D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[Jaeger]

I've never denied 2x for modern box office success.

Then we are agreed, D&DHat is a box office flop.

I expect a sequel and that in the end both Paramount and Hasbro will be pleased with the money they made because of licensing, merch, game sales, and streaming.

And has been pointed out; if the movie doesn't make that money back at the box office, a lot of that "overall financial success" can get eaten up by how much the film fell short.

They won't make up the difference in Streaming views, because the streaming platform it is heading to; Paramount+, is hemorrhaging cash hand over fist.

The D&D film needs VOD buys & Rentals to come in Really Big. But I seriously doubt that it will do better than the theater run, and will not make up the amount required for the film to break even. The digital platforms take a healthy cut of the buys and rentals too...

The idea that the film will "Eventually make money" is also a misnomer.

The interest on the debt incurred to make the film needs to be serviced. So if the film does not make its money back in a timely fashion, the Studio will get creative; typically moving money to close out the loan to stop having to make interest payments. Then use the loss as a tax write off.

The film then becomes just another part of the stable of Paramount content.

In my opinion; At this point, fans can only hope for fan favorite status over time.

Luckily, Hasbro got a few tv shows green-lit, and in some form of production, so even if the film does not do what Pacific Rim did, there are still a few more D&D tv bullets in the hasbro gun.

 

[bedir than]

Then we are agreed, D&DHat is a box office flop.

I don't believe in the binary flop/hit. Sometimes movies are just meh

They won't make up the difference in Streaming views, because the streaming platform it is heading to; Paramount+, is hemorrhaging cash hand over fist.

If you read past the headline you would know that P+ is going to spend more money on more original content, not less.

The quotes from the President of Paramount Global directly contradict your assumptions. As does today's news from their dinners-rather-than-upfront that they have 90 million households in the US P+/Showtime/Pluto umbrella. Which means they have as many eyeballs available as all of cable did a decade ago during peak cable.

The film then becomes just another part of the stable of Paramount content.

Yes, exactly. A stable where either people or advertisers (and even both) are paying about 12$ a month on average to watch things -- more people have and use Pluto than watch HBO.

 

[Mistwell]

how is the target with marketing < 300M, are you forgetting the factor of 2?

There never was a "factor of 2." If a movie cost a billion you think it cost another billion to market it? Marketing budgets don't work like that and never did. There are diminishing returns from marketing after a certain point. But even if you think there is a "factor of 2" what you said was "$202,537,000 worldwide. But that is about half of what it needs at the box office just to break even." $1.5 using a factor of 2 is $300M. Not $404M. Which is why I said you overshot by $100M, even using the outdated formula.

 

[Mistwell]

Here's the context on the exceeded expectations.

Prerelease they track early sales. They project an opening weekend


HAT did exceed that by less than 10%. People got excited.

BUT those expectations were really low for a 150 million dollar movie. It wasn't a Paramount projection but an industry one based on pre-sales.

We don't know marketing budget so people used the 2.5 number to get 375 million approx break even point.


GotG3 Variety has reported 250 million production plus 100 million marketing which means an approximate 700 million required to break even at the box office.

Paramount won't be working out how much money HAT made but how much it lost as they're losing money on streaming as well.

No, it's not $250M production. Not sure where you got that (quote directly from Variety is, "...the production budget for the film, which totals about $150 million... "), but it's $151M production. $100M marketing sounds about right for $250M needed for break even.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, it's not $250M production. Not sure where you got that (quote directly from Variety is, "...the production budget for the film, which totals about $150 million... "), but it's $151M production. $100M marketing sounds about right for $250M needed for break even.

I was referring different movie.

D&D won't break even at 250 ot beers around 300 minimum and that's excluding the markdt8ng costs.

Basically don't hold your breath for a sequel.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

No, it's not $250M production. Not sure where you got that (quote directly from Variety is, "...the production budget for the film, which totals about $150 million... "), but it's $151M production. $100M marketing sounds about right for $250M needed for break even.

To be clear, take box office and divide by 2 for how much money goes to the movie.

Ignoring marketing $151M means $302M to break even from the box office proceeds. Roughly $200M in box office means $100M more needed in box office to break even or a $50M hole.

Ignoring marketing, I think a $50M hole before steaming value is not terrible. D&D is a known name and IP and Paramount needs it.

If they realy spent the $100M in marketing number that is tossed around, then $150M is a pretty big hole.

The only way I can parse your point of view is to assign $150M as a streaming asset value and figure that they covered the marketing with the box office which helps reinforce the streaming asset value. Dropping $100m+ on a movie for a streaming service certainly is not terrible.

So box office failure but jury is out on the streaming value.

 

[CommodoreKong]

There never was a "factor of 2." If a movie cost a billion you think it cost another billion to market it? Marketing budgets don't work like that and never did. There are diminishing returns from marketing after a certain point. But even if you think there is a "factor of 2" what you said was "$202,537,000 worldwide. But that is about half of what it needs at the box office just to break even." $1.5 using a factor of 2 is $300M. Not $404M. Which is why I said you overshot by $100M, even using the outdated formula.

No, it's not $250M production. Not sure where you got that (quote directly from Variety is, "...the production budget for the film, which totals about $150 million... "), but it's $151M production. $100M marketing sounds about right for $250M needed for break even.

The factor of 2 is accounting for the theater's cut of the ticket sales.

Movie studios like to keep contract terms close to the chest but studios take 60%+ of domestic sales (in was a big controversy when Disney asked for 65% for the Last Jedi ticket sales) while they get less overseas due to having to work with local distributors. Usually theaters get more the longer films stay in theaters so they keep them in for longer.

 

[darjr]

This reports that Paramount is pleased with the film’s performance.

✂️ Paramount pleased

16 seconds · Clipped by Dave Rosser (darjr) · Original video "Honor Among Thieves Sequel? Early Digital Relases Seals The Deal for D&D?" by The Character She...

youtube.com

 

[Mistwell]

I was referring different movie.

D&D won't break even at 250 ot beers around 300 minimum and that's excluding the markdt8ng costs.

Basically don't hold your breath for a sequel.

I've responded to your opinion. All you do is pretend we didn't have that conversation (third time now) and then repeat the claim you started with. That's not a conversation. You're not in the industry, you have no expertise in this field, you're regurgitating your calculation based on formulas you read about on the Internet from the pre-pandemic days and not ever considering if that changed with the pandemic. So why do you keep repeating it like you know?

 

[Mistwell]

To be clear, take box office and divide by 2 for how much money goes to the movie.

This is also not true. And even the people who agree with your premise that the movie didn't do well agree that's not true. Not sure why you think you divide box office by 50% but that has never been part of the formula. You do deduct, based on specific markets. But it's never, ever been a flat 50%.