Fantastic Four Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]498547[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]471315[/split]

 

[sleekstereo]

We know that Feige asked for Galactus and the Silver Surfer in exchange for an extension of the DD character rights. And that Ike Perlmutter took all FOX controlled characters out of Marvel licensing after talks broke down last year. So yes, Marvel wants the First Family back home.

Any cash payout to FOX for character rights gets added to film budgets, so I don't see Disney writing a big check. But there's other deals that can be made, and I'm optimistic something will get done.

Marvel wanted Silver Surfer and Galactus, nothing was was said about the First Family. And they only wanted Silver and Galactus for Infinity War, but I'm sure they've already decided how to exclude them out.

As far as I can tell, Marvel are focused on the properties they do own, which they should be when it comes to merchandise and film. Removing X-Men and Fantastic Four merchandise makes sense if you want to promote the movies you do own. Although from a comic standpoint, they still value the X-Men and are moving the FF characters to other lines in order to at least ignite some interest.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

So what are we guessing is the break even target based on $122mil, plus marketing?

I'd usually go with a ww gross of 'double the budget' (or thereabouts) but Hollywood accounting can be more a matter of convenience than accuracy.

I'd guess around $300mil ww would be around the mark, so anything over is a profit. Personally, the less it gets the better though.

I think we can only guess at the break even point (particularly since there's at least some value in maintaining the rights for future negotiations, marvel getting some cut of the BO, no associated merchandise, etc.), but I can't imagine if this film makes less than ROTSS (as it's projected) that Fox management will consider it a success and rush ahead with a sequel.

If every single FF film has made less than the one before (again, as this one is projected to do), I can't imagine the Fox suits saying: "This is going well. Let's make a fourth."

 

[Docker2.0]

I'd say more than that though. What cut does Marvel get?

 

[InCali]

Trying to catch up, but a couple of things confuse me. Sithborg said "Besides, a roughly 4.3 million a year as an extension of the FF movie rights doesn't sound like a bad deal. Unless you don't think the FF is worth that much."

Well, it sounds like a bad deal to me if the result of the deal is a breakeven movie. Meaning if those losses were absorbed over time....which they weren't....in order to do a bunch of work and not make any money at the end of the 7 or whatever years, that sounds like a deal I'd pass on.

EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken, Fox didn't have to pay anything for any extension. They already HAD the rights. I'm thinking I must be missing the argument here.

The other thing is that ANY comparison between Batman Begins and FF strikes me as sort of crazy. The ONLY thing they have in common is that a couple (or more in the case of Batman) of the movies weren't well liked. Making a really good movie (BB) will make up for a lot of past sins. If the only comparison was that they had some heavy lifting to do, I'll agree with that.

 

[Orba]

I think we can only guess at the break even point (particularly since there's at least some value in maintaining the rights for future negotiations, marvel getting some cut of the BO, no associated merchandise, etc.), but I can't imagine if this film makes less than ROTSS (as it's projected) that Fox management will consider it a success and rush ahead with a sequel.

If every single FF film has made less than the one before (again, as this one is projected to do), I can't imagine the Fox suits saying: "This is going well. Let's make a fourth."

The other factor to consider is that there may me some in Fox who no longer see the franchise as worth the effort. There are those rumours that the 3D was cut because Fox used the money for the reshoots, if that was true then it would indicate serious unhappiness by Fox. Studios love 3D, for a few million they can add tens of million to the box office, so refusing the money would be Fox wiping their hands of the whole production. Now its probably not true since time is usually the most likely reason for 3D to be called off but we need to remember that the 3D logos started to be removed about six months ago, so that would mean that six months ago Fox decided that they could not get this film finished in time for a 3D conversion.

 

[Docker2.0]

Trying to catch up, but a couple of things confuse me. Sithborg said "Besides, a roughly 4.3 million a year as an extension of the FF movie rights doesn't sound like a bad deal. Unless you don't think the FF is worth that much."

Well, it sounds like a bad deal to me if the result of the deal is a breakeven movie. Meaning if those losses were absorbed over time....which they weren't....in order to do a bunch of work and not make any money at the end of the 7 or whatever years, that sounds like a deal I'd pass on.

EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken, Fox didn't have to pay anything for any extension. They already HAD the rights. I'm thinking I must be missing the argument here.

The other thing is that ANY comparison between Batman Begins and FF strikes me as sort of crazy. The ONLY thing they have in common is that a couple (or more in the case of Batman) of the movies weren't well liked. Making a really good movie (BB) will make up for a lot of past sins. If the only comparison was that they had some heavy lifting to do, I'll agree with that.

On top of that, Batman has had good films in the past while F4 films have been mediocre to bad. They are nowhere near similiar at all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To break even at the box office? Probably somewhere between $375m-400m. More depending on Marvel's cut.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Trying to catch up, but a couple of things confuse me. Sithborg said "Besides, a roughly 4.3 million a year as an extension of the FF movie rights doesn't sound like a bad deal. Unless you don't think the FF is worth that much."

Well, it sounds like a bad deal to me if the result of the deal is a breakeven movie. Meaning if those losses were absorbed over time....which they weren't....in order to do a bunch of work and not make any money at the end of the 7 or whatever years, that sounds like a deal I'd pass on.

EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken, Fox didn't have to pay anything for any extension. They already HAD the rights. I'm thinking I must be missing the argument here.

The other thing is that ANY comparison between Batman Begins and FF strikes me as sort of crazy. The ONLY thing they have in common is that a couple (or more in the case of Batman) of the movies weren't well liked. Making a really good movie (BB) will make up for a lot of past sins. If the only comparison was that they had some heavy lifting to do, I'll agree with that.

The point is the losses they could make here can be seen as a small fee for an extension.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The other factor to consider is that there may me some in Fox who no longer see the franchise as worth the effort. There are those rumours that the 3D was cut because Fox used the money for the reshoots, if that was true then it would indicate serious unhappiness by Fox. Studios love 3D, for a few million they can add tens of million to the box office, so refusing the money would be Fox wiping their hands of the whole production. Now its probably not true since time is usually the most likely reason for 3D to be called off but we need to remember that the 3D logos started to be removed about six months ago, so that would mean that six months ago Fox decided that they could not get this film finished in time for a 3D conversion.

True, and for those voices within Fox who have wanted to give FF back to Marvel and Focus on X-Men, anything short of a stellar performance will make them feel vindicated while embarrassing those who pushed for this film.

One side or the other is going to be able to say "I told you so" and they'll be the stronger faction after the results are in. At this moment, based on projections, the faction that seems most likely to gloat is the faction that argued against this ever happening.

 

[wobbly]

I'd say more than that though. What cut does Marvel get?

I don't think anyone not privy to the contracts knows for sure but it's thought to be better for FF than for the X-Men (and X-Men related movies/spin-offs). I think the X films were cited as giving marvel only 2%, with the FF maybe 5% of the profits.

Bear in mind Hollywood accounting can make what looks like a profitable film not quite so hot when there are other parties to be paid off too.

That's another little factor that would seem to put the crossover talk out of bounds. What cut do Fox give Marvel for that if they can indeed just crossover at their leisure as some supporters are all too willing to assume (just because occasionally someone at Fox say they would like to do it)?

 

[wobbly]

EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken, Fox didn't have to pay anything for any extension. They already HAD the rights. I'm thinking I must be missing the argument here.

They have to make and release a film within the deadlines to retain the rights. That's what they have to pay for to get the next 7/8 years secured. Fail to make it or release it before the timer expires (they get so long between flicks) and they lose them for good. That was what happened with Daredevil. It's thought they cut it close with this one too.

If the film tanks it can be argued whatever the loss might be is the cost of keeping the rights for the next 7/8 years. So say it loses $30mil, divide by 7, you get $4.3 mil a year as the cost for keeping them.

 

[Zarex]

Trying to catch up, but a couple of things confuse me. Sithborg said "Besides, a roughly 4.3 million a year as an extension of the FF movie rights doesn't sound like a bad deal. Unless you don't think the FF is worth that much."

Well, it sounds like a bad deal to me if the result of the deal is a breakeven movie. Meaning if those losses were absorbed over time....which they weren't....in order to do a bunch of work and not make any money at the end of the 7 or whatever years, that sounds like a deal I'd pass on.

EDIT: Also, unless I'm mistaken, Fox didn't have to pay anything for any extension. They already HAD the rights. I'm thinking I must be missing the argument here.

The other thing is that ANY comparison between Batman Begins and FF strikes me as sort of crazy. The ONLY thing they have in common is that a couple (or more in the case of Batman) of the movies weren't well liked. Making a really good movie (BB) will make up for a lot of past sins. If the only comparison was that they had some heavy lifting to do, I'll agree with that.

The argument is that a loss of $30M or so on FFINO is a good deal for FOX as it extends their FF character license for another 7 years. At which point I guess they'd get it right on the fourth try? That isn't how successful multinational companies operate.

 

[Docker2.0]

Wait, they have to pay every year to keep the rights even if they don't make film?

 

[wobbly]

Wait, they have to pay every year to keep the rights even if they don't make film?

Nope. The argument is that if this film makes a loss, that loss can be written off by Fox as the cost of securing the rights for the next 7/8 years.

I do recall reading somewhere they do pay Marvel a fee (a rent of sorts) for each year they hold the rights (idea is to encourage the studios to make the films sooner rather sit on them to the wire each time) but I couldn't say for sure that's true.

 

[Zarex]

I don't think anyone not privy to the contracts knows for sure but it's thought to be better for FF than for the X-Men (and X-Men related movies/spin-offs). I think the X films were cited as giving marvel only 2%, with the FF maybe 5% of the profits.

Bear in mind Hollywood accounting can make what looks like a profitable film not quite so hot when there are other parties to be paid off too.

That's another little factor that would seem to put the crossover talk out of bounds. What cut do Fox give Marvel for that if they can indeed just crossover at their leisure as some supporters are all too willing to assume (just because occasionally someone at Fox say they would like to do it)?

And why didn't FOX show a child blinded by a truck crash in XMFC? That would have been the perfect setup for Carnahan's 70s era DD reboot. And forget about Apocalypse - why didn't DOFP set up the following year's FMCU film, FFINO? Xavier could have received a cross-dimensional image of the Thing. And then commenced his dry heaving.

I remain firmly convinced that if FOX could merge contracts they would already be merged.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If this film makes what Pro Box Office is predicting, this is what the domestic box-office chart will look like for the three FF films Fox has made:

Now imagine you're a Fox executive. Imagine you don't know or care about Tim Story Vs. Josh Trank, light and goofy vs grounded and gritty, UFF vs 616 etc. etc. etc.

How will you respond to someone who is requesting funding for a fourth film based on that chart?

Unless this film does much better than expected, I have to think a sequel will be an extremely difficult sell.

 

[Sithborg]

I don't think anyone not privy to the contracts knows for sure but it's thought to be better for FF than for the X-Men (and X-Men related movies/spin-offs). I think the X films were cited as giving marvel only 2%, with the FF maybe 5% of the profits.

Bear in mind Hollywood accounting can make what looks like a profitable film not quite so hot when there are other parties to be paid off too.

That's another little factor that would seem to put the crossover talk out of bounds. What cut do Fox give Marvel for that if they can indeed just crossover at their leisure as some supporters are all too willing to assume (just because occasionally someone at Fox say they would like to do it)?

As bad as the original deals were, there is no way that what Marvel gets is based on profit. Profit/loss is extremely easy to manipulate. And Hollywood accounting is very manipulative. Most likely, it is based on income of the films.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Nope. The argument is that if this film makes a loss, that loss can be written off by Fox as the cost of securing the rights for the next 7/8 years.

I do recall reading somewhere they do pay Marvel a fee (a rent of sorts) for each year they hold the rights (idea is to encourage the studios to make the films sooner rather sit on them to the wire each time) but I couldn't say for sure that's true.

It was true for some of their other properties like Ghost Rider and Punisher. I don't know if it is for Fantastic Four, but I would guess it is.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If anyone still thought that Terminator was going to be a hit after that deplorable synopsis leaked and the horrendous EW photo shoot then they weren't paying attention close enough.

True. I wasn't paying close attention and didn't read the leaked synopsis.

 

[wobbly]

As bad as the original deals were, there is no way that what Marvel gets is based on profit. Profit/loss is extremely easy to manipulate. And Hollywood accounting is very manipulative. Most likely, it is based on income of the films.

If Marvel were savvy enough when they made they deals they might have ensured that % is taken from the gross, so the bean counters can't stiff them on that one. One would hope so at any rate.

 

[Snikt]

People are making the Batman Begins comparisons because this Fan4 movie is coming off 2 despised films; much the same way Batman Begins was.

Yes, Batman had 2 good films also and is more liked/popular than Fan4, but it also was a dead franchise that was killed by the previous films.

Batman came back in 2005 to great reviews and made a good amount of money at the box office ($374 Million WW), but it's not a $500 million film. But again, WB wasn't expecting that kind of money.

That's where the comparison comes from. If this Fan4 (after 2 horrible films) makes $330 million WW and gets great reviews, I'm sure Fox will be extremely happy with because they've successfully rebooted a dead franchise...just like WB did with Batman.

Not saying it will happen and not saying Fan4 will be the next Batman Begins; but be similar in regards to box office and critical reception.

 

[InCali]

They have to make and release a film within the deadlines to retain the rights. That's what they have to pay for to get the next 7/8 years secured. Fail to make it or release it before the timer expires (they get so long between flicks) and they lose them for good. That was what happened with Daredevil. It's thought they cut it close with this one too.

If the film tanks it can be argued whatever the loss might be is the cost of keeping the rights for the next 7/8 years. So say it loses $30mil, divide by 7, you get $4.3 mil a year as the cost for keeping them.

Not to put the cart in front of the horse because the movie hasn't "lost" anything yet (Nor has it made money yet), but losing 30M on a movie or looking at the 30M as paying for extension of the rights when you already had them for the past 7 years, doesn't sound like sound business practice to me. It still adds up to losing 30M with nothing to show for it except owning a movie you haven't been able to make money on.

If Fox really thought they had something the thought they could do something with, I'm sure they wouldn't have waited until the last minute to remake the movie.

 

[wobbly]

Not to put the cart in front of the horse because the movie hasn't "lost" anything yet (Nor has it made money yet), but losing 30M on a movie or looking at the 30M as paying for extension of the rights when you already had them for the past 7 years, doesn't sound like sound business practice to me. It still adds up to losing 30M with nothing to show for it except owning a movie you haven't been able to make money on.

If Fox really thought they had something the thought they could do something with, I'm sure they wouldn't have waited until the last minute to remake the movie.

Oh I agree. Keeping the rights at a loss would be stupid business.

That's if this makes a loss....I can't say I think its gonna do great but stranger things have happened.,.