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

[Zardnaar]

I assure you it absolutely does sometimes start at 80% at week one for domestic. International ENTIRELY depends on the nation these days and there is no nice round figure you can throw around for any movie about international.

We are aware it's a sliding scale and its more week 1. Movies make most of their money week 1-3. The 50% is an approximation overall as the percentage is lower in foreign markets and over time. That number can fall to 20% foreign though.

Even if the average works out to 60% overall (lots more domestically front loaded opening weekend) its still a long way from 400 million approx at the box office to return 240 million.

If they got 80% foreign and domestic for the entire run they're still looking st a loss on its 200 odd million and where it's final number falls.

 

[bedir than]

Scream wasn't the bigger movie. It's box office take was modest.

Scream still has a higher Domestic box than Honor Among Thieves. Honor Among Thieves only passed globally two weeks ago and scream is four weeks older.

It was the bigger movie until Honor Among Thieves opened late in France, China and Brazil.

 

[Zardnaar]

Scream still has a higher Domestic box than Honor Among Thieves. Honor Among Thieves only passed globally two weeks ago and scream is four weeks older.

It was the bigger movie until Honor Among Thieves opened late in France, China and Brazil.

I don't think you're doing yourself to many favors. Screams never really been a blockbuster franchise. Its always been a relatively low budget horror franchise. And it's part 6.

Scream 6 overperforned for a scream movie. And had a budget less than 25% of HAT.

They could have made 4 movies ad had change left over vs HAT cost.

 

[bedir than]

I don't think you're doing yourself to many favors. Screams never really been a blockbuster franchise. Ots always been a relatively low budget horror franchise. And it's part 6.

Scream 6 overperforned for a scream movie. And had a budget less than 25% of HAT.

They could have made 4 movies ad had change left over vs HAT cost.

I chose my words carefully.
I said it was a bigger movie, provided evidence of that truth. I didn't call it a blockbuster, and your assertion that I did so is unacceptable.
I didn't compare it to the budget. I merely pointed out that more people saw it in the theaters during its shorter run than D&D: Honor Among Thieves did in its equal run.
NORMALLY being a bigger movie in box office would mean that more people watch it VOD and streaming. For Scream VI versus Honor Among Thieves.

 

[Zardnaar]

I chose my words carefully.
I said it was a bigger movie, provided evidence of that truth. I didn't call it a blockbuster, and your assertion that I did so is unacceptable.
I didn't compare it to the budget. I merely pointed out that more people saw it in the theaters during its shorter run than D&D: Honor Among Thieves did in its equal run.
NORMALLY being a bigger movie in box office would mean that more people watch it VOD and streaming. For Scream VI versus Honor Among Thieves.

I expect HAT to get more on the back end.

Scream 6 has already made its money back though so all of the back end is pure profit. That's a big difference.

Apparently this year has been good so far for the box office (2019 was abnormal year pre pandemic).

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Now you're being rude. If you want to end the conversation because it's irritating you, please just say so.


I didn't say it was or was not a box office failure. That is a big strawman. I said the box office, combined with VOD, combined with streaming and remaining revenue, seems to have pushed this movie into the black in the eyes of the studio, which is the only opinion any of this really matters for. I've engaged with precision and emphasis on al those points many times in this thread so I assume you intentionally misconstrued my position as a strawman. Which is, again, rude.

I'll ask you to stop with that. Please.

No, you keep replying to my posts saying that the movie was a BOX OFFICE failure by saying that 2x the cost is wrong to determine if the movie was a BOX OFFICE failure.

If there is a magical number to apply to the box office tax that makes the $250M movie not a BOX OFFICE failure, then please enlighten me and source it if you can.

If there is a better factor to estimate how much of the total take a movie pays the movie company (generic, there are investors and producers and many others all grouped here), to determine BOX OFFICE success or failure, please let me know.

I have been very specific in limiting my assessment to BOX OFFICE.

There certainly could be a total formula where:

Box office take + other revenue > movie cost (including marketing and investor premiums) or a budgeted loss even that everyone was expecting because of rainbows and unicorns (magic hope that the money spent is transformed into intangibles that make the total value greater). But that is not what my posts are about and I make that clear.

 

[Mistwell]

No, you keep replying to my posts saying that the movie was a BOX OFFICE failure by saying that 2x the cost is wrong to determine if the movie was a BOX OFFICE failure.

Yes. Which is in no way incompatible with what I just said.

If there is a magical number to apply to the box office tax that makes the $250M movie not a BOX OFFICE failure, then please enlighten me and source it if you can.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since the pandemic, the formula has dramatically changed. It unfortunately involves a large portion on stream, for which we do not have data. Literally the only data we have is indications from the studio. Which is inadequate but all we have. There is no more formula which you can apply to just the box office and determine if the movie itself was profitable or not. There is no "box office failure/success" given that's meaningless without the rest of it - movies are no longer made for just the box office metric and sometimes are not even released to theaters. The question is, and always was, total profit or loss and not just box office. Unfortunately, we not work with less data than we used to before the pandemic.

If there is a better factor to estimate how much of the total take a movie pays the movie company (generic, there are investors and producers and many others all grouped here), to determine BOX OFFICE success or failure, please let me know.

I have been very specific in limiting my assessment to BOX OFFICE.

Right, which isn't meaningful in itself. Many successful movies would have been deemed utter failures if that were the only factor these days.

We're clear now about what each of us is talking about now, right? No more of you being rude because you disagree with my opinion, now that we've both clarified, right?

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes. Which is in no way incompatible with what I just said.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since the pandemic, the formula has dramatically changed. It unfortunately involves a large portion on stream, for which we do not have data. Literally the only data we have is indications from the studio. Which is inadequate but all we have. There is no more formula which you can apply to just the box office and determine if the movie itself was profitable or not. There is no "box office failure/success" given that's meaningless without the rest of it - movies are no longer made for just the box office metric and sometimes are not even released to theaters. The question is, and always was, total profit or loss and not just box office. Unfortunately, we not work with less data than we used to before the pandemic.


Right, which isn't meaningful in itself. Many successful movies would have been deemed utter failures if that were the only factor these days.

We're clear now about what each of us is talking about now, right? No more of you being rude because you disagree with my opinion, now that we've both clarified, right?

You're still strawmanning though. No one's actually claiming the movies flopping overall.

I don't think it's going to make money though due to VoD making a fraction of the box office, physical media is laughable these days and there's no third party ponying up a hundred million dollars for HAT.

You are aware that during the pandemic VoD got a fraction of the box office? This is why in a week or two we're getting a blockbuster movie pretty much every week through June. I think Wonder Women got something like 60 million via streaming and that was a sequel to a billion dollar movie iirc.

Studios held movies back eb Top Gun Maverick because streaming and VoD doesn't return enough money by itself.

Hence why we're saying if a movie does do 2.5 its budget all those other sources of income are pure profit.

HAT didn't make anywhere near the 2.5 figure leaving a very large hole on the backend that may or may not be filled.

And Paramont isn't one of the streamers making money either with analysts saying they should drop out of the streaming wars. Which was posted earlier with that article.

Now it's getting close to the end of its theatrical run we're also getting articles like this.

Dungeons And Dragons Was Honestly Great, And It's Infuriating Its Box Office Might Cost Us A Sequel

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is the best movie of the year you apparently didn't go see.

money.yahoo.com

 

[Mistwell]

You're still strawmanning though. No one's actually claiming the movies flopping overall.

Yes, many are. Do you want me to quote them? I think you saw them. I saw you respond to some of them, but maybe you didn't realize that's what they were saying?

I don't think it's going to make money though due to VoD making a fraction of the box office

We have no idea. If you think you know how much it makes on VOD, I'd love to hear about that. I know it was noted as meaningful it hit #1 on differing platforms, which apparently was somewhat unusual. I also know it was selling for $19 and the studio was making $14 for each of those sales, which is large percentage.

, physical media is laughable these days and there's no third party ponying up a hundred million dollars for HAT.

I lumped DVD in with "everything else" so not sure why you're mentioning that like it was what I was talking about?

You are aware that during the pandemic VoD got a fraction of the box office?

We don't know that. They didn't release numbers for VOD. We have "Studios disappointed" but then we're back to my point that studio reaction is the only thing we're really left with, which is inadequate but the best we have. I guess you now agree with that point?

As for VOD, since you used the snide "you are aware" I will continue with your tone back at you. You are aware Streaming isn't the same category as VOD and that Streaming makes a ton of money?

This is why in a week or two we're getting a blockbuster movie pretty much every week through June. I think Wonder Women got something like 60 million via streaming and that was a sequel to a billion dollar movie iirc.

Ah, so the answer to my snide question is "No, you are not aware that VOD is not streaming." While VOD is streamed, it's not the category people mean when they say Streaming. Streaming is the money the service makes once it streams through a monthly service. And it is difficult to determine the share attributable to any one property, but they are doing it and the writers and soon the directors are (in part) striking over that very determination.

There is no data on how much money Wonder Woman made for Streaming, just for VOD. Streaming platforms do not release that data.

Studios held movies back eb Top Gun Maverick because streaming and VoD doesn't return enough money by itself.

That's not the case. They thought they could make MORE money if they had theatrical, but it wasn't because it doesn't make "enough" money to profit on it.

Hence why we're saying if a movie does do 2.5 its budget all those other sources of income are pure profit.

HAT didn't make anywhere near the 2.5 figure leaving a very large hole on the backend that may or may not be filled.

And Paramont isn't one of the streamers making money either with analysts saying they should drop out of the streaming wars. Which was posted earlier with that article.

That's a distraction. Whether Paramount overall is successful as a streaming platform, that's not really what we're discussing in terms of a particular properties share of revenue. If the D&D movie makes enough share revenue from streaming, it's not a ding on it if the platform itself isn't making enough money. At least, not to the studio, which again is all we're talking about.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, many are. Do you want me to quote them? I think you saw them. I saw you respond to some of them, but maybe you didn't realize that's what they were saying?


We have no idea. If you think you know how much it makes on VOD, I'd love to hear about that. I know it was noted as meaningful it hit #1 on differing platforms, which apparently was somewhat unusual. I also know it was selling for $19 and the studio was making $14 for each of those sales, which is large percentage.


I lumped DVD in with "everything else" so not sure why you're mentioning that like it was what I was talking about?



We don't know that. They didn't release numbers for VOD. We have "Studios disappointed" but then we're back to my point that studio reaction is the only thing we're really left with, which is inadequate but the best we have. I guess you now agree with that point?

As for VOD, since you used the snide "you are aware" I will continue with your tone back at you. You are aware Streaming isn't the same category as VOD and that Streaming makes a ton of money?



Ah, so the answer to my snide question is "No, you are not aware that VOD is not streaming." While VOD is streamed, it's not the category people mean when they say Streaming. Streaming is the money the service makes once it streams through a monthly service. And it is difficult to determine the share attributable to any one property, but they are doing it and the writers and soon the directors are (in part) striking over that very determination.

There is no data on how much money Wonder Woman made for Streaming, just for VOD. Streaming platforms do not release that data.



That's not the case. They thought they could make MORE money if they had theatrical, but it wasn't because it doesn't make "enough" money to profit on it.


That's a distraction. Whether Paramount overall is successful as a streaming platform, that's not really what we're discussing in terms of a particular properties share of revenue. If the D&D movie makes enough share revenue from streaming, it's not a ding on it if the platform itself isn't making enough money. At least, not to the studio, which again is all we're talking about.

You keep claiming streaming us worth millions. Only Netflix is turning a profit, we provided evidence Paramount is losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Theyrevtring to spin it but it seems they're years away from turning a profit. They're al losing money.

Even Appke us devoting money to Cinematic releases, Disney is looking at increasing physical media again.

There's multiple articles posted about a sequel being unlikely. Counter examples provided usually reveal they made more money proportionately than HAT did (GI Joe, Pacific Rim).

Paramounts not in good shape. Their shares lost 25% value in single day. HAT lost money at the theatres, Paramounts losing money on streaming.

I don't see a theatrical flop changing that trajectory. Much like Disney looks like they're gonna reduce output to cut costs.