sameone said:
...the one thing I don't get about David's 700 million figure is how BB reportedly tuned a nice profit that added to WB's bottom line when it cost 175 million and made 372 million and profits also had to be shared by Legendary...
Dunno? [shrugs] But I'd be interested to hear what Poland has to say if he replies to your e-mail. I've been reading The Hot Button since 2002. He's very much on the ball when it comes to Hollywood and the biz in general.
Pickle-El said:
Piracy Piracy Piracy..That's the sole reason SW3 didn't cross 400 Million last year. That's probably the biggest culprit. DVD sales are still strong across the board for these movies. (BB has grossed about 200 Million on DVD sales/rentals alone already)
"SW?" Star Wars?
The general rule of thumb for home vid profits *used* to be 60% of the OVERALL gross. The percentage is a little higher now, but the point is, BB will make quite a profit for Warner Home Video. It'll probably gross another $150M on top of the $200M it's already achieved in the home video market.
Batman has generally always done better at home than overseas....Happened with Batman 89, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman Begins. Seems like Batman doesn't quite 'click' as much overseas in BO.
Yeah, I've read that. I haven't seen anybody offer a reasonable explanation for why that is though. Anybody? Buehler? Why would Spider-Man and X-Men (for example) be more popular than Batman? Is it DC vs. Marvel? Is it that Batman is just an "ordinary" human with neat toys, and people would rather see mutants or spider-bite based powers? This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does play into predicting the box office profits of a film in the superhero genre. Some people have suggested that superheros associated more with Americanized themes do poorly in some foreign countries, though that probably applies to just about anything.
He could be right...but we don't know the complete details of the vested interest Legendary Productions has in SR.
Variety printed an article a few months ago detailing LP's involvement with Warners and the big picture. It was quite extensive, and IIRC, involved put picture pacts for about 20 films over the next five years. Something like that. I can dig up the article if you'd like.
(As is the case with BB and it's sequels) I mean, if BB did 'only' 370 WW and 'only' did 50 past it's production budget or 150 Million domestically, then why would Legendary want to gain a minimal return on its investment? Doesn't make much sense, but I guess a Million is a million.
Gotta remember, studios don't expect EVERY film to be profitable. They'd like every film to be LOL, but they know it's unlikely. It's the 80/20 rule. For every ten films produced by the majors, only two will be profitable for the studio, one will break even, and the other seven will be carried by the top 20%. It's generalized, but pretty close.
By definition, a tentpole film is a blockbuster. It supports all of the other little films around it and often launches a franchise. BB was a relaunch, if you will. So like SR, costs for sequels to these films are amortized over the length of their productions. For example, lets say the FOS set for SR cost $30M. If they make two sequels to the film and use the same set, they'll defray the cost over all three films. So in the end, the set will only use $10M of production budget on each film. Since BB and SR are tentpole films (franchise starters), Legendary would also be willing to incur a minor loss with the first film knowing that sequels will cost considerably less and have a better ROI.
Singer already corrected all the rumors. (Budget at 186)
Hee. Okay. Just so you know, no Major will ever divulge the true cost of their film(s) to the public. There's *always* two "books" in every business, and sometimes more than two.
Weadazoid said:
and that would be great if it didn't have kid friendly Pirates right behind it
Also a Comic book movie that is rated PG.... bothers me on some strange level....but hey I'm 30 so
I agree. The PG rating is REALLY out of left field, but cartoons like The Incredibles, Shrek and Ice Age did VERY well and were all rated PG, so we shall see if that translates well to SR, a live action film. The risk is that younger, teen audiences with expendable incomes won't take the film seriously and avoid it because it's for "kids." Spider-Man was rated PG-13 IIRC, and it was quite violent, yet that didn't seem to affect its overall BO profits.