Fantastic Four from Fox Studios (8/7/15) 1 1

[BettrFastrStrongr]

I'll be glad when the films hit and I can read about opinions on the film itself. These threads always dive into B.O. talk and it utterly bores the hell outta me.

[jsilverjanet]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

 

Bosco I've got an issue with your numbers. You're only using Fox's production budget, not their marketing budget as well and you're using Box office numbers, not total received. If you factor in 55% split on domestic theaters and 45% split on international theaters that means Fox saw $157,639,799.90 on Domestic and $162,730,665 on international. Thus Fox made $320,370,464.90 from Box office with a production budget of $230,000,000. My industry friends tell me the rule of thumb with a summer blockbuster is that the studio will set their marketing budget at about 60% of the production budget (so in the case of FF (2005) that would be 60,000,000 and 78,000,000 for FF2. Fox almost assuredly broke even or lost money on the FF movies when all was said and done, part of the reason they are taking 8 years to churn out a new FF movie (even though the Super Hero "Explosion" started 5+ years ago. Fox only is making the movie to keep the rights.

 

Does this math also apply to the Marvel/Disney movies?

[Bosco685]

Here are some articles I saved from a few years back that touched on Hollywood economics, and how you can't always trust in what a studio publicizes as expenses versus profits.

 

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

 

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

 

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

 

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

 

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

 

As a case study, he walks us through the numbers for "Gone In 60 Seconds." (It starred Angelina Jolie and Nicolas Cage. They stole cars. Don't pretend like you don't remember it.)

 

The movie grossed $240 million at the box office. And, after you take out all the costs and fees and everything associated with the movie, it lost $212 million.

 

This is the part of Hollywood accounting that is, essentially, fiction. Disney, which produced the movie, did not lose that money.

 

Hollywood economics has enough inconsistencies and half-truths rolled into the approach at times, trying to get down to what a film finally made in the way of true profit isn't always a straightforward path.

[Bosco685]

Wow!

 

The Huge Salary Robert Downey Jr. Will Earn For Captain America 3

 

So when Captain America: Civil War starts rolling in the box office take, chop $40 MM right off the top for old RDJ. So that should be factored into the final numbers. But it doesn't stop there.

 

Of course, that's not how much Robert Downey Jr. will be banking for Captain America 3, as Variety's sources say he's signed on for a $40 million pay day up front, in exchange for an expansion of his role in the film. Originally, Tony Stark was going to be a bit player in the next Chris Evans led film, but Downey Jr. expressed that he wanted a meatier part in what promises to set Marvel Studios up for the next couple of phases. However there is a way that Iron Man could be bringing home something extra when this is all done and over, as he's reportedly negotiated a portion of the film's backend profits.

 

In addition to receiving a cut of Captain America 3's profits, there's a clause set in Robert Downey Jr.'s contract that will put him in line for another pay out if the film breaks the franchise's record. So if Captain America 3 exceeds the $714 million total gross that Captain America: The Winter Soldier brought in, Downey Jr. will receive an extra pay out, presumably for making that happen. It's not a bad assumption, as Iron Man is still the highest grossing stand-alone hero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the Marvel/Robert Downey Jr. brand is at peak output as we speak.

 

So since Civil War should be a guaranteed hit, then that overall RDJ windfall must come out of the final box office numbers. My industry friends told me that's the right way to do such real accounting. Those cads!

 

[WernerVonDoom]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

 

I don't understand, you're saying this is all about money? That people make these movies to make money and not to cater to old fanboys preferred interpretations which retell stories from the 1960's? And that they keep doing it in order to make money, even though in some/many cases they're not putting out the best possible product?

 

But what about the 300 white dudes who are 60 years old who have been collecting Fantastic Four since the beginning? What if they don't come to see the movie??

 

 

 

I have no idea if the movie will be good, the trailers honestly haven't appealed to me that much. BUT I do think that Michael B Jordan takes his roles seriously, and probably wouldn't be in it just to be in it if he didn't like the -script.

 

Sounds like a fantastic movie executive. Exec: "Profits go up .003% if Bruce Wayne is a delivery boy instead of a rich billionaire. Let's do it!" Batman Fans: "That's ridiculous!" Exec: "Stop complaining. You think we make movies for you, we make them for profit!".

 

 

[Mr Sneeze]

So this irrational "it will all be fixed if Disney just gets the rights back" nonsense is ridiculous. We wouldn't _have_ Disney Phase 1-3 if not for the high quality (and financially successful) Marvel films trailblazed by the other studios.

 

 

(thumbs u

[ComicConnoisseur]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

Interesting in that the first Fantastic Four did just as good as the first X-Men movie box office wise.

Fantastic Four (2005)Domestic Total Gross: Domestic $154,696,080

Worldwide: $330,579,719

 

X-Men (2000)Domestic Total Gross: $157,299,717

Worldwide: $296,339,527

 

So the original FF movie actually beat the first X-Men`s box office.

FF is still a cool concept, just that this new vision doesn`t feel like the original FF.

 

In other words they screwed with FF.

usually when they screw with something to make it so called "better"

we find that the box office will be "worster".

 

 

 

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I appreciate the box office numbers -- particularly because people around here have such an irrational anti-Fox bias -- but the financial success (or lack thereof) of some of those movies is in no way indicative of their quality.

 

Fact:

 

New Line (with the Blade franchise),

Fox (with X-Men & X2, as well as First Class & DOFP) and

Sony (with Spider-Man 1-2)

 

all made high-quality Marvel movies that paved the way for Disney's acquisition of Marvel and its subsequent universe building.

 

So this irrational "it will all be fixed if Disney just gets the rights back" nonsense is ridiculous. We wouldn't _have_ Disney Phase 1-3 if not for the high quality (and financially successful) Marvel films trailblazed by the other studios.

 

While I'm sick of this circular argument, I think a lot of the complaints are coming from the way Fox is treating the source material. With Spider-Man, Sony hired Sam Raimi who did nothing but gush for his love of Spider-Man. In this instance, you have a director who has made some odd comments about the comics.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the film be halfway decent though and I'll probably go see it.

Edited July 28, 2015 by ChrisInBaltimore

[Bosco685]

[TheLiamSturgess]

That felt kind of defensive to me

[Bosco685]

That felt kind of defensive to me

 

What did?

[Mr 9.8]

This is not a GOOD sign.

 

Fantastic Four Reviews Are Embargoed Until Release

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/fantastic-four-reviews-are-embargoed-until-release/

[TheLiamSturgess]

As negative as this might seem, I am REALLY into this new piece of information.

 

I always enjoy every movie I watch - some of my favourite comic book movies include X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and I cried during Amazing Spider-Man 2.

 

So that means that chances are huge I will at least be entertained by this movie.

 

BUT... If it's a failure critically and/or financially, then why in the world would the make the sequel or assume a crossover with the X-Men might work?

 

If the above remains true, then I can't imagine they will attempt another reboot. Maybe, just maybe, they will give up and sell the rights back to Marvel for top dollar, or even just let them run out, ala Daredevil.

 

Can you imagine Stark, Banner, Pym AND Richards going at it scientifically?

[Bosco685]

This is not a GOOD sign.

 

Fantastic Four Reviews Are Embargoed Until Release

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/fantastic-four-reviews-are-embargoed-until-release/

 

Interesting.

 

Review embargoes aren’t uncommon. Even Marvel does it, but they do it to a specific date so they can control the coverage and allow everyone to post their reviews at the same time. They don’t embargo them until the day of release either, they will sometimes embargo them for the Monday prior to release so that entire release week is dominated by news of the movie.

 

Could it be because of all the pre-movie fanboy bad press coming out of sites like comicbookmovie.com and other such sites? There are hardcore Marvel Studio fans on these sites that take it real personal another studio puts out Marvel movies. Even to the point they will post articles to mock the targeted movie.

 

[paperheart]

This is not a GOOD sign.

 

Fantastic Four Reviews Are Embargoed Until Release

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/fantastic-four-reviews-are-embargoed-until-release/

 

can't wait to see the spin on this one. hide the above from EpicPeach

[fantastic_four]

This is not a GOOD sign.

 

Fantastic Four Reviews Are Embargoed Until Release

http://furiousfanboys.com/2015/07/fantastic-four-reviews-are-embargoed-until-release/

 

It's FAR more than not a good sign, it's the nuclear option used almost universally when a studio knows critics are going to mess all over a movie. I have never seen a movie with a review embargo set to the day of release get good reviews...if anybody knows of one, do share.

[TheLiamSturgess]

There's always a chance this movie makes history

[Mr 9.8]

There's always a chance this movie makes history

In a positive or negative sense?

[Hamlet]

My expectations are low enough that if this movie doesn't actually make me physically sick I'll consider it better than expected.

[fantastic_four]

If there's truth to Trank being fired from the next Star Wars film due to problems on this film, and there's truth to the idea that Trank has been ruled out of future Fantastic Four films by Fox, then this film tanking in both reviews and the box office is the worst possible scenario for FF fans. Not only does that mean it will be , but it also means that Fox will blame this on Trank and just look for a new director. That means no rights back to Marvel for 15+ years.

 

Marvel does better for a simple reason that DC is only recently beginning to figure out, but that neither Fox nor Sony have figured out yet--you can't put the content of these films in the control of people who neither care about nor understand comics and superheroes. Marvel did exactly one thing right--they passed control of their films to Kevin Feige, and that guy has lived and breathed the Marvel universe for much of his life. DC has done this to a very limited extent by passing control first to Christopher Nolan, and more recently to Zack Snyder with limited input from Nolan. This is a good temporary solution, but they need a long-term one because I'm not sure either of them want to be in with guiding DC movies for the long haul. I'm pretty sure that Nolan doesn't, but I'm not sure about Snyder. And I would hope that there is some past or present person more directly involved with DC comics who is better suited to the task.