Jump to content
Jeor

Make Mine Captain Marvel! (SPOILERS)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well, it's the name of the film, I don't think they actually call him that.

I know...I meant it in jest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×