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

[mamba]

A disappointing return isn't the same as a flop, but Hollywood doesn't see it that way sometimes.

it kinda is though, if I can get the same return on investment by putting it into an account and getting interest, then it is not worth the effort and risk of making a movie, so the movie needs to make more than 3% simply to offset that risk.

Given that this is intended to be the start of a franchise and not a one-off movie, any return that makes them reconsider is a flop.
Even for a one-off less than 10% return means it is a flop.

 

[MwaO]

An opening weekend at Black Adam's level would actually beat expectations for the film's opening weekend.

And actually, if it puts up numbers as good as Black Adam's then Paramount would be thrilled - that would put it smack in the middle of Snarf's total domestic range projected for the movie right now.

Black Adam was a monetary disappointment mostly because it was insanely expensive to make and was supposed to put up Marvel movie numbers. Expectations for Honor Among Thieves are a lot lower - if it hits Black Adam's bar we'll see plans for sequels aplenty.

I don't think it hits Black Adam's revenue numbers. I think it on net loses money due to promotion/costs/how revenue from theaters work. Even though the revenue will be apparently very high, somewhere in the low $200 million range or so.

 

[Deset Gled]

A disappointing return isn't the same as a flop, but Hollywood doesn't see it that way sometimes.

Yeah, media reporting on what is considered a "flop" is about getting clicks and/or their own projections, and often has little relationship with actual financial performance. Lots of movies are reported as a "bomb" even though they're quite profitable. "Waterworld" was actually profitable, despite all the negative press. Tom Cruise's version of "The Mummy" also made a decent return; it just wasn't a big enough return to justify an entire Cinematic Universe, so it's reported as a flop. "Warcraft" was reported as a major bomb in the US even though it made almost 3x it's $160 million budget (it did most of its business in China).

If a movie makes more than it's budget, it's a success. If it makes less, it's not. Anything else is Hollywood accounting. Never believe the Hollywood accounting.

All that being said, I think the D&D movie will be profitable in the US. I think some of the international estimates sound too high based off my knowledge about D&D in foreign markets. I'm wondering if in places like China they may be dropping the D&D aspect from marketing altogether.

 

[OB1]

So hard to predict without any reviews or audience scores. Let's think...

Star power: fairly weak for this kind of film (no offence to Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez and Hugh Grant)
IP: the name "D&D" is well known among the public but not as a film property.
Early marketing: seems solid.
Buzz: okay.
Style: Seems to be hitting all the Marvel notes at a time when Marvel-style films are on the decline.

I'll take slightly under as well. $375-400 million worldwide. I hope it does great, though!

I think we'll get a better sense after it screens at SxSW in a couple weeks, but even the fact that they're showing it there tells me they think they have a pretty good film on their hands. Add to that I've heard from two (non-Paramount) industry people who've seen it (one a D&D fan, one with no D&D background, who also predicted Top Gun's success after seeing it at an early screening last year) who both loved it, along with it getting distribution in China, and I'll enthusiastically take the over. I think it get's to $500M worldwide for sure, and has a chance for $600M. It will be in a fight with Super Mario Bros all of April, but 'family' movies haven't performed as well as those targeted to teens and young adults since the pandemic, so D&D should stay strong until GotG3 in May.

The original Guardians is a weird comp to D&D. Of course it had the benefit of being a Marvel property as Marvel was growing in popularity, but there was a lot of worry about it being Marvel's first flop at the time. It had the benefit of being a really great movie (not just a Marvel movie) that led it to $330 domestic and $780M worldwide. If D&D is a funny, audience friendly film with great characters (exactly what I heard) then I think it getting to 2/3s of that total without the Marvel brand is doable.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Hit, especially if it's budget really is $45,000,000 (I know folks have suggested the media is confusing the first D&D movie with HAT, but no one from Hasbro or Paramount is correcting that figure which keeps getting repeated so maybe it's true, they saved a ton of money on special effects by using more practical effects then CGI).

 

[OB1]

Hit, especially if it's budget really is $45,000,000 (I know folks have suggested the media is confusing the first D&D movie with HAT, but no one from Hasbro or Paramount is correcting that figure which keeps getting repeated so maybe it's true, they saved a ton of money on special effects by using more practical effects then CGI).

Budget is $151M confirmed in a Variety article today.

 

[Iosue]

There's a Chris Pine interview in Esquire that has this passage:

What Pine wants to know about me now is if I liked Dungeons & Dragons, because when we meet I’m one of the few civilians who’ve seen it. When I say I liked it, he asks, “Scale of one to ten—how much did you like it?” I tell him I’d give it an eight, which Pine seems okay with. It’s probably more of a nine—genuinely funny in ways you don’t necessarily expect from an action flick based on a role-playing game—but I don’t want Pine to think I’m kissing his ass.

I played a lot of D&D as a kid. It’s a game with a rich mythology and ten million persnickety little rules; the most fun part of playing it is sitting around a table with your friends making dumb jokes about what’s happening, and Honor Among Thieves is the first screen adaptation of D&D to capture that. After ten-plus years of Game of Thrones setting a bleak life-doth-suck tone for all heroic-fantasy storytelling, comedy was the only direction to take this material, but cowriter-directors Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley strike a delicate balance, eschewing solemnity while avoiding that overly knowing style in which all the characters talk like they’re pitching jokes in a TV writers’ room.

 

[Zardnaar]

it kinda is though, if I can get the same return on investment by putting it into an account and getting interest, then it is not worth the effort and risk of making a movie, so the movie needs to make more than 3% simply to offset that risk.

Given that this is intended to be the start of a franchise and not a one-off movie, any return that makes them reconsider is a flop.
Even for a one-off less than 10% return means it is a flop.

Flop in the context of my OP us if it loses money.

If it makes 3% disappointing for then I suppose but not a flop.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, media reporting on what is considered a "flop" is about getting clicks and/or their own projections, and often has little relationship with actual financial performance. Lots of movies are reported as a "bomb" even though they're quite profitable. "Waterworld" was actually profitable, despite all the negative press. Tom Cruise's version of "The Mummy" also made a decent return; it just wasn't a big enough return to justify an entire Cinematic Universe, so it's reported as a flop. "Warcraft" was reported as a major bomb in the US even though it made almost 3x it's $160 million budget (it did most of its business in China).

If a movie makes more than it's budget, it's a success. If it makes less, it's not. Anything else is Hollywood accounting. Never believe the Hollywood accounting.

All that being said, I think the D&D movie will be profitable in the US. I think some of the international estimates sound too high based off my knowledge about D&D in foreign markets. I'm wondering if in places like China they may be dropping the D&D aspect from marketing altogether.

As I said a flop as I defined it is if it loses money.

In China 75% (apparently)the money says in China. The US market its around 50% (varies is a sliding scale can start around 40%).

That's the percentage the movie theatre keeps. So yeah a movie cam make more than it's budget and still lose money.

US they get the largest % returns and they make more money early in the run. Most f tge time you know if the movie has flopped or not in its first 2-3 weeks.

We are potentially looking at movies making around a billion dollars flopping as some are creeping up around 300+ million to make and another 100+ million marketing.

James Cameron said Avatar 2 had to clear 2 billion to break even while others pegged it at 1.5 billion.

Apparently this movie cost 150 million projected to bring in 400-450. So depending on how accurate the projected take us an how big that marketing budget is....... It's break even point (minimum) is likely around 400 million (assuming a 50 million marketing budget).

 

[mamba]

James Cameron said Avatar 2 had to clear 2 billion to break even while others pegged it at 1.5 billion.

since the movie made 2.25B at the box office, it was a success and Cameron can work on three more sequels