BLACK ADAM starring Dwayne Johnson (TBD) 7 7

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:01 AM, Gatsby77 said:

...in the pre-press on Black Adam it was clear executives had Aquaman-level hopes for this movie.

That's insanity.

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:43 AM, Jaydogrules said:

Birds of Prey, the suicide squad, wonder woman 1984, super pets, black adam.  Dwayne and Margot were the "stars" of two of those each.

The DCEU is on a flop streak to end all flop streaks.  When your "BEST" performer is yet another Batman movie, it's time to pause and reflect.  It may even be time to blow the whole thing up and start over again in a decade or so.   

-J.

You mixed in early pandemic movies with later movies as if they were on the same playing field. You know that is not accurate. And with all your focus on what a bomb The Batman was yet it had much going against it - including 'Sparkle Pattinson' - it far exceeded expectations. No matter how much you fudge the numbers.

Time will tell what Gunn and Safran have planned.

[Bosco685]

Quote

There’s some snarking going on out there that Black Adam is poised to lose $50M-$100M, and that is simply just not true. Deadline film finance sources, meaning people who do this for a living and those close to the film say this movie is bound to break even and be in the black. Scroll down to see how. With a global gross of $390M, a $195M production cost and a P&A spend between $80M-$100M, the Dwayne Johnson DC/New Line film is looking to net between $52M-$72M.

 

Also not included in that amount, is an extra source of cash from Black Adam merchandise. All of this, including a B+ CinemaScore, is good enough for Black Adam to be a franchise starter (read the first Captain America made $370M WW).

 

Black Adam repped Johnson’s biggest solo opening stateside at $67M, clearly one of the financial models that Warner Bros. finance department had in mind when they were strategizing the P&L on this film. In a very dry fall marketplace without any tentpoles due the post-production logjam created by Covid, Black Adam was the biggest movie of the season notching No. 1 for three weeks in a row around the world before Disney/Marvel Studios’ Black Panther: Wakanda Forever arrived.

 

“I have read the claims that Black Adam will lose money. That is false,” exclaims producer and financier Joe Singer who deals greatly in motion picture slate financing, “The picture may be considered disappointing since it had Dwayne Johnson in a DC film.  However, the picture will pass break-even and throw off a bit of profit.”

 

Was Black Adam as big as Hobbs & Shaw, which yielded an $84M profit after all ancillaries? No, but you need to remember that the Fast & Furious spinoff had Russia, and didn’t face the headwinds of a strong dollar overseas. Hobbs & Shaw also had the benefit of China where Johnson is big, the pic making $201M (note the theatrical rental return back to the U.S. is only around 25%, and there’s no home market in the PRC). China has sidelined several U.S. blockbuster titles in the wake of Covid. These factors couldn’t have been forecasted when Black Adam was greenlit.

Quote

However, working in Black Adam‘s favor is a thriftier marketing budget to Universal’s $140M push of Hobbs & Shaw. How is that? There’s been some intense cost crunching going on at Warner Discovery which is mired in debt and going through rounds of layoffs. Black Adam put the bulk of its spending in digital marketing over linear, teed off by Johnson’s massive social media bullhorn which has a reach of a near half billion followers across TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Also factor in shorter theatrical windows nowadays on movies which enables the studio to stretch their marketing dollars. PVOD for the film is hitting at a time when the pic is still in theaters and outdoor ads are still around. Black Adam is dropping on HBO Max on Dec. 16, after a 57 day window, a long enough frame to maximize theatrical, PVOD and sell through dollars. The swing factor in the net profit here on Black Adam: Warners contends they spent $80M global P&A, which would get the pic to a $72M surplus, whereas the $100M contended by other sources lands the pic at a $52M profit.

 

I understand that Johnson’s deal wasn’t as aggressive as his previous deals (read Red Notice). He received his $20M upfront fee, and stands to profit according to our numbers which is at cash breakeven zero. There’s a 40% profit pool shared by director Jaume Collet-Serra, the pic’s producers Beau Flynn and Seven Bucks, talent and Johnson, who is the largest participant at more than 10%. That comes out of the net $52M. This shared pool goes into effect after the studio breaks even. No one on Black Adam received first dollar gross per our understanding.

 

The production cost of $195M includes studio interest charges which are at a low corporate rate of 2%. Residuals and home entertainment costs are rolled into total costs for the film of $338M. The fee that Warner Bros pays itself to send the pic to HBO Max is included in Home Entertainment revenues of $86M. At this gross level, domestic pay TV, which is PVOD, yields $36M.

This is the Deadline industry expert that conducts the annual box office contest for which films were the most profitable that then a few on here swear by. But most probably due to this article now they won't.

[D84]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:46 PM, Bosco685 said:

This is the Deadline industry expert that conducts the annual box office contest for which films were the most profitable that then a few on here swear by. But most probably due to this article now they won't.

I didn't see it mention subtracting the movie theater take from ticket sales. Did I miss that? I read through it twice and couldn't find it.

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:47 PM, D84 said:

I didn't see it mention subtracting the movie theater take from ticket sales. Did I miss that? I read through it twice and couldn't find it.

You may have missed this at the bottom.

[paperheart]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:47 PM, D84 said:

I didn't see it mention subtracting the movie theater take from ticket sales. Did I miss that? I read through it twice and couldn't find it.

'Theatrical revenue' = BO x studios cut

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/7/2022 at 12:46 PM, Bosco685 said:

This is the Deadline industry expert that conducts the annual box office contest for which films were the most profitable that then a few on here swear by. But most probably due to this article now they won't.

Absolutely no one believes this.  

-J.

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:58 PM, paperheart said:

'Theatrical revenue' = BO x studios cut

But then you have to deduct the additional Marketing Budget some will make up as that go along, which will be at least two times (minimum) what it was.

If only Aquaman had made money!

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:04 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Absolutely no one believes this.  

-J.

Not if you want to pitch as "Only I know the truth!"

-B.

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:06 PM, Bosco685 said:

Not if you want to pitch as "Only I know the truth!"

-B.

Deadline loves running cover for movies they like.  They are clearly pulling numbers out of thin air.  Nearly 200 million dollars "profit" from rentals ? Sure okay. Pass me the crack pipe.  

This movie is doing so great they fired the people who green lit and produced it.

There's a reason deadline stopped producing those "box office derby" articles.  

-J.

 

[D84]

On 12/7/2022 at 4:56 PM, Bosco685 said:

You may have missed this at the bottom.

A movie theaters cut is not part of the 3 you circled.

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:12 PM, Jaydogrules said:

Deadline loves running cover for movies they like.  They are clearly pulling numbers out of thin air.  Nearly 200 million dollars "profit" from rentals ? Sure okay. Pass me the crack pipe.  

This movie is doing so great they fired the people who green lit and produced it.

There's a reason deadline stopped producing those "box office derby" articles.  

-J.

 

Like I noted earlier, this is when certain fans break with Anthony D'Alessandro (Deadline editor, Deadline annual box office editor).

So you are saying the Deadline editor that always is pro-Marvel and pro-Star Wars but beefs up other studios's production costs is now pro-Dwayne Johnson and pro-DC?

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:13 PM, D84 said:

A movie theaters cut is not part of the 3 you circled.

But you read through the article multiple times and missed the other part?

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:15 PM, Bosco685 said:

Like I noted earlier, this is when certain fans break with Anthony D'Alessandro (Deadline editor, Deadline annual box office editor).

So you are saying the Deadline editor that always is pro-Marvel and pro-Star Wars but beefs up other studios's production costs is now pro-Dwayne Johnson and pro-DC?

I haven't used deadline as a legitimate source for this kind of info for awhile as I have seen their numbers discredited more than once.  I don't think they are partisan toward a particular studio or franchise, just particular movies.  

Unfortunately that article just looks like deadline spouting back WB talking points (ie, propaganda) to save face om a film everyone knows failed.  But When even forbes and variety aren't buying the BS, you know you're in trouble.  

-J.

[D84]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:15 PM, Bosco685 said:

But you read through the article multiple times and missed the other part?

I'm not following you, but I figured it out on my own. 

Theatrical revenue numbers where they list what the studio made (box office minus theater cut), but they didn't list the payouts as a line item.

I'm glad the movie made or will make a profit. I didn't think it would.

[Gatsby77]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:58 PM, paperheart said:

'Theatrical revenue' = BO x studios cut

I believe this analysis, but @paperheart's not wrong.

The chart clearly shows $390 million total worldwide box office gross vs. $318 million total costs. (Note: the stated total costs - circled by @Bosco685 - are wrong, as two sources - Variety and Deadline here, have stated P& A expenses of only $80 million, not $100 million). So here, total costs are: $195 mill. + $80 mill. + $43 mill. = $318 mill.

The issue is the studio only recoups ~55% of the $390 in worldwide box office, which is $213.5 million.

Let's be generous and say they actually recoup 65% of the global box office. That's still only $253.5 million in revenue vs. a $318 million cost.

 

Plus, no one's disputing it might not *eventually* eke out a profit - but no way is it breaking even *theatrically," despite the anonymous studio exec quoted in yesterday's Variety piece claiming that $400 million theatrical was break-even because PVOD revenue would make up for it.

 

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:20 PM, D84 said:

I'm not following you, but I figured it out on my own. 

Theatrical revenue numbers where they list what the studio made (box office minus theater cut), but they didn't list the payouts as a line item.

I'm glad the movie made or will make a profit. I didn't think it would.

You said you read it multiple times and didn't see it anywhere. I circled the wrong area. paperheart pointed to the right area. You now realized you were reading right past it.

easy-peasy. What are you not following?

[Bosco685]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:21 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I believe this analysis, but @paperheart's not wrong.

The chart clearly shows $390 million total worldwide box office gross vs. $318 million total costs. (Note: the stated total costs - circled by @Bosco685 - are wrong, as two sources - Variety and Deadline here, have stated P& A expenses of only $80 million, not $100 million). So here, total costs are: $195 mill. + $80 mill. + $43 mill. = $318 mill.

The issue is the studio only recoups ~55% of the $390 in worldwide box office, which is $213.5 million.

Let's be generous and say they actually recoup 65% of the global box office. That's still only $253.5 million in revenue vs. a $318 million cost.

 

Plus, no one's disputing it might not *eventually* eke out a profit - but no way is it breaking even *theatrically," despite the anonymous studio exec quoted in yesterday's Variety piece claiming that $400 million theatrical was break-even because PVOD revenue would make up for it.

 

That's not what paperheart was noting if you stepped back and reflected on the question.

Deadline's analysis was breaking down all the categories of the studio balance sheet how it will also lead to profit. There was never any question if the theatrical part of it was the greenfield it needed.

[Jaydogrules]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:21 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I believe this analysis, but @paperheart's not wrong.

The chart clearly shows $390 million total worldwide box office gross vs. $318 million total costs. (Note: the stated total costs - circled by @Bosco685 - are wrong, as two sources - Variety and Deadline here, have stated P& A expenses of only $80 million, not $100 million). So here, total costs are: $195 mill. + $80 mill. + $43 mill. = $318 mill.

The issue is the studio only recoups ~55% of the $390 in worldwide box office, which is $213.5 million.

Let's be generous and say they actually recoup 65% of the global box office. That's still only $253.5 million in revenue vs. a $318 million cost.

 

Plus, no one's disputing it might not *eventually* eke out a profit - but no way is it breaking even *theatrically," despite the anonymous studio exec quoted in yesterday's Variety piece claiming that $400 million theatrical was break-even because PVOD revenue would make up for it.

 

So... you're buying the completely made up "home video rental" number of 200MM and another 100MM in "streaming"? Because this won't make anything near that, even in 50 years.  Lol

-J.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Jaydogrules

[Gatsby77]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:32 PM, Jaydogrules said:

So... you're buying the completely made up "home video rental" number of 200MM?   Because this won't make anything near that, even in 50 years.  Lol

-J.

?

Lifetime domestic Home Entertainment & Streaming is listed as $86 million, not $200 million.