Aquaman Movie - July 27, 2018 2 2

[kimik]

Went to see this with my son today and we both loved it. Wan was able to make Aquaman relevant, and it was a fun movie. He struck the right tone between serious and humorous moments throughout the film, and I thought the story was good as well. The CGI and underwater world that Wan developed was amazing. Hopefully they can lock him in for the sequel. 

We will be going again this week with my wife and daughter - this was the first super hero film since GotG that my son wants to see a second time right away so Wan did something right.

[JLA Brad]

I saw it with the family a couple days ago and the audience was into it.  There was clapping at the end and my wife and I couldn’t remember the last time we were in a theater when that happened.

Quite frankly, I’m shocked at its grosses so far- I had zero confidence that it would do this well.  It’s not getting lambasted like BvS or JL, so I would expect stronger legs than either.  As for the movie itself, while it might have been a tad too long, it was enjoyable and was visually fantastic (the 4K disc will look great on my home system).

Jason Momoa made Aquaman cool - not an insignificant feat!

[paperheart]

#basicmatheludesme

do yourself a favor and read (if capable) how a studio calculates a film's profitability and stop blathering

https://deadline.com/2018/03/most-profitable-movies-2017-star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-disney-fox-merger-1202356161/

Edited December 27, 2018 by paperheart

[Jaydogrules]

33 minutes ago, paperheart said:

#basicmatheludesme

do yourself a favor and read (if capable) how a studio calculates a film's profitability and stop blathering

https://deadline.com/2018/03/most-profitable-movies-2017-star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-disney-fox-merger-1202356161/

To reiterate, here are the basics-

North America- ~50%

China- ~25%

Other countries- ~40%

#trackingworsethanjusticeleagueinNorthAmericaafter8daysdespitetheholiday

and

#stilldeepinthered

-J.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

21 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

To reiterate, here are the basics-

North America- ~50%

China- ~25%

Other countries- ~40%

I agree with this -- with the caveat that studio's North American take is a sliding scale. Studio take is usually avg. 65% of the first two weeks domestic, 35% thereafter (which averages out to 50% over the full domestic run).

But using your numbers, as of yesterday, the film is close to break-even.

Because using those percentages the studio has so far netted $198.3M of its $200M production budget.

#MathIsHard

[lou_fine]

6 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

35 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

To reiterate, here are the basics-

North America- ~50%

China- ~25%

Other countries- ~40%

I agree with this -- with the caveat that studio's North American take is a sliding scale. Studio take is usually avg. 65% of the first two weeks domestic, 35% thereafter (which averages out to 50% over the full domestic run).

But using your numbers, as of yesterday, the film is close to break-even.

Because using those percentages the studio has so far netted $198.3M of its $200M production budget.

Don't forget about the marketing expenses to be added on top which is usually almost as high as the production costs in some cases.  

On the other hand, we should then add back in the DVD sales which certainly helps out as it is also over and above the movie gross.  

Edited December 27, 2018 by lou_fine

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Don't forget about the marketing expenses to be added on top which is usually almost as high as the production costs in some cases.  

On the other hand, we should then add back in the DVD sales which certainly helps out as it is also over and above the movie gross.  

Marketing expenses on this are estimated at another $150MM.  Total nut for this movie is around $350MM.  

Therefore magic number to break even theatrically is ~$900MM.

-J.

[kimik]

From the studio's perspective, is profitability really in question? They use investors $$$ to pay for production and then charge for product placement/marketing in the film before it even hits the screen. If it does poorly, it is the investors that bankroll the production that take the loss. I guess if they spend more on marketing than they take in then it can be an issue for the studios, but otherwise it should not be an issue. They are the distribution channel and IP holder. My guess is that the financial side of most films is structured so the studios rarely take a loss even on duds. 

[kimik]

1 hour ago, JLA Brad said:

I saw it with the family a couple days ago and the audience was into it.  There was clapping at the end and my wife and I couldn’t remember the last time we were in a theater when that happened.

Quite frankly, I’m shocked at its grosses so far- I had zero confidence that it would do this well.  It’s not getting lambasted like BvS or JL, so I would expect stronger legs than either.  As for the movie itself, while it might have been a tad too long, it was enjoyable and was visually fantastic (the 4K disc will look great on my home system).

Jason Momoa made Aquaman cool - not an insignificant feat!

Exactly. We went to the 12:20 pm showing today while most of Edmonton was out at Boxing Day sales. The crowd was buzzing about how much better the movie was than they were expecting afterwards. This is a film that is going to do well and have legs like GotG and SS.

[lou_fine]

5 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

13 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Don't forget about the marketing expenses to be added on top which is usually almost as high as the production costs in some cases.  

On the other hand, we should then add back in the DVD sales which certainly helps out as it is also over and above the movie gross.  

Marketing expenses on this are estimated at another $150MM.  Total nut for this movie is around $350MM.  

Therefore magic number to break even theatrically is ~$900MM.

JD;

You are comparing apples and oranges in your analysis above since you are including the FULL costs (production & marketing) and yet including only the box office revenues which really makes no sense at all.  

If you want to include the post production marketing costs for this movie, then you should also include the post theatrical revenues they will be pulling in after the movie is done at the theatres.  If you want to look at only box office revenues, than the fairer comparison would only be to production costs for the movie.  

Either way, it looks like Aquaman is going to be a sure fire winner (even by your measuring stick) for DC and Warners as forecasts are now saying that it could hit the $1B mark by the time its all said and done.    

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

JD;

You are comparing apples and oranges in your analysis above since you are including the FULL costs (production & marketing) and yet including only the box office revenues which really makes no sense at all.  

If you want to include the post production marketing costs for this movie, then you should also include the post theatrical revenues they will be pulling in after the movie is done at the theatres.  If you want to look at only box office revenues, than the fairer comparison would only be to production costs for the movie.  

Either way, it looks like Aquaman is going to be a sure fire winner (even by your measuring stick) for DC and Warners as forecasts are now saying that it could hit the $1B mark by the time its all said and done.    

Yes I understand what you are saying. The marketing however is literally the second largest expense behind production and both are necessary to facilitate the theatrical release.  There will be another, additional campaign in its post theatrical life, with it's own set of expenses. 

No chance this goes anywhere near a billion. Even with the holiday and extra days of previews  it is still lagging Justice League in comparable period in North American release.  Also, while it may have only been out for a week or so here, it is nearing a month of release in most other places in the world.  I will be impressed if it gets to $850MM after all is said and done. 

Very impressed, actually.  I would be more impressed if WB had shown more restraint on its budget (and they would have realized a lot more money).

-J.

[Gatsby77]

9 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Yes I understand what you are saying. The marketing however is literally the second largest expense behind production and both are necessary to facilitate the theatrical release.  There will be another, additional campaign in its post theatrical life, with it's own set of expenses. 

No chance this goes anywhere near a billion. Even with the holiday and extra days of previews  it is still lagging Justice League in comparable period in North American release.  Also, while it may have only been out for a week or so here, it is nearing a month of release in most other places in the world.  I will be impressed if it gets to $850MM after all is said and done. 

Very impressed, actually.  I would be more impressed if WB had shown more restraint on its budget (and they would have realized a lot more money).

-J.

No.

Lou Fine's right here.

I didn't include marketing expenses in my calculations because they are generally accounted for not just by post-theatrical sales, but also ancillary tie-ins (toy sales, video game revenue, etc.). Remember -- the film is essentially a commercial for all manner of Aquaman-related merchandise -- not just DVDs, but action figures, etc.

That's why for years the "quick-and-dirty" calculation for "Did this film break even?" was did it make 2.0x its production costs in worldwide theatrical release?

With the addition of international screens, that benchmark has moved to 2.5-3.0x.

If that *weren't* true, then superhero films including Captain America, Thor, and Man of Steel didn't even break even. They obviously did.

To claim that tentpole releases now need to reach 4.5x their budget just to break even isn't just madness, it's Sparta.

The point?

Even factoring in "marketing expenses" the bar for profitability here is $600M-$650M, depending on the domestic/international/China split. A figure this will reach by next weekend at the latest.

So, I'm confused.

Are you saying that all comic book movies of secondary characters should use mess special effects and be shot 90% at night to save on budget (like Venom) or that it's a good thing when studios have the imagination to spend $200-$350M on films like Aquaman that ultimately out-perform (even more expensive) films like Justice League?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Gatsby77

[Jaydogrules]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

No.

Lou Fine's right here.

I didn't include marketing expenses in my calculations because they are generally accounted for not just by post-theatrical sales, but also ancillary tie-ins (toy sales, video game revenue, etc.). Remember -- the film is essentially a commercial for all manner of Aquaman-related merchandise -- not just DVDs, but action figures, etc.

That's why for years the "quick-and-dirty" calculation for "Did this film break even?" was did it make 2.0x its production costs in worldwide theatrical release?

With the addition of international screens, that benchmark has moved to 2.5-3.0x.

If that *weren't* true, then superhero films including Captain America, Thor, and Man of Steel didn't even break even. They obviously did.

To claim that tentpole releases now need to reach 4.5x their budget just to break even isn't just madness, it's Sparta.

The point?

Even factoring in "marketing expenses" the bar for profitability here is $600M-$650M, depending on the domestic/international/China split. A figure this will reach by next weekend at the latest.

So, I'm confused.

Are you saying that all comic book movies of secondary characters should use mess special effects and be shot 90% at night to save on budget (like Venom) or that it's a good thing when studios have the imagination to spend $200-$350M on films like Aquaman that ultimately out-perform (even more expensive) films like Justice League?

Sorry. A movies' P&A (print and advertising) are most assuredly front end expenses on every movie, right along with its production budget.  Maybe 3X production budget is a quick and dirty way of figuring what a movie needs to make, but not with aquaman where (so far) the VAST majority of its money is from overseas, and MOST of that being from meager 25% China.  Extrapolating it's current results easily show that $900MM is this particular movie's magic number for breaking even theatrically.  

"Ancillary", ("product placement", "action figures" and "home video") are different line items and are usually brought up by people only when it is clear their favourite movie will probably will not make it into the black during its theatrical run.

And no, it wasn't necessary to spend $350MM on this movie.  It is a big dumb budget, for a big dumb movie (not saying that this is the only movie that is guilty of doing this).  

-J.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

46 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

$900MM is this particular movie's magic number for breaking even theatrically.  

Again, I understand math is hard, but you're demanding a 4.5x theatrical budget multiplier for this film to break even (which is a far cry from being "a success"). Not only are you wrong, you're holding it to a nearly impossible standard.

Even the first Iron Man film only hit a 4.17x multiplier. Are you seriously arguing it _lost_ money?

Batman Begins didn't even hit 2.5x. So it lost money too, right?

That's not how this works.

 

And you're right - "ancillary" costs are usually brought up by people only when they're biased  -- just as "marketing expenses" are only ever brought up by those biased on the other side.

ex. I didn't see you mentioning Venom's marketing expenses when bragging about its relative multiplier...

[Jaydogrules]

7 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Again, I understand math is hard, but you're demanding a 4.5x theatrical budget multiplier for this film to break even (which is a far cry from being "a success"). Not only are you wrong, you're holding it to a nearly impossible standard.

Even the first Iron Man film only hit a 4.17x multiplier. Are you seriously arguing it _lost_ money?

Batman Begins didn't even hit 2.5x. So it lost money too, right?

That's not how this works.

 

And you're right - "ancillary" costs are usually brought up by people only when they're biased  -- just as "marketing expenses" are only ever brought up by those biased on the other side.

ex. I didn't see you mentioning Venom's marketing expenses when bragging about its relative multiplier...

I am talking about the math of just THIS SPECIFIC MOVIE right now, not Iron Man, Winter Soldier, Thor, or whatever, you have already agreed that even at $550MM, this movie is still in the red on just its production budget alone, and I have already explained how a China heavy box office return raises the bar substantially for a film to hit the black, so I don't know what you're on about at this point.  

(The marketing budget of Venom is estimated at ~$75MM on the high side).

-J 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[paperheart]

 

Box Office: 'Aquaman' Tops $600 Million As It Aims For $1 Billion Worldwide

#DCEUapologistwithanabacus

 

  =

 

 

[Gatsby77]

Deadline: ‘Aquaman’ $16.9M Wednesday Bests ‘Last Jedi’ & ‘Black Panther’

"Through six days with previews, Aquaman counts $122.6M, which is $300K ahead of Justice League over the same period."

[musicmeta]

Since the studios are already talking about Aquaman 2, I would "think", this makes(or has already made/about to make a) "decent" profit to afford green lighting a 2nd movie regardless of what the math states to be profitable..be $650M, $900M, $10 trillion, $119 dollars and some loose change or <insert your own dollar amount here>? Am I wrong? 

[paperheart]

5 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Again, I understand math is hard, but you're demanding a 4.5x theatrical budget multiplier for this film to break even (which is a far cry from being "a success"). Not only are you wrong, you're holding it to a nearly impossible standard.

Even the first Iron Man film only hit a 4.17x multiplier. Are you seriously arguing it _lost_ money?

Batman Begins didn't even hit 2.5x. So it lost money too, right?

That's not how this works.

 

And you're right - "ancillary" costs are usually brought up by people only when they're biased  -- just as "marketing expenses" are only ever brought up by those biased on the other side.

ex. I didn't see you mentioning Venom's marketing expenses when bragging about its relative multiplier...

using this bizarre "math" which ignores the hugely profitable home entertainment, tv market- 9 of the 20 MCU movies lost $.  Kevin Feige should be fired.

[Gatsby77]

Another example - film analysts generally agreed Justice League (which cost $300M to produce before marketing costs) needed just $750M theatrical worldwide to break even.

Notably, that's a 2.5x multipler, not a 4.5x one.

Also notably, it did not hit that mark, grossing only $658M worldwide.

Aquaman is now poised to surpass Justice League's worldwide total by this Monday, and to beat it by every metric by Jan. 15.

Even James Cameron would be impressed.