revenues, and then running the ratio, it gives a much more accurate picture of the profitability of the movie.

 

100% is also a number that everyone can understand easier. :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
i believe domestic is closer to 55%. is int'l that low, i thought the blended # was closer to 40%? i know china is very low.

 

And are all the country agreements the same distribution rate? There have been articles that state this varies greatly, depending on the infuence of a studio in that area.

 

I just threw out rough numbers and did half the calculations in my head (I actually rounded to 25% and 50% when I ran the numbers). I have seen 50-55% used for domestic for the last 10 years or so.

 

International does vary significantly between markets, but it matters not what the individual country rate is, since they are not going to be dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
It doesn't really matter where you draw the line, as long we don't call it something, that it is not. When the studio's revenues from domestic box office outweigh foreign box office almost 2 to 1, it just isn't a revenue ratio. It is a WW box office to production budget ratio, which, as a number, doesn't really tell us much about profitability. Additionally the way most people interpret the current number is flawed, due to the underlying imbalance between domestic and foreign BO.

 

By concentrating the box office numbers down to projected studio revenues, and then running the ratio, it gives a much more accurate picture of the profitability of the movie.

 

100% is also a number that everyone can understand easier. :foryou:

 

How is 'What did I invest' versus 'What did I make' calling something it is not? It is 'REVENUE' prior to any deductions. And whether that revenue is made in the domestic or international market, it is still revenue.

 

Where you are trying to take it would be a very cool number to get to. There is no argument there. But to nail it spot-on like you even clarify (100%), it just can't be done by us outsiders. Insiders can't even get to that number like they desire.

 

So going with straight revenue comparisons before any deducations, movie-per-movie, is the cleanest way to go without guesstimating anything.

 

HOW MUCH DID THE STUDIO SPEND vs. HOW MUCH WAS THE BOX OFFICE TAKE

 

See what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
i believe domestic is closer to 55%. is int'l that low, i thought the blended # was closer to 40%? i know china is very low.

 

And are all the country agreements the same distribution rate? There have been articles that state this varies greatly, depending on the infuence of a studio in that area.

 

I just threw out rough numbers and did half the calculations in my head (I actually rounded to 25% and 50% when I ran the numbers). I have seen 50-55% used for domestic for the last 10 years or so.

 

International does vary significantly between markets, but it matters not what the individual country rate is, since they are not going to be dark.

 

See, all that 'rouding' and 'guesstimation' is something we try and avoid in statistics. Otherwise, we are taking averages of averages and all the other missteps that in the end generate numbers that really have no factual placement for a comparison.

 

'How much did it take to make a movie' vs. 'How much did it make at the box office' is clean, doesn't have to make any assumptions, and doesn't miss things such a special distribution partnership arrangements or even actor profit shares that take away from such profits.

 

Or the thing I mentioned earlier in one of the posts that surprised me when I found out about it. Stars claiming certain payouts just to maintain an image for later movie negotiations versus what they were really paid. What industry does that as a common practice?

 

doh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
It doesn't really matter where you draw the line, as long we don't call it something, that it is not. When the studio's revenues from domestic box office outweigh foreign box office almost 2 to 1, it just isn't a revenue ratio. It is a WW box office to production budget ratio, which, as a number, doesn't really tell us much about profitability. Additionally the way most people interpret the current number is flawed, due to the underlying imbalance between domestic and foreign BO.

 

By concentrating the box office numbers down to projected studio revenues, and then running the ratio, it gives a much more accurate picture of the profitability of the movie.

 

100% is also a number that everyone can understand easier. :foryou:

 

How is 'What did I invest' versus 'What did I make' calling something it is not?

 

Because it is not what the studios make. It is what the distributors make. The percent that the distributors pay the studios is their revenue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Because it is not what the studios make. It is what the distributors make. The percent that the distributors pay the studios is their revenue.

 

Oh, I understand where you are coming from. But all we are looking at is how much a movie took to make, and what it achieved across the worldwide box office. Not how much then went back to the studios or distribution partners. It's a low-effort comparison.

 

But I respect your attempt to determine the 100% answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
Because it is not what the studios make. It is what the distributors make. The percent that the distributors pay the studios is their revenue.

 

Oh, I understand where you are coming from. But all we are looking at is how much a movie took to make, and what it achieved across the worldwide box office. Not how much then went back to the studios or distribution partners. It's a low-effort comparison.

 

But I respect your attempt to determine the 100% answer.

 

it is not even close to 100%, but I think it would be less confusing to the average user than the current Revenue Ratio column.

 

Be that as it may, I always enjoy seeing your updates and I think you have done a great job. I'll end with a big Thanks! for putting the information together in a well laid out format where we can see and compare similar genres and results. It is a lot of work and is much appreciated! :applause:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
it is not even close to 100%, but I think it would be less confusing to the average user than the current Revenue Ratio column.

 

Be that as it may, I always enjoy seeing your updates and I think you have done a great job. I'll end with a big Thanks! for putting the information together in a well laid out format where we can see and compare similar genres and results. It is a lot of work and is much appreciated! :applause:

 

:blush:

 

Thank you! That means a lot.

 

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Aldred

Ken Aldred

Posted
Posted
I just can't believe everyone went ga-ga over this movie with the standard recycled plot...

 

I watched it in Imax 3D - very impressive.

 

Great sense of humour in the film, and Chris Pratt carried that with excellent comic timing as Star-Lord.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing