Guillermo Del Toro's Pacific Rim

[Merentha]

Pacific Rim scores a whopping $45 million opening in China, bringing the worldwide to $300 million. They just need a last good haul and some good openings (Japan and IIRC Brazil still to come) to get them across the $400 million mark and into definite sequel territory (thought right now it's still in 'sequel if the DVD and Blu-Ray sales are good' territory).

I love that it hasn't opened in Japan yet. And every time, again, I think about how badly mismanaged the release in the US was.

[red snow]

I love that it hasn't opened in Japan yet. And every time, again, I think about how badly mismanaged the release in the US was.

And if the film is going to be big anywhere, then surely it's going to be in Japan!

[Mr. E]

I love that it hasn't opened in Japan yet. And every time, again, I think about how badly mismanaged the release in the US was.

How so?

[Brandon Stark]

Compared to most big-budget summer flicks there was very little buzz. It felt like they were relying on some great viral campaign but forgot to actually make one.

[Trebla]

Pacific Rim scores a whopping $45 million opening in China, bringing the worldwide to $300 million. They just need a last good haul and some good openings (Japan and IIRC Brazil still to come) to get them across the $400 million mark and into definite sequel territory (thought right now it's still in 'sequel if the DVD and Blu-Ray sales are good' territory).

That is GREAT news! Like I said previously, I loved this world and definitely want to see more.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I saw this on Saturday and thought it was great and more enjoyable than Man of Steel. I think you just have to accept the fact that it's going to be ridiculous. Very fun to watch and I had to stop myself from laughing when GLaDOS said, "Test failed. Do you want to try again?"

[polishgenius]

I think the biggest problem was that they failed to make it clear to the general non-geek public that it's neither a Transformers ripoff in terms if the legacy of ideas nor anything really like Transformers in style. I get the feeling a lot of people just didn't go to see it because they thought it'd be a cheap copy of said giant robots.

[Merentha]

How so?

As said above, advertising was anemic at best. Then there are some of the secondary markets that just weren't touched. This movie is begging for, say, toys and merchandise for kids. I mean, its weird. Its rated pg-13, and yet it really is an okay movie to take 12 year olds to, even younger. Like, its actually "eh, okay for a 13yo, but anyone younger should have a parent" instead of the soft R that PG13 often is. Finally, yeah, I had to work to convince my friends that it wasn't going to be Transformers all over again.

[red snow]

I think the biggest problem was that they failed to make it clear to the general non-geek public that it's neither a Transformers ripoff in terms if the legacy of ideas nor anything really like Transformers in style. I get the feeling a lot of people just didn't go to see it because they thought it'd be a cheap copy of said giant robots.

In the UK this was definitely the case - they spent over a year trying to convince us that it was a transformers knock-off and judging by the reaction it seems people may be coming to their senses with the transformers franchise. Or it could be that the brand has some magical influence over us - it's certainly the case for me.

[Fez]

Pacific Rim scores a whopping $45 million opening in China, bringing the worldwide to $300 million. They just need a last good haul and some good openings (Japan and IIRC Brazil still to come) to get them across the $400 million mark and into definite sequel territory (thought right now it's still in 'sequel if the DVD and Blu-Ray sales are good' territory).

As the article points out though, that might not matter much...

Doing business with China is proving incredibly problematic for Hollywood, with the China Film Group withholding all box office payments because of a dispute over who should pay for a new value-added tax. Hollywood studios haven't received any money since late last year, but don't dare hold back their films.

And even if they do get paid,

they get back only 25 percent of Chinese box office receipts, if that.

That second EW article also points out that the marketing budget for Pacific Rim was $175 million.

[Werthead]

That second EW article also points out that the marketing budget for Pacific Rim was $175 million.

Nope. Pacific Rim's marketing budget was $40 million. Total budget (production + marketing) was $230 million and we know production alone was $190 million.

The notion it was as much as $175 million is laughable. The film had very few TV spots and a very limited poster campaign in both the UK and USA. I get the impression that WB went after the geek internet audience with the create-a-Jaeger game and lots of previews on geek sites and stuff, but that was pointless as they were pre-sold. They failed to go after the mass audience.

$175 million is a hell of a lot more than even The Hobbit had as a marketing spend (it's estimated at around $100 million). In fact, it's more likely that EW got confused and put a more accurate production budget figure up instead of the actual marketing spend.

[red snow]

My mind still boggles at the cost. There isn't a single A lister in the cast and while CGI is intensive did it really cost that much? I know lots of people are involved in the making of a film but that's true of any film and they don't cost anywhere near as much.

Why does hollywood make films where they have to score 500 million before being "worthwhile"?

[polishgenius]

while CGI is intensive did it really cost that much?

I suspect the non-CGI stuff was as expensive as the computerised bits. For example coz a normal person, when needing a whole street to tremble from a giant robot walking down it, would either CGI it, or go to the actual street and shake the camera, but Del Toro build a replica of said street, put it up on shock absorbers, and created the effect by literally shaking it.

[Fez]

Nope. Pacific Rim's marketing budget was $40 million. Total budget (production + marketing) was $230 million and we know production alone was $190 million.

The notion it was as much as $175 million is laughable. The film had very few TV spots and a very limited poster campaign in both the UK and USA. I get the impression that WB went after the geek internet audience with the create-a-Jaeger game and lots of previews on geek sites and stuff, but that was pointless as they were pre-sold. They failed to go after the mass audience.

$175 million is a hell of a lot more than even The Hobbit had as a marketing spend (it's estimated at around $100 million). In fact, it's more likely that EW got confused and put a more accurate production budget figure up instead of the actual marketing spend.

$175 million is what's being widely reported though (Boxoffice.com not withstanding) for the global marketing budget.

[Werthead]

My mind still boggles at the cost. There isn't a single A lister in the cast and while CGI is intensive did it really cost that much? I know lots of people are involved in the making of a film but that's true of any film and they don't cost anywhere near as much.

Considering the quantity of CGI in the film, some of the huge sets and so on, I actually thought the $190 million budget was a bit on the low side for a movie of its scale.

Why does hollywood make films where they have to score 500 million before being "worthwhile"?

Because the number of films that make $1-1.5 billion is rapidly growing and the budget of very few movies go over $300 million, so that's a massive amount of profit if they can pull it off.

$175 million is what's being widely reported though (Boxoffice.com not withstanding) for the global marketing budget.

It isn't being widely reported. All of those links mention their source being THR. If THR got it wrong, they're all reporting the same figures. Boxoffice.com, as far as I know, gets the information directly from industry sources.

If the marketing was $175 million, what the hell was it spent on? This movie did not have fast food restaurant tie-ins, tons and tons of TV spots and movie trailers starting 18 months out, all of which The Hobbit, on a marketing spend of $100 million or less, had coming out of its ears.

[Merentha]

I suspect the non-CGI stuff was as expensive as the computerised bits. For example coz a normal person, when needing a whole street to tremble from a giant robot walking down it, would either CGI it, or go to the actual street and shake the camera, but Del Toro build a replica of said street, put it up on shock absorbers, and created the effect by literally shaking it.

That, and the Jaeger cockpit was a giant set that jerked the actors around, too, as I recall. Then yeah, CGI is really expensive still, especially when done well (as this was).

[Fez]

It isn't being widely reported. All of those links mention their source being THR. If THR got it wrong, they're all reporting the same figures. Boxoffice.com, as far as I know, gets the information directly from industry sources.

If the marketing was $175 million, what the hell was it spent on? This movie did not have fast food restaurant tie-ins, tons and tons of TV spots and movie trailers starting 18 months out, all of which The Hobbit, on a marketing spend of $100 million or less, had coming out of its ears.

Well, first of all, the Hobbit's marketing budget was supposedly $150 million, so its not that big a disparity. The production budget was $250 million, and the NYT says the total budget was $400 million. Secondly, yeah, Pacific Rim didn't advertise much in the US, but the US never seemed like the primary market for the movie; I have no idea what the movie might've gotten up for advertising overseas.

ETA: And regardless of what the marketing budget was, it doesn't change the fact that studios only get about 40% of the gross from most overseas markets and only 25% from China (when the China Film Group is even paying anything at all). So the gross needs to get a lot higher than one would think for a movie relying on the overseas to break even; The Avengers had to make $1.1 billion before it broke even.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte]

 The Avengers had to make $1.1 billion before it broke even.

Wait your shitting me right? This just cant be true..

[Independent George]

The Avengers had to make $1.1 billion before it broke even.

Wait your shitting me right? This just cant be true..

Hollywood accounting is shadier than Enron. It's the reason why producers always negotiate for a cut of gross profits instead of net. If the number is accurate, I'd guess that $1.1B is the level at which the Avengers no longer be written off as a paper loss even with Barry Zuckercorn in charge of the books, not the level at which it actually broke even.

Put another way, had Joss signed on for 25% of net, $1.1B would be the level at which he would have actually started getting paid, not the level at which the studios made a profit.

[Fez]

Wait your shitting me right? This just cant be true..

Hollywood accounting is shadier than Enron. It's the reason why producers always negotiate for a cut of gross profits instead of net. If the number is accurate, I'd guess that $1.1B is the level at which the Avengers no longer be written off as a paper loss even with Barry Zuckercorn in charge of the books, not the level at which it actually broke even.

Put another way, had Joss signed on for 25% of net, $1.1B would be the level at which he would have actually started getting paid, not the level at which the studios made a profit.

I'm sure part of it is shady accounting, but again, part of it is that studios don't get a lot of the money from overseas markets. If a movie makes $600 million overseas, the studio is probably only going to get around $250 million of that; the rest goes to the overseas distributor and the theaters themselves. Whereas since the major studios are the distributors in the US, they get to keep most of the gross; only having to pay the theater owners (which usually isn't a lot since the payment formula means theaters only do really well on movies that have long shelf-lives and don't plummet after a couple weeks).

Its why the whole conventional wisdom that Hollywood is propping itself up with overseas markets is a bit of a misnomer. Those markets absolutely help, but blockbusters still need to do well in the US to become real successes; they just cost too much to make. Its the B-movies that can get away with just getting foreign money.

Anyway, Deadline mentions the $1.1 billion figure here.