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

[Mistwell]

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

That depends on the nation. There is no hand waiving some flat number for that.

Movie studios like to keep contract terms close to the chest but studios take 60%+ of domestic sales

It's 1) a sliding scale depending in which week you're talking about and often starts at 80% to the studio in week 1, and 2) highly dependent on which nation.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

You're not in the industry either and this thread is about the box office.

I'm guessing you don't have any figures for the movies income so your arguments are pure speculation?

I'm at least admitting idk and I have conceded the movie might make up the difference on the back end.

 

[Zardnaar]

That depends on the nation. There is no hand waiving some flat number for that.


It's 1) a sliding scale depending in which week you're talking about and often starts at 80% to the studio in week 1, and 2) highly dependent on which nation.

Usually starts at 60% week one and slides down.

Some movies have demanded better deals and got them.

The 50% is an approximation so there's mybev10% wighle room at the end eg if you need 300 million 270 might be enough.

Exceptions wpukd be for those movies that got over 60% or earnt a disproportionate about domestically or internationally or specifically in China.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

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%.

Just about every article, including in the main industry magazines use 50% as the normal approximation. So, again you dismiss standard numbers with zero proof of what is the right one.

How ouch of the total did the movie make in week one? So places, like China, the take for the producers is smaller.

So 50% is a perfectly fair estimate and your hand waving does not change that.

 

[mamba]

There never was a "factor of 2." If a movie cost a billion you think it cost another billion to market it?

no, the production cost was 150M, let’s be generous and have a low marketing budget of 75M. That makes a total cost of 225M.

When do they make those costs back? When the movie made 225M at the theatres? No, the do not get the full ticket price, they get roughly half that, hence the factor of 2. So they break even around 450M

$1.5 using a factor of 2 is $300M. Not $404M. Which is why I said you overshot by $100M,

I know what you said, but you are completely wrong. I did not overshoot, see above

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.

no, because they get about half of the ticket sale, the other half goes to the theatre. They do not show movies for free…

 

[mamba]

It's 1) a sliding scale depending in which week you're talking about and often starts at 80% to the studio in week 1, and 2) highly dependent on which nation.

no, it never starts at 80%, it starts at around 60% and goes down from there. And that is domestic, international frequently starts below 50%

 

[bushmills]

One should simply approach the matter objectively. If the film had grossed $500 million ++ at the box office, there would not be this discussion about whether the film had earned its costs. With everything that is below, you can only speak on flop is finally the topic here in the thread.

I would have liked a better film and at least $ 700 Mill ++. But the film does not give that. It is only on old known formulas and nothing in the film makes you keen on a second part.

If one had roughly said Peter Jackson with a 3 part Drizzt saga in the boat, with a team that likes fantasy or something with Bruenor and Klauth/ Icing death similar turned, what also normal people picked up and not only nerds, then that would have given a boost with identification for D&D.

But what did we get, a sack of potato jokes, a nice villain, etc. I'm not even talking about dragons. Close behind and before a few little stories about the movie just won't do. Do you want to make the really big deal you have to risk something, the tame attempt of HAT was just nice meant, but honestly if the production costs come back, you can be happy.

My kids thought the movie was ok, but we also saw Excalibur from 1981 on the big screen a week later and they loved it.

 

[Zardnaar]

no, it never starts at 80%, it starts at around 60% and goes down from there. And that is domestic, international frequently starts below 50%

The highest I've heard of was 70%.

Some rare movies can and do demand more. They usually get reported on.

 

[Mistwell]

You're not in the industry either

Like I said before, I am. I am not in the heart of it, but I am involved with in, and represent some people in it.

and this thread is about the box office.

I'm guessing you don't have any figures for the movies income so your arguments are pure speculation?

I said what I said. I made it really clear whether it's speculation or not. You just keep ignoring that though, so why should I repeat it?

I'm at least admitting idk and I have conceded the movie might make up the difference on the back end.

You talk like you do know know, repeatedly, which is why I finally got frustrated.

 

[Mistwell]

Usually starts at 60% week one and slides down.

No it typically doesn't.

See that's what I am talking about. You talk like you know, when you don't. You did a Google search, got outdated information you didn't verify, and then spout it back here as if it's fact. And when someone who actually knows tells you that's not quite right you "correct" them. It's frustrating.