Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

[The Morningstar]

It will be lucky to break even.

It just doesn't make sense how a big company like WB could **** up this bad. A new Batman film with a 200 million dollar production budget? Yea, fine.

A completely untried, unknown and "out there" superhero like GL with a 200 million production budget and 100 million marketing budget? Complete and utter insanity.

 

[Jordanstine]

300 worldwide would be a small number for WB. 200 is a bomb. of course they will make their money back. but this is an epic bomb.

Yes, it's current worldwide gross of $205 million is still considered a big loss... yes, a BIG loss.

* To Break Even on Production Budget *

Green Lantern needed a worldwide gross of approximately $364 MILLION to just break even.

To get that number all you do is take estimated production budget at $200 million and divide it by 55% (the studio share of the gross revenue) which equals approximately $364 million. The typical studio/theater share is 55-45.

Again, this is just to break even from it's Production Budget of an estimated $200 million. This does not even include the Marketing Budget.

It's current $205 million worldwide gross only gives Warner Bros only a net of $113 million; do the math $207M budget - $113M net = $87M aka meaning those WB Executive Producers are still at a loss of $87 million.

It will be lucky to break even.

It won't even come close to breaking even. Not even close. About $159 million short of breaking even.

Green Lantern needed Thor's worldwide numbers (currently at $448 million) to make a profit.

Even if Green Lantern did Captain America numbers (currently at $325 million), it likely won't still be close to breaking even after it's run since it needed at least $364 million due to it's bigger budget.

-------

Think of it this way.

You (Warner Bros) want to sell an item (Green Lantern Movie) on Ebay (the Movie Theaters).

The item cost you $200.

People then started placing bids (audience going to the cinemas) and you end up selling the item for $205 after the auction (the initial theater run).

So that's a profit right?

Nope.

Because for this listing, Ebay (the Movie Theaters) charged you a 45% fee for hosting your item (Green Lantern Movie) on their site. Meaning you only get 55% of the revenue.

So rather than net a $205 for a $5 profit, you actually only got $113 from the sale with a loss of $87.

 

[Cain]

Damn!

 

[The Morningstar]

Well, it might get there after say, 5 years of DVD/Blu-Ray sales?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I think this project is more concerned with breaking even anyway they can at this point in the game and they don't have to make $300 million at the box office to do that. Remember, they are getting a tax offset from the production work in Louisiana so that reduces the budget quite a bit under $200 million (more like $156 million). Also even though the world wide marketing costs were anywhere between $125 and $175 million some of that is offset by the alliances with retailers (Subway, Mattel, Reces, Dorritos, et. al.). I am sure that there is a percentage royalty going back to the franchise for any money made through the licensing (I know that it has been reported that Mattel is paying a 2.5% royalty).

That mentality only produces an even dimmer outset for a potential franchise.

Very few companies would be willing to support a sequel with tie-ins and merchandise. It'll be interesting to see how the DVD/Blu-ray sells... but I just don't think the interest is there.

 

[Jordanstine]

Well, it might get there after say, 5 years of DVD/Blu-Ray sales?

Not certain.

Cost for DVD's discs are about $0.60. Print material can cost more and ranges as much as $0.90 to $1.20 or more per disc believe it or not, so let's just say $1.80 to produce. Blu-ray discs are costing almost the same as DVD's now. So it's really cheap to mass produce them at $2 or less cost and sell them for $19.99 or more.

Just to throw some numbers regarding your question, in about "5 years".

Since Green Lantern still needs $87 million to break even.

That means assuming BD/DVD cost is approx $1.80 and BD/DVD sales at approx $16.99 (avg BD/DVD consumers would purchase):

$87,000,000 = X (16.99 - 1.80)

That means it needs to sell approximately 5,727,000 copies at $16.99 to make the budget; or about 1,145,000 discs per year for the next 5 years.

But that's just production budget cost, and doesn't cover advertising, promotion fees, etc.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Your just full of numbers and unsupported info aren't you...

I hope you don't write your essays like that.

 

[dnno1]

Yes, it's current worldwide gross of $205 million is still considered a big loss... yes, a BIG loss.

* To Break Even on Production Budget *

Green Lantern needed a worldwide gross of approximately $364 MILLION to just break even.

To get that number all you do is take estimated production budget at $200 million and divide it by 55% (the studio share of the gross revenue) which equals approximately $364 million. The typical studio/theater share is 55-45.

Again, this is just to break even from it's Production Budget of an estimated $200 million. This does not even include the Marketing Budget.

It's current $205 million worldwide gross only gives Warner Bros only a net of $113 million; do the math $207M budget - $113M net = $87M aka meaning those WB Executive Producers are still at a loss of $87 million...

That's true... if you use $200 million as the production budget. Now, consider that the producers get a 30% offset for the cost of production in the state of Louisiana. I read where the initial budget for vFx was about $45 million and then they upped it by $9 million to get the film on back on schedule (see this article: http://www.joe.ie/entertainment/entertainment-news/warner-bros-coughs- up-extra-9m-to-fix-green-lantern-movies-cgi-0011747-1). $54 million does not sound unreasonable since the range for a CG video game runs anywhere from $40 million to $60 million (and that's for around 12 to 24 hours of game play and 90 minutes of cut scenes). If we assume that the vFx work was not done in Louisiana, then somewhere around $146 million is eligible for a tax offset meaning your budget actually looks more like $154 million. At $154 million, you would only need to make a little over $280 million to break even. Now that could be possible if you consider the other revenue streams (DVD, PPV, licensing, et. al.).

 

[Jordanstine]

Your just full of numbers and unsupported info aren't you...

I hope you don't write your essays like that.

Google it.

It helps.

Go to sites like http://www.the-numbers.com/ or even http://io9.com/

And educate yourself rather than bit*h about it.

Start here: http://www.google.com

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Thats not really how it works... its called sources.

When trying to present an argument its your job to support and enhance your point of view.

 

[Jordanstine]

Thats not really how it works... its called sources.

When trying to present an argument its your job to support and enhance your point of view.

And when trying to counter an argument, it's best to learn what you're arguing about rather than state baseless opinions.



Since there are some just lazy to google themselves:

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Oh look... primary sources to back up your argument.

Thanks!

t:

 

[hippie_hunter]

That mentality only produces an even dimmer outset for a potential franchise.

Very few companies would be willing to support a sequel with tie-ins and merchandise. It'll be interesting to see how the DVD/Blu-ray sells... but I just don't think the interest is there.

But that's why WB made Green Lantern anyways. It's why Disney is going forward with Tron 3 despite being an underperformer in the box office. They're looking more at the aspects of the entire franchise in general (video games, toys, comics, t-shirts, movies) and if they make a sequel, it'll most likely be due to WB wanting to keep the DC and Green Lantern brands active and vibrant.

 

[chiefchirpa]

It's why Disney is going forward with Tron 3 despite being an underperformer in the box office.

Que?

Tron Legacy "underperformed", but not as underperformed as Green Lantern. Heck on paper Tron beat the production cost ($400 M WW / $ 170 M budget).

 

[The Morningstar]

Talking of Tron, that's how GLs suit should have been. An actual practical suit, but enhanced by CGI.

Also... Tron's budget was less than GLs?!?! How? That movie looks amazing, apart from some dodgy work on CLU in some places.

 

[ConVerse]

It's a shame that this movie got so out of control with it's budget. Because it's not like $200 million dollars at the box office is a bad number. But when you have internet accountants pretending they know the total budget because of some other internet article they read, it makes it look like a total failure. I'm not saying by any means that this is a smash hit, but come on people. If you didn't have the internet and were so worried about budgets, $200 million at the box office wouldn't sound so bad.

 

[Liam_H]

Even if we didn't overanalyze $200 million budget bringing barely above $200 million WW is bad no matter which way you spin it.

 

[ConVerse]

Even if we didn't overanalyze $200 million budget bringing barely above $200 million WW is bad no matter which way you spin it.

That's what I mean though. 20 years ago, nobody knew the budgets of movies. And if you heard that a movie made $200 million dollars worldwide, that would be considered pretty good right? So it's not like people didn't go see it ... It's not easy to make that much at the box office... But the budget raised expectations and I don't want to be an "overanalyzer" but shame on whoever makes these decisions at Warners. Throwing $200 million+ at an unproven property at the movies is crazy.

 

[The Morningstar]

200 million WW for a attempted mid summer blockbuster? That's bad no matter how you cut it.

 

[Liam_H]

First of all 20 years ago $200 million would be considered a lot more money than $200 million today. Also we all knew from the start Green Lantern was gonna be CG heavy due to his powers and Oa. I mean they needed to use a lot of money for the CGI or else it would just look really cheap, and a lot of people would be pissed that they didn't have faith in the project.

The big problem to me is that they misused their resources, CGI suits was a novel idea but a big waste of money. They were rushing so much that it appears they couldn't finish a lot of the effects making them cut scenes to give awkward transition scenes in the movie. So in the end they mismanaged time and money and got a dud.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Que?

Tron Legacy "underperformed", but not as underperformed as Green Lantern. Heck on paper Tron beat the production cost ($400 M WW / $ 170 M budget).

Tron: Legacy didn't bomb in the box office, hell I freaking loved the movie, but it didn't live up to expectations in the box office. But Disney is working on a sequel mostly because they want a new licensing franchise to work with. Tron has massive potential to be a big player in Disney's extremely lucrative licensing division. Tron merchandise actually did a relatively good job last year with Tron toys being the best seller during the holiday season of 2010 and the Tron: Legacy soundtrack doing very well.

If Green Lantern gets a sequel, and that's an if, it'll be because they get the finances under control as opposed to the last time, and first and foremost, Warner Bros. wants Green Lantern and various other DC properties to be big players in their extremely lucrative licensing division.

The movies are just a part of a much grander plan of extremely lucrative licensing deals. Under normal circumstances movies like Tron: Legacy and Green Lantern would never get sequels, but this is something bigger for companies such as Warner Bros.

 

[jmc]

The problem with GL is that WB assumed it would be a big player, that's the reason some of these films under perform is that they're looked upon as a money maker first but then studios totally forget that it has to be good in order to generate that money.

 

[Jordanstine]

It's a shame that this movie got so out of control with it's budget. Because it's not like $200 million dollars at the box office is a bad number. But when you have internet accountants pretending they know the total budget because of some other internet article they read, it makes it look like a total failure. I'm not saying by any means that this is a smash hit, but come on people. If you didn't have the internet and were so worried about budgets, $200 million at the box office wouldn't sound so bad.

Yes, $200 million is not a bad thing... if it only cost you $100 million to make it it.

And wait, going by the quote above - accountants pretending to know the budget because of just some internet article they read?

What if the internet article happens to be TIME magazine itself, which btw happens to be owned by Time Warner who also owns Warner Bros?

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2078633,00.html

The Green Lantern has a way to to go before it makes a return on its $200 million budget.

No matter how it's spin, even if Green Lantern cost only $150 million to make, a $200 million net would still have been a flop because the studios will only receive about $113 million of it.

As previously stated, Green Lantern NEEDED the box office numbers of Thor (about $448 million currently) to make a profit. $200 million is still a huge loss.

One mistake that Warner Bros did was that rather than spend more time developing the product, they continually just poured money on the project just for the CGI:

http://blastr.com/2011/04/green-lantern-adds-9-mill.php

Green Lantern adds $9 million to budget for last-minute FX tweaks.

Warner Bros. felt it had to apologize for that first Green Lantern trailer, but the studio is doing everything it can to make sure it doesn't have to apologize for the movie itself — it just bumped the special effects budget by $9 million with new vfx houses recruited to bolster the team that's been working overtime to meet the film's launch in the hope that we won't be disappointed when the film opens June 17.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118035870

Chris de Faria, Warner's exec VP of digital production, animation and visual effects, defended "Green Lantern" and Warner's process on the pic. "There is no problem on Green Lantern", he said. "We try to add things to make the movie better until the 11th hour. That doesn't mean we're risking the movie up to the 11th hour."

Whispers about problems on the production grew louder after schedule concerns early in the new year triggered high-level meetings to get the project back on track. The cost of its roughly 1,400 visual effects is more than $9 million over the $45 million original f/x budget. That budget is on the low side for a vfx-heavy tentpole, but 3D hadn't been taken into account in the original budget.

This was published on April 26, that was a good 7 weeks before it's release date.

The Special F/X budget for Green Lantern alone cost AT LEAST $54 million if not more.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Tron: Legacy didn't bomb in the box office, hell I freaking loved the movie, but it didn't live up to expectations in the box office. But Disney is working on a sequel mostly because they want a new licensing franchise to work with. Tron has massive potential to be a big player in Disney's extremely lucrative licensing division. Tron merchandise actually did a relatively good job last year with Tron toys being the best seller during the holiday season of 2010 and the Tron: Legacy soundtrack doing very well.

If Green Lantern gets a sequel, and that's an if, it'll be because they get the finances under control as opposed to the last time, and first and foremost, Warner Bros. wants Green Lantern and various other DC properties to be big players in their extremely lucrative licensing division.

The movies are just a part of a much grander plan of extremely lucrative licensing deals. Under normal circumstances movies like Tron: Legacy and Green Lantern would never get sequels, but this is something bigger for companies such as Warner Bros.

Tron's success is almost the same as Captain America ($327 M and counting / 140 M) or X-Men: First Class (351 M / 160 M). Heck even compared to those two films, Tron even best them percentage wise (400 M / 170 M). Sequel it's only a matter of time and it seems they're clearly doing it in 2013.

http://screenrant.com/tron-3-confirmed-rob-129649/

Green Lantern is more underperformed than Tron. On a glance, it hasn't even recouped the production cost and the proposed mostly on space sequel will need at least the same budget.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Without a doubt that Green Lantern underperformed way more than Tron did. But with the way Tron: Legacy performed, it just wouldn't get a sequel under normal circumstances. Disney didn't follow up with the original Tron even though it made more than its budget, simply because while it didn't bomb, it just didn't make enough to warrant a sequel. Tron 3 is getting made more due to Disney wanting to fuel their licensing division with a successful product franchise (Tron: Legacy merchandise did well and the Tron: Legacy soundtrack did phenomenal).

If Green Lantern gets a sequel, and that's an if because of the massive underperformance it gave, it'll be more to fuel the licensing division of Warner Bros. Green Lantern would never get a sequel under normal circumstances.