Darth Richard II Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 1 minute ago, HokieStone said: I know...I meant it in jest. Hah right, sorry. Hard to tell this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Crunching the numbers, reports are saying the total cost (production, marketing, distribution) for CM was ~$300M. That actually does translate to CM needing to make about $750M to break even (assuming 50% of the US gross goes to the studio and 33.3% of the foreign gross goes to the studio). Which pretty much sets a bar for any movie with a production budget above $150M. Movies have to make ridiculous amounts of money to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 I thought the reports of it costing that much were shot down? Possibly on here? Everything I've seen has put the budget at 150mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Boston Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Fantastic video dispelling all of the ridiculous trolling of this movie's box office. Keep in mind the dude shooting down every myth didn't even like the movie all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 Seent it. It's alright. Having it ranked below Captain America is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: Crunching the numbers, reports are saying the total cost (production, marketing, distribution) for CM was ~$300M. That actually does translate to CM needing to make about $750M to break even (assuming 50% of the US gross goes to the studio and 33.3% of the foreign gross goes to the studio). Which pretty much sets a bar for any movie with a production budget above $150M. Movies have to make ridiculous amounts of money to break even. This is true - "crunching the numbers" - but it's also insanely myopic. That's not how investments work. If it did, Iron Man wouldn't have been made in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 10 hours ago, HokieStone said: Eh...there was a few explicit things like "You know why they call it a cockpit, right?" and the "Hey why don't you smile" guy. And playing "Just a Girl" during her fight scene. But...it was about what I expected...nothing over the top. Although I did roll my eyes when I heard the first few notes of "Just a Girl" - almost too expected.... The Mother of The Others already answered for me. I do agree "Just a Girl" was unnecessary and kind of cheapened the whole thing though, but I like No doubt so... 9 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said: Right. It showed some sexism, but only as part of an accurate portrayal, not using it as a political grinding stone. The sexism barely registered for me because it felt so natural and accurate within the context of the movie. If anything, the movie could have gone a bit further and *still* be accurate. One of the first female test pilotes in the airforce? You bet IRL she would have faced a lot worse than what we see in the movie. It would have been shocking if they had not shown her getting shit from male colleagues. I can't help but think of The General's Daughter, which is a 1999 movie after all. But many scenes from Top Gun (which was hinted at through Goose) are also sexist as hell. Think of how Maverick is talking to Charlie during *her* class. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1kBEqIKRs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 6 hours ago, Darth Richard II said: I thought the reports of it costing that much were shot down? Possibly on here? Everything I've seen has put the budget at 150mil. $150M for production. Estimates of marketing and distribution have been given as adding another $150M. I've read elsewhere that based on pure guess work you estimate the marketing budget to be the same as the production budget. Though it seems pretty unnecessary at this point for Disney to go wild on the marketing budget for MCU movies. Honestly, if Disney puts a MCU movie trailer in the Super Bowl halftime show it's probably a complete waste of money. 3 hours ago, DMC said: This is true - "crunching the numbers" - but it's also insanely myopic. That's not how investments work. If it did, Iron Man wouldn't have been made in the first place. Green lighting Iron Man was about risk appetite, MCU movies now are all about ROI because they are not meant to fail financially. But the movie's gross is only one revenue stream. There are probably 2 targets for any movie: KPI and break even. KPI will be the minimum it needs in order to be able to ensure ancillary revenue will make the movie profitable. Break even is the box office gross that means ancillary revenue is all profit. At least that's what I'm calling it, the studios and their accountants might call those targets something else. CM's KPI was probably $500M, which means it covered its production budget. And it did that opening weekend. So I'm sure the champagne corks were popping after just 3 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: Green lighting Iron Man was about risk appetite, MCU movies now are all about ROI because they are not meant to fail financially. My point was Captain Marvel is different than your average MCU movie because they are relying on the character to carry the next phase - which really is the real "phase 2," or the phase after we rely on Iron Man, Cap, and Thor. Fiege just literally said as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 I dunno, Justice League is considered one of the most expensive film ever made and it needed 750 mil to break even. Usually a film is considered to break even when its made x2 its production budget, not including marketing. So even if Captain Marvel cost upwards of 200mil, which I doubt, it would still only need 400mil to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Usually a film is considered to break even when its made x2 its production budget I agree this is both the general standard and the heuristic I use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said: I dunno, Justice League is considered one of the most expensive film ever made and it needed 750 mil to break even. Usually a film is considered to break even when its made x2 its production budget, not including marketing. So even if Captain Marvel cost upwards of 200mil, which I doubt, it would still only need 400mil to break even. I think the 2x is pretty outdated and harks back to when the US was always the largest share of the box office receipts, which gave 50% back to the studios. Now most people use a slightly different rule of thumb because the general assumption is overseas receipts give 1/3 back to the studio. So, depending on the % that the US contributes to the global gross break even could be close to 2x but could theoretically approach 3x. I think the safe rule of thumb should now be more like 2.5x. But whatever it is, fair enough if there is an industry metric based on a multiplier of the production budget alone as a movie meeting a minimum ROI expectation. People should also understand that the production budget multiplier does not mean a movie is profitable when it reaches that point. But it does typically mean it will be profitable once additional revenues are taken into account. 1 hour ago, DMC said: My point was Captain Marvel is different than your average MCU movie because they are relying on the character to carry the next phase - which really is the real "phase 2," or the phase after we rely on Iron Man, Cap, and Thor. Fiege just literally said as much. Yes, that's an important point. I wonder, though if the movie has put Captain Marvel on as firm a base as Iron Man. Ignoring the MRA BS as irrelevant, CM is still somewhat problematic as an establishing movie for Carol Danvers to be the new leader / carry for the Avengers. The critical reception for Captain Marvel from professional critics is more mixed than Iron Man (79% vs 93% RT, and 6.4 vs 7.9 / 10 average score). So fewer critics liked the movie, and the ones who liked it probably didn't like it as much as those at the time IM came out. And the inflation adjusted box office (for the USA) will probably come out that more people went to see Iron Man than will go to see CM. So I don't think the solo movie has done the job. But fortunately we have Endgame to cement her as the new carry. Given her 24 years of experience of getting shit done, she's 2nd only to Thor in terms of battle hardened experience, and Thor has never been and was never meant to be the strategic brains of an organisation. So she is the natural choice to lead from here. But Endgame needs to firmly establish her as such in the minds of the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 It certainly isn't as close to a successful start as Iron Man creatively, no. But that's a lot to live up to. Financially I think it's already demonstrated it'll be at least fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 I accidentally hit submit before I finished. Yes, financially it's much more than fine. It's just that financial performance is probably less important as a metric for where she's meant to be positioned in the next phase than other, harder to quantify metrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 I think expectations were a lot lower when Iron Man came out and even film critics can't control for the fact that we now know these movies can be fantastic. I think that covers at least some of the gap there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 That's the whole thing with continual improvement. As you improve, expectations rise also. CM didn't need to wow people the same as Iron Man did. But it would have helped for a near universal sentiment to be "that was a solid entry for CM into the MCU." But the more universal sentiment is "it's good, but not great" or "it's OK" and "we need to see more". If Endgame delivers that demand for more with her, then the future of the MCU has a solid base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, The Anti-Targ said: I'm not quite as confident on that, but certainly hopeful. With only 2 weekends of numbers in (so not a large number of data points) it's US tracking is somewhere in between Spider Man Homecoming ($880 million world wide) and Civil War ($1.15Bn world wide). And like most MCU movies that aren't Black Panther the US/overseas box office is in the 33-35% / 67-65% split. If it gets over $350M in the USA then $1Bn is almost certain. If it gets over $400M in the USA then $1Bn is guaranteed. Interestingly it's already beaten Spider Man HC and IM3 in China, so I think it's already the 4th highest grossing MCU movie in China, only behind Civil War, AoU and IW, and there is a bit of a chance it could catch Civil War's $180M. One thing is already guaranteed: Captain Marvel will be the highest grossing solo introductory movie (i.e. character has not appeared in any MCU movie prior to their first solo movie) for a character in the MCU. And it will almost certainly be the 2nd highest grossing first solo movie (only Spider man stands in the way of the silver medal position), and I think Black Panther has the gold medal on that for all time. Interesting question though, what character could beat Black Panther for their first solo movie if they get a boost from first appearing in an Avengers (or avengers-lite, a la Civil War) movie? I can only think of a group of characters who might do it, and that's the X-men. But I don't think any solo character could. If they get the casting right, and especially if they get someone for Wolverine the fans immediately warm to, the first X-men movie could be massive. I have been secretly hoping for a while that Henry Cavill will dump DC/Superman and become the new Wolverine. He's the only person I can see doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luzifer's right hand Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said: I have been secretly hoping for a while that Henry Cavill will dump DC/Superman and become the new Wolverine. He's the only person I can see doing it. Personally I would prefer Joel Kinnaman as Wolverine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Jesus, are there no midget actors around for Wolverine we can call on? I'm sick of this odd version of Wolverine who is over 6ft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Jesus, are there no midget actors around for Wolverine we can call on? Duh, Tom Cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.