Reality Check(Budget vs. Profit)

[_BB_]

Hey _BB_, I work as a field service engineer, I specialize in medical IT equipment (PACS, Cardiology imaging) plus work on nuclear cameras, PET scanners, some cardiology X-Ray, CT and ultrasound. I'm not a radiographer by training, but I've been taught the theory and operation of those suckers and I've been known to take XRays of strange and unusual things during equipment tests when I got bored Why?

Just wondering because i want to go into training as a radiographer next year

 

[Horrorfan]

$400 million plus worldwide (so far) is a disappointment now? Huh?

 

[Drago]

Both X2 and X3 had huge opening weekends but huge falls after that, so that says alot about how much the fans are helping the franchise.

It's good that you're looking at percentage of profit and stuff, but in the end, the studio doesn't care about numbers as much as it does dollars. If a film costs 75 mill to make and makes 100 mill, plus another 50 in foreign BO, there's profits (75 mill) and a good domestic gross percentage (about 33%). If a film costs 125 to make, makes 135 domestic and 70 mill in foreign BO, you have a crappy domestic gross percentage (8%), but more profit (80mil).

Percentages are good when comparing similar budget films, but I think its a different story, especially when you look at huge budgets like Supes, X3, or the Spidey films. X3 may only make a few million extra here (which will look like nothing when looking at percentages), but factored with foreign gross and dvd sales, regardless of percentage it'll be a huge success.

 

[Chris M]

Time to set the record straight. Some movie franchises have been been destroyed and others have flourished due to the success of one epic sequel. What ultimately determines whether a movie in a franchise is considered a financial success or failure is the total domestic gross in regard to budget. After a movie has made all it's money domestically the movie company's accounting department calculates out the profit% of the budget. This # is calculated first by taking the total domestic gross of the film and subtracting it from the bugdet. The resulting # is then divided by the budget. Here is an example:


Total gross of Black Hawk Down approximately 109,000,000
Budget of Black Hawk Down 92 million

Total gross-Budget=17million dollar profit

17/92= 0.185 multiplied times 100=18.5%=profit% of the budget.

The movie Black Hawk Down was not a flop however statistics have shown of the years that most movies considered to be successful have a profit% much greater than 10% of the budget. At best this movie had moderate financial success. At worst it was a huge disappointment. If this movie was a part of a franchise there would be a slim chance the franchise would be continued.

Here are examples of movie franchises that were hurt or destroyed by a sequel with a low dometsic profit% of the budget. I will only show the profit percentages for now. If you don't trust me then calculate it out for yourself.

Lethal Weapon 4 -7% Even though more Lethal weapon movies are completely unnecessary, Warner Bros. stated that they had plans to make more movies had LW4 been successful. Maybe movies 5-8 would have been about the adventures of Butters and Leo Gets.

Star Trek 10 -28% Sucks to be a star trek fan right now(which I am).

The World is not enough -5.9% It's no coincidence that Pierce only did one more James Bond movie after this disaster.

Van Helsing -25% Yes. This was supposed to be the beginning of a triology. So much for Worldwide gross and DVD sales giving Universal any reason to continue this mess.

Batman and Robin -14% This piece of crap forced Warner Brother's to remake the Batman franchise and taints Joel Shumacker's career.

Blade Trinity -20% I'm not much of a Blade fan. However, the 2 previous blade films were epic financially in comparison to this one.

Superman IV -5% As far as Waner brothers and Singer are concerned this movie never happened(along with Superman 3).

Matrix Revolutions -7% The failure of this movie proved that audiences these days are way too sophisticated to fail in love with high bugdet action flicks that are either too confusing or mindless.

Alien Resurrection -32% First time I ever considered walking out of during a movie.

Predator 2 NA I looked everywhere and could not find the bugdet. However I am convinced it is a failure because it only made 30,000,000 in the US and made 50% less than the original movie which probably cost less.

Judge Dredd -62 This was also, supposed to be a franchise. Investing 90million dollars into a movie that stars an actor who has won the most razzie awards is not a good venture.

Here are examples of movies in franchises that had favorable profit percentages of their budgets.


Star Wars Revenge of the Sith 236% Budget 113 million

Batman 617% Budget 35 million

Ghostbusters 663% Budget 30 million

The Matrix 171% Budget 63 million

Lord of the Rings I 237% Budget 93 million

Lord of the Rings II 261% Budget 94 million

Lord of the Rings III 301% Budget 94 million

Ice Age 198% Budget 59 million

Ice Age 2 141% Buget 80 million

Pirates of the Carribean 117% Budget 140 million

Spider Man 191% Budget 139 million(This was a great example of how a comic book franchise can be overwhelmingly successful when a director is given artistic freedom and a good budget).

Spider Man 2 87% Budget 374 million

Harry Potter I 154% Budget 125 million

Harry Potter II 162% Budget 100 million

Harry Potter III 92.3% Budget 130 million

X-Men 109% Budget 75 million

X-Men 2 95% Budget 110 million

Shrek 347% Budget 60 million

Shrek 2 530% Budget 530 million

Fantastic Four 55% Budget 100 million(Sorry DC fans but, Carp_Man was right about FF being more successful financialy than Batman Begins based on these percentages.)

Batman Begins(My favorite CBM) 37% Budget 150 million(This movie may not have been as successful as FF but, I think this movie helped the future of the Batman Franchise more than the future of FF and had a far greater impact on the future of Comic book movies. Also, it is unfortunate that Fox appears to not have learned that rushing these action movies into production is a mistake.

Blade 56% Budget 45 million(I probably would not be posting this message if this movie had not been made)

Blade 2 54% Budget 54 million


Alien vs. Predator 33% Budget 60 million(Is it just me or do any movies involving Aliens and Predators keep getting more stupid. I predict the second movie in this franchise flops and puts a nail in the coffin to Aliens and Predator. Stupid Fox.

Now for the profit percentage prediction of X-Men 3!!!!!!!



Total Gross should be 230-235 million.

Budget is 210 million.


Profit%=11.9% if the movie makes 235 million

Profit%=9.52% if the movie makes 230 million

Math may be one of my weakest subjects however it is easy to understand that this is not an impressive profit percentage of budget for any movie company to have. Also, this does not include the money that Marvel gets from the final domestic gross of the film. Most comic book fans may not realize it now but, this film may have killed any chance that Fox makes more X-Men movies. I wish Fox good luck with their spin offs but, these numbers tell me they lost a huge percentage of their fan base who they were hoping to make money off of in the future.


From a domestic profit perspective there are 3 types of movies in Hollywood. Those that are financial success. Those that break even financialy and those that are financial flops. X-Men 3 is not a flop but, it is not much of a success when in comparison to King Kong(profit%=5, budget 207 million). Considering the way X-Men 3 opened it should have broken 300 million or at the very least got close. This movie is at the very least a huge disappoint for Fox, hurts their reputation, and it makes Tom Rothman look like an idiot(He said this movie would be on par with Return of the King!!!! Comparing profit %s is a joke.) considering everything that has happened since Singer left for Superman Returns.

There is so much at stake when these types of films are not taken seriously by the companys that own them. When a movie company such as Fox spends over 200 million on a film and the end product is crap a chain reaction results. Fans realize they got cheated out of their money. A studio starts to lose it's reputation. Creative filmakers and writers go elsewhere to studios who support artistic freedom. Next a studio loses its sponsors and the company stock takes a hit. The final outcome can be bankruptcy, though I am sure this won't happen to Fox.


The best thing I can say about X-Men 3 is that Singer not being involved could be a blessing in disguise. Had Singer not left we would not know everything we know about Tom Rothman(Thanks to that Ain't It Cool news script review that came last year). We all know who to direct are anger at whenever, Fox makes a horrible movie. Hopefully, Fox will begin to feel the pressure and fire Tom Rothman. In 10 years another a better studio will be starting this franchise over and get it right from the beginning.

For what it's worth I have seen worst comic book movies than X-Men 3 and Ratner should get some credit for making an average X-Men movie considering the absurd schedule. However, as a fan of action and science fiction movies I thought this movie was supposed to be epic and more sophisticated.

Instead of getting mad at each other over whether we liked this movie or not shouldn't we all be directing are anger at Fox. We all can agree that this movie should have been better. Also, I don't understand why the Marvel and DC fanboys keep on bashing each other. I prefer Marvel comics and movies over DC but, I want all comic book movies to succeed as long as movie companies take them and their fans seriously.

Great post mate! Nicely done and well researched.

It's not often you see message board posts based on quantative fact!

YOU HAVE NO PLACE HERE!!!

 

[borinquenknight]

Interesting statistics.

 

[Theweepeople]

I just realized that I made a mistake with the Spiderman 2 budget. The statistic is correct(87%) but, I posted 374 million for the budget. The budget was 200 million. The movie made 374 million domestically.

 

[antariksh]

The budget for X3 is $165 million.




[SIZE=+1]THIS WEEKEND [/SIZE]The Man of Steel conquered the North American box office as the super hero adventure Superman Returns claimed the number one spot over the pre-Independence Day holiday frame. Second place was claimed by Meryl Streep whose new comedy The Devil Wears Prada opened with more muscle than expected. Most holdovers suffered substantial declines, however the overall marketplace remained slightly better than last year's. But for the first time in five years, Hollywood will reach the Fourth of July without a summer film passing the $250M mark.
Flying to the top of the charts, Superman Returns collected an estimated $52.2M over the Friday-to-Sunday period and $84.2M since its launch on Wednesday. The PG-13 film was the first new installment for the beloved comic book character in nearly two decades and averaged a strong $12,829 over three days from a massive 4,065 theaters. The total gross included about $3M from Tuesday night previews which began at 10:00pm and $5M from 76 Imax theaters where the film was presented with special 3D footage. The studio expects to reach a seven-day tally of $110M by the end of Tuesday.
Reviews were mostly positive for the Bryan Singer-directed film which saw newcomer Brandon Routh stepping into the title role following the late Christopher Reeve. Kevin Spacey plays arch-nemesis Lex Luthor while Kate Bosworth takes the role of Lois Lane. The pricey film carried a colossal production budget in the neighborhood of $250M which included about $40M in early development costs before the current cast and crew were in place.
Though a strong number one bow, the opening of Superman Returns did not match up to the debuts of similar action and sci-fi films. One year ago, the Tom Cruise alien invasion film War of the Worlds opened over the same holiday weekend with the same Wednesday start but grossed a higher $100.6M over its first five days. Four years ago, Men in Black II also premiered the same way and grossed $87.2M over its Wednesday-to-Sunday launch which at today's ticket prices would be close to a nine-digit gross. The Kryptonian hero's five-day opening even fell short of the three-day bow of Singer's last film X2: X-Men United which opened to $85.6M three years ago.
However, Superman Returns did manage to open better than last summer's Batman Begins which was another Warner Bros. film attempting to restart a dormant super hero franchise. That film captured $72.9M in its five-day debut including $48.7M over the Friday-to-Sunday period. The new Clark Kent pic is off to a 16% better start than the new Bruce Wayne flick over five days, and only 7% better over the weekend portion. The studio hopes to have long legs again like it did with Batman which went on to gross $205.3M domestically.
But that will be a tough task for Superman which has a very different road ahead of it. Batman Begins had little direct competition in its second weekend plus had the Fourth of July holiday help its third frame. Superman, on the other hand, is already taking advantage of its only holiday which is boosting its opening week. Plus it has a juggernaut in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opening on its second weekend which is aiming to steal away the same audience.
Competition was also a major factor for Superman Returns this weekend especially with The Devil Wears Prada stealing away a larger-than-expected female audience. The super hero film's next three competitors collected a hefty $60.4M in ticket sales over the weekend. By comparison, War of the Worlds faced $35.3M in combined sales from the next three biggest films.
Internationally, the new Superman film took flight in the Asia/Pacific region and opened at number one in eleven countries grossing an estimated $19.8M from 1,750 theaters. Key markets included Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and India. The studio is holding back the film in Europe and Latin America until after the World Cup final which takes place on July 9.
Fox countered the super hero adventure with the femme-driven comedy The Devil Wears Prada and scored a terrific second place debut with an estimated $27M. Playing in 2,847 locations, the PG-13 film averaged a stunning $9,484 per theater and ranked as Meryl Streep's best opening ever in a lead role. Devil was based on the best-selling novel about a small-town gal who lands a job as the assistant to the evil editor-in-chief of the fashion industry's top magazine. Anne Hathaway co-stars. The Prada audience was immensely female as studio research showed that a whopping 79% were women. Those over the age of 25 made up 61% of the crowd.
With both The Lake House and The Break-Up aging, Devil found an opportunity to score with adult women with extra leisure time over of the long holiday weekend - especially those who had little interest in seeing Superman. The counter-programming move worked like a charm for Fox which spent over $40M on Prada which managed to tap into a built-in audience of fans of the book. Starpower from Streep and Hathaway also allowed for a broad age range to take interest. Reviews were mostly good.
Dropping from first to third was Adam Sandler's comedy Click which grossed an estimated $19.4M in its sophomore frame. Falling 52%, the Sony release has laughed up a solid $77.9M in ten days. Compared to the ten-day cumes of the studio's previous Sandler comedies opening on the weekend before the Fourth of July frame, Click has done slightly better than the $73.6M of 2002's Mr. Deeds but has not reached the $83.7M of 1999's Big Daddy. Those films ended their runs with $126.3M and $163.5M, respectively. The $83M Click looks to find its way to about $130M.
Cars enjoyed the smallest decline in the top ten slipping 40% to an estimated $14M for fourth place. The Disney/Pixar hit upped its cume to $182.1M. Paramount's Nacho Libre fell 51% to an estimated $6.2M giving the Jack Black comedy $65M to date.
Folowing in sixth place was the Keanu Reeves-Sandra Bullock romance The Lake House with an estimated $4.5M, off 49%, leaving Warner Bros. with $38.7M thus far. Close behind with an estimated $4.4M was the street racing sequel The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift which dropped 55% in its third lap. Total to date stands at $51.7M.
The Tyrese Gibson actioner Waist Deep suffered the worst decline in the top ten tumbling 65% to an estimated $3.3M in its second weekend. The Focus release has grossed $15.2M in ten days and should finish up with around $22M. Universal's comedy The Break-Up crumbled 57% to an estimated $2.8M while Sony's religious thriller The Da Vinci Code rounded out the top ten with an estimated $2.3M, off 43%. Cumes for each are $110.1M and $209.8M, respectively.
Although overall ticket sales continue to inch ahead of last year each weekend, the season's top blockbusters remain weaker than those from 2005. The cumulative gross for the top five summer films this year reached $900.3M, down 8% from last summer's five biggest hits at this same point.

Two Fox sequels fell from the top ten over the weekend. The year's highest-grossing film X-Men: The Last Stand dropped 58% to an estimated $2.1M to boost its sum to $228.6M. The $165M film currently stands at number 48 on the list of all-time domestic blockbusters ahead of Signs which grossed $228M in 2002. The final mutant adventure is the top-grossing installment in the trilogy surpassing the $157.3M of 2000's X-Men and the $214.9M of 2003's X2 and should complete its domestic run with around $235M.

As, it The studio has not had as much luck with its kidpic Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties which tumbled 62% to an estimated $2M in only its third weekend. Family audiences have rejected the cat flick spending only $21.5M on it thus far. The Garfield sequel looks to end up with only $25M or one-third of the $75.4M of its 2004 predecessor.
In limited release, ThinkFilm released its indie comedy Strangers With Candy on Wednesday in just two New York theaters and grossed an estimated $44,500 over three days and $70,560 over five days. That gave the Amy Sedaris-Stephen Colbert pic a sparkling average of $22,250 over the Friday-to-Sunday period. Candy will expand to the rest of the top ten markets on Friday.
Among limited release holdovers, the global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth grossed another $1.7M over three days to boost its cume to $12.5M for Paramount Vantage. The drop was a slender 16%. The Road to Guantanamo collected $52,173 from 18 sites for a $2,899 average in its second weekend. The Roadside Attractions release has taken in $140,821 to date.
The top ten films grossed an estimated $136.2M which was up 5% from last year when War of the Worlds debuted at number one with $64.9M; but down 12% from 2004 when Spider-Man 2 opened in the top spot with $88.2M.


Compared to projections, Superman Returns fell far short of my $78M three-day forecast while The Devil Wears Prada almost doubled my $14M prediction.


SOURCE : BOG

 

[Theweepeople]

The budget for X3 is $165 million.




[SIZE=+1]THIS WEEKEND [/SIZE]The Man of Steel conquered the North American box office as the super hero adventure Superman Returns claimed the number one spot over the pre-Independence Day holiday frame. Second place was claimed by Meryl Streep whose new comedy The Devil Wears Prada opened with more muscle than expected. Most holdovers suffered substantial declines, however the overall marketplace remained slightly better than last year's. But for the first time in five years, Hollywood will reach the Fourth of July without a summer film passing the $250M mark.
Flying to the top of the charts, Superman Returns collected an estimated $52.2M over the Friday-to-Sunday period and $84.2M since its launch on Wednesday. The PG-13 film was the first new installment for the beloved comic book character in nearly two decades and averaged a strong $12,829 over three days from a massive 4,065 theaters. The total gross included about $3M from Tuesday night previews which began at 10:00pm and $5M from 76 Imax theaters where the film was presented with special 3D footage. The studio expects to reach a seven-day tally of $110M by the end of Tuesday.
Reviews were mostly positive for the Bryan Singer-directed film which saw newcomer Brandon Routh stepping into the title role following the late Christopher Reeve. Kevin Spacey plays arch-nemesis Lex Luthor while Kate Bosworth takes the role of Lois Lane. The pricey film carried a colossal production budget in the neighborhood of $250M which included about $40M in early development costs before the current cast and crew were in place.
Though a strong number one bow, the opening of Superman Returns did not match up to the debuts of similar action and sci-fi films. One year ago, the Tom Cruise alien invasion film War of the Worlds opened over the same holiday weekend with the same Wednesday start but grossed a higher $100.6M over its first five days. Four years ago, Men in Black II also premiered the same way and grossed $87.2M over its Wednesday-to-Sunday launch which at today's ticket prices would be close to a nine-digit gross. The Kryptonian hero's five-day opening even fell short of the three-day bow of Singer's last film X2: X-Men United which opened to $85.6M three years ago.
However, Superman Returns did manage to open better than last summer's Batman Begins which was another Warner Bros. film attempting to restart a dormant super hero franchise. That film captured $72.9M in its five-day debut including $48.7M over the Friday-to-Sunday period. The new Clark Kent pic is off to a 16% better start than the new Bruce Wayne flick over five days, and only 7% better over the weekend portion. The studio hopes to have long legs again like it did with Batman which went on to gross $205.3M domestically.
But that will be a tough task for Superman which has a very different road ahead of it. Batman Begins had little direct competition in its second weekend plus had the Fourth of July holiday help its third frame. Superman, on the other hand, is already taking advantage of its only holiday which is boosting its opening week. Plus it has a juggernaut in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opening on its second weekend which is aiming to steal away the same audience.
Competition was also a major factor for Superman Returns this weekend especially with The Devil Wears Prada stealing away a larger-than-expected female audience. The super hero film's next three competitors collected a hefty $60.4M in ticket sales over the weekend. By comparison, War of the Worlds faced $35.3M in combined sales from the next three biggest films.
Internationally, the new Superman film took flight in the Asia/Pacific region and opened at number one in eleven countries grossing an estimated $19.8M from 1,750 theaters. Key markets included Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and India. The studio is holding back the film in Europe and Latin America until after the World Cup final which takes place on July 9.
Fox countered the super hero adventure with the femme-driven comedy The Devil Wears Prada and scored a terrific second place debut with an estimated $27M. Playing in 2,847 locations, the PG-13 film averaged a stunning $9,484 per theater and ranked as Meryl Streep's best opening ever in a lead role. Devil was based on the best-selling novel about a small-town gal who lands a job as the assistant to the evil editor-in-chief of the fashion industry's top magazine. Anne Hathaway co-stars. The Prada audience was immensely female as studio research showed that a whopping 79% were women. Those over the age of 25 made up 61% of the crowd.
With both The Lake House and The Break-Up aging, Devil found an opportunity to score with adult women with extra leisure time over of the long holiday weekend - especially those who had little interest in seeing Superman. The counter-programming move worked like a charm for Fox which spent over $40M on Prada which managed to tap into a built-in audience of fans of the book. Starpower from Streep and Hathaway also allowed for a broad age range to take interest. Reviews were mostly good.
Dropping from first to third was Adam Sandler's comedy Click which grossed an estimated $19.4M in its sophomore frame. Falling 52%, the Sony release has laughed up a solid $77.9M in ten days. Compared to the ten-day cumes of the studio's previous Sandler comedies opening on the weekend before the Fourth of July frame, Click has done slightly better than the $73.6M of 2002's Mr. Deeds but has not reached the $83.7M of 1999's Big Daddy. Those films ended their runs with $126.3M and $163.5M, respectively. The $83M Click looks to find its way to about $130M.
Cars enjoyed the smallest decline in the top ten slipping 40% to an estimated $14M for fourth place. The Disney/Pixar hit upped its cume to $182.1M. Paramount's Nacho Libre fell 51% to an estimated $6.2M giving the Jack Black comedy $65M to date.
Folowing in sixth place was the Keanu Reeves-Sandra Bullock romance The Lake House with an estimated $4.5M, off 49%, leaving Warner Bros. with $38.7M thus far. Close behind with an estimated $4.4M was the street racing sequel The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift which dropped 55% in its third lap. Total to date stands at $51.7M.
The Tyrese Gibson actioner Waist Deep suffered the worst decline in the top ten tumbling 65% to an estimated $3.3M in its second weekend. The Focus release has grossed $15.2M in ten days and should finish up with around $22M. Universal's comedy The Break-Up crumbled 57% to an estimated $2.8M while Sony's religious thriller The Da Vinci Code rounded out the top ten with an estimated $2.3M, off 43%. Cumes for each are $110.1M and $209.8M, respectively.
Although overall ticket sales continue to inch ahead of last year each weekend, the season's top blockbusters remain weaker than those from 2005. The cumulative gross for the top five summer films this year reached $900.3M, down 8% from last summer's five biggest hits at this same point.

Two Fox sequels fell from the top ten over the weekend. The year's highest-grossing film X-Men: The Last Stand dropped 58% to an estimated $2.1M to boost its sum to $228.6M. The $165M film currently stands at number 48 on the list of all-time domestic blockbusters ahead of Signs which grossed $228M in 2002. The final mutant adventure is the top-grossing installment in the trilogy surpassing the $157.3M of 2000's X-Men and the $214.9M of 2003's X2 and should complete its domestic run with around $235M.

As, it The studio has not had as much luck with its kidpic Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties which tumbled 62% to an estimated $2M in only its third weekend. Family audiences have rejected the cat flick spending only $21.5M on it thus far. The Garfield sequel looks to end up with only $25M or one-third of the $75.4M of its 2004 predecessor.
In limited release, ThinkFilm released its indie comedy Strangers With Candy on Wednesday in just two New York theaters and grossed an estimated $44,500 over three days and $70,560 over five days. That gave the Amy Sedaris-Stephen Colbert pic a sparkling average of $22,250 over the Friday-to-Sunday period. Candy will expand to the rest of the top ten markets on Friday.
Among limited release holdovers, the global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth grossed another $1.7M over three days to boost its cume to $12.5M for Paramount Vantage. The drop was a slender 16%. The Road to Guantanamo collected $52,173 from 18 sites for a $2,899 average in its second weekend. The Roadside Attractions release has taken in $140,821 to date.
The top ten films grossed an estimated $136.2M which was up 5% from last year when War of the Worlds debuted at number one with $64.9M; but down 12% from 2004 when Spider-Man 2 opened in the top spot with $88.2M.


Compared to projections, Superman Returns fell far short of my $78M three-day forecast while The Devil Wears Prada almost doubled my $14M prediction.


SOURCE : BOG

By the way. What is BOG?(If that's your source?) I already know that other websites have the budget of X-Men 3 set at 165 million(Lee's box office report). That does not prove that FOX did not spend 45 million in marketing which brings X-Men 3 budget total to 210 million(Box office mojo).

Also, what does Superman Returns doing poorly have anything to do with my original post? I never predicted it would do well domestically.

 

[Theweepeople]

Well, maybe X-Men 3 did cost 165 million or maybe it did cost 210 million. We may never know. However I have other sources besides Boxofficemojo to back up my belief that X-Men 3 may have cost 210 million.


Check out Darkhorizons http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060515k.php

and Empiremovies
http://www.empiremovies.com/reviews/reviews.php?id=11271&xmenthelaststand.htm

 

[LoGaN's RuNNer]

Maybe the 210 million is including advertising.. I think around 50 million was put toward advertising so 165+50 is 215 million, which sounds pretty close to the 210 million estimate.

 

[Theweepeople]

Maybe the 210 million is including advertising.. I think around 50 million was put toward advertising so 165+50 is 215 million, which sounds pretty close to the 210 million estimate.

Yes I agree. Below is an article that has some of the absurd numbers some studios spent on marketing big budget movies. The article reveals that 70 million was spent on marketing Pearl Harbor, 50 million was spent on marketing spiderman, and 40 million spent on Titanic. I think it is reasonable to believe Fox spent 40 to 50 million on marketing X-Men 3.


http://90ways.com/critarchive/crit60.php

 

[liamoversion2]

Yeah and don't forget the cost of the cast which was probably exponential - 5 extremely expensive actors, some of whom are A list and another 5 pretty costly ones. Another five who wouldn't come cheap and then whoever else.

I'd say 60 million for the cast. That leaves 100 million for the actual shooting budget which sounds about right.

 

[Theweepeople]

Yeah and don't forget the cost of the cast which was probably exponential - 5 extremely expensive actors, some of whom are A list and another 5 pretty costly ones. Another five who wouldn't come cheap and then whoever else.

I'd say 60 million for the cast. That leaves 100 million for the actual shooting budget which sounds about right.

I agree with this except I'm curious about who all the A-list actors and actresses are? Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellon are the only ones I would consider A-list. What has Hugh Jackman done besides Oklahoma on broadway and X-Men films? Halle may consider herself an A-list actress but, has she done a single film that was good because of her acting alone. She won an academy award for Monster's Ball but, I have not been impressed with her acting in any movie I've seen. If you meant A-list from a money perspective than Arnold Schwarzenegger is an A-list actor because his salaries are around 40 to 50 million per film. Overall, I would like to know how the money was divided among the cast.

 

[DRob]

So in perspective if the movie wasn't rushed into immediate production the final costs would be slightly lower.
And another thing Brett Ratner also commands a large paycheck so consider that besides how else will Rush Hour 3 will cost in exess of $100 mil.(too much for any comedy)!

 

[DRob]

So in perspective if the movie wasn't rushed into immediate production the final costs would be slightly lower.
And another thing Brett Ratner also commands a large paycheck so consider that besides how else will Rush Hour 3 will cost in exess of $100 mil.(too much for any comedy)!

 

[danoyse]

What has Hugh Jackman done besides Oklahoma on broadway and X-Men films?

He did "Oklahoma" in London. He didn't do Oklahoma on Broadway because the American actors union wouldn't allow the producers to bring the show to NY with the leads from the London cast (this was pre-X1). The producers cancelled the production rather than recast at the time. I think they may have offered him the part when the show finally did come to NY, but he was filming X2.

What he did, was "The Boy From Oz." Equity didn't have a problem with him being on Broadway after X-Men was such a big hit. The show was a huge success--because of him, and he won a Tony and every other theater award for it. He also hosted the Tonys that year and won an Emmy for that.

The show was seen by a lot of important industry people, and he's become a very in-demand actor these days...he's got 5 more films coming out this year, he just replaced Russell Crowe in another film, and rumors are flying he'll be back on Broadway after that. His career's taken off like a rocket in recent years.

Which is why he got slightly higher billing when they resigned him for X3.

Halle may consider herself an A-list actress but, has she done a single film that was good because of her acting alone. She won an academy award for Monster's Ball but, I have not been impressed with her acting in any movie I've seen.

That Academy Award makes you an a-list actress, whether you were impressed or not. Halle's a big star...between the Oscar, she's done a Bond film, the infamous Swordfish scene. Even Catwoman. It was a flop, but a notorious flop, and she got a lot of kudos for showing up at the Razzies for the award that year.

I you meant A-list from a money perspective than Arnold Schwarzenegger is an A-list actor because his salaries are around 40 to 50 million per film.

Arnold hasn't been A-list actor for years. And one would argue he's never really been much of an actor in the first place.

Overall, I would like to know how the money was divided among the cast.

That's something I don't think we're privileged to find out.

 

[squeekness]

Jackman also did Van Helsing, Someone Like you, Swordfish. He's been a busy boy.

 

[Theweepeople]

This past weekend shows that for X-Men 3 domestic gross is rapidly coming to a close. Looks like my profit percentage prediction range of 9.5-11.9% was right on. So much for all those people who said" X-Men 3 will make at least 250 million domestically." Which was changed to "X-Men 3 will make at least 240 million domestically." Finally, the same people said" X-Men 3 will make 235 million domestically." At this rate this film has almost no chance at breaking 233 million domestically.

 

[Theweepeople]

This past weekend shows that for X-Men 3 domestic gross is rapidly coming to a close. Looks like my profit percentage prediction range of 9.5-11.9% was right on. So much for all those people who said" X-Men 3 will make at least 250 million domestically." Which was changed to "X-Men 3 will make at least 240 million domestically." Finally, the same people said" X-Men 3 will make 235 million domestically." At this rate this film has almost no chance at breaking 233 million domestically.

Is X-Men 3 done making money in the US? Box office mojo has not udated the film's domestic gross since thursday. If that is true than the final domestic profit percentage is 10.7%, which ends up within my 9.5-11.9% range.

 

[ntcrawler]

Is X-Men 3 done making money in the US? Box office mojo has not udated the film's domestic gross since thursday. If that is true than the final domestic profit percentage is 10.7%, which ends up within my 9.5-11.9% range.

When the movie is switched over to the $1 / starving student / smalltown theaters, will that count towards its profit?

Still, that's kinda scary. You can spend more money to make a movie, but you can't make more money proportionally. When will they learn then that simply spending more money on a movie or giving it an advertising budget that's more than enough to make a movie itself will not guarranty huge profit margins?

 

[danoyse]

Is X-Men 3 done making money in the US?

Nope. Now we go to DVD and TV revenue. Considering the special edition that appears to be planned, that should do quite well.

 

[danoyse]

When the movie is switched over to the $1 / starving student / smalltown theaters, will that count towards its profit?

Yes.

Still, that's kinda scary. You can spend more money to make a movie, but you can't make more money proportionally. When will they learn then that simply spending more money on a movie or giving it an advertising budget that's more than enough to make a movie itself will not guarranty huge profit margins?

It's a huge problem with all of the studios now--they overspend on their movies, hedge all their bets on making most of it back on that first weekend, and hope to make up the rest on DVD sales.

I've read that at the rate "Superman Returns" is going, it won't see a profit until it airs on cable. Disney spent $200 million just on "POTC2"--a big chunk of that was just getting the cast back. It's a huge risk, and with the changing climate, it's going to stop paying off and they're going to start having to spend less.

 

[Theweepeople]

It's a huge problem with all of the studios now--they overspend on their movies, hedge all their bets on making most of it back on that first weekend, and hope to make up the rest on DVD sales.

I've read that at the rate "Superman Returns" is going, it won't see a profit until it airs on cable. Disney spent $200 million just on "POTC2"--a big chunk of that was just getting the cast back. It's a huge risk, and with the changing climate, it's going to stop paying off and they're going to start having to spend less.

It's not a huge risk to spend 200 million on a film when a studio hires the right director, writers, producers, and cast to develop movies. Spiderman2 and POTC2 did just fine. The reason not many 200 million budget films are made is because most studios don't want to put in the time and effort to make a quality high budget films. Films that cost this much and greater have to be treated with extensive care the moment they are given the green light.

20th century Fox did almost everything wrong with the production of this film:

1. Giving the film the green light only a year and 3 months before it was to be released.

2. Allowing one of the producers of the film to publicly chastise fans for not liking the released script.

3. Lying about changes made to the script.

4. Changing directors 2 and a half months before filming.

5. Allowing the new director to use up time re-writing the end of the script.

6. Not signing all the cast members of the film until a few days before filming began.

7. Telling the writers of the film to lie to fans about the film on a website called xmovieverse.com for 9 months.

8. Spending only 4 and a half months on filming?!!!

9. Not changing the release date once it became clear the film was mediocre.

10. Wasting an incredible amount of money on advertising. Money that should have been used to make a better film.

The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop. However, if Ratner had been given more filming time there would be no need to promote the mediocre film to death.

 

[X-Maniac]

4. Changing directors 2 and a half months before filming.

Fox didn't 'change directors', it wasn't a conscious deliberate decision. The director left.

5. Allowing the new director to use up time re-writing the end of the script.

The result was to save time, and money, by using a dramatic set piece (the bridge) as the climax of the movie rather than having the climax set outside Worthington Labs.

7. Telling the writers of the film to lie to fans about the film on a website called xmovieverse.com for 9 months.

This is debatable. The site asked people not to post the answers elsewhere because the writers were doing the Q&A voluntarily - because they wanted to do it.

 

[Theweepeople]

Fox didn't 'change directors', it wasn't a conscious deliberate decision. The director left.

You are right that technically they did not change directors. But, Fox basically forced Vaughn to leave by sticking with the ridiculous release date. Vaughn must have known his film was going to be average. Once Vaughn decided to leave that should have been enough evidence for Fox to either can this film or extend the release date by a couple of months.

The result was to save time, and money, by using a dramatic set piece (the bridge) as the climax of the movie rather than having the climax set outside Worthington Labs.

You are supporting my argument with this quote. If Fox gave Ratner enough time to properly film the final battle then we may have ended up with a much superior X-Men film. Brian Singer spent 9 months filming X2 and made a great movie with a 110 million budget. Ratner spent 4 and a half months filming X3 and made an average movie with a 210 million budget. The main reason X3 cost 100 million more was because Fox was forced to overspend for completing the film before the insane release date.

This is debatable. The site asked people not to post the answers elsewhere because the writers were doing the Q&A voluntarily - because they wanted to do it.

This is debatable but, considering how much of a jackass Tom Rothman is I would not be suprised if he was behind this. Penn and Kinberg must have known from the beginning that fans would want to lynch them if they said anything about the film that turned out to be false. I think Rothman threatened them to mislead fans.