Shazam Shazam! Box Office Thread | Early Predictions

[TheUndertaker]

Here's what confuses me about Deadline.

Wonder Woman
Domestic: $412.56
WW: $409.28
Total: $821.84
Budget: $149
‘Wonder Woman’ Box Office Profits 2017: It’s About Time For A Female Superhero – Deadline
Profit: $252.9

Aquaman
Domestic: $335.06
WW: $812.1
Total: $1,147.16
Budget: $160
‘Aquaman’ Box Office Profits 2018: Fish Superhero Resuscitates DC At Box Office – Deadline
Profit: $260.5
I know Studios get more out of domestic vs. foreign but I don't see how a movie that makes $320M more, only gets $7.6M more profit.

Most of Aquaman's overseas revenue came from China where they only get 25%. And Deadline also accounts for home video revenues. And they estimated the participations (people who get a % from the profit) were larger for Aquaman.

 

[TheUndertaker]

I know that, but we're dealing with numbers in the dark. No trade reported on Shazam's P&A. I'm using Captain Marvel's as a benchmark. And also the other DC movies. Comes around $150M marketing budget for all.

If you want to really go at it, I'll use Venom or Deadpool, on the lower side of CBM's when it comes to marketing, and they had marketing campaign of $120M.

There's no convincing me WB spent $50M on Shazam's P&A.

GotG had a 80 million P&A according to Deadline.
Venom and Deadpool were very much marketed, specially the latter.

 

[DS80]

GotG had a 80 million P&A according to Deadline.
Venom and Deadpool were very much marketed, specially the latter.

Maybe $80M in the states alone.

"The first GOTG had a similar negative cost, an estimated global $147.4M P&A spend and churned a profit after all ancillaries of $204M"

‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’ Box Office Eyes $150 Million Opening – Deadline

 

[Micromind]

I know that, but we're dealing with numbers in the dark. No trade reported on Shazam's P&A. I'm using Captain Marvel's as a benchmark. And also the other DC movies. Comes around $150M marketing budget for all.

If you want to really go at it, I'll use Venom or Deadpool, on the lower side of CBM's when it comes to production budget, and they had marketing campaign of $120M.

There's no convincing me WB spent $50M on Shazam's P&A.

Shazam's marketing was nowhere near the level of marketing Disney did for Captain Marvel, nothing you say will convince me that CM marketing budget is same as that of Shazam's.

Even Venom was marketed more aggressively than Shazam (which makes sense, given Tom Hardy's star power and Venom has more name recognition than Shazam, which justified it's marketing budget.)

Same for Deadpool, it was depending upon Ryan Reynold's star power and again Deadpool is not as obscure a comic book property as Shazam is, so it was marketed better than Shazam.

 

[Micromind]

Also, Disney wanted Captain Marvel to be successful, it was MCU's first female lead movie, the company had already declared Captain Marvel as new face of MCU, they did everything in their power to make sure it was successful, it was a prestige issue for them.

For Shazam, Walter Hamada wanted to keep costs low which is why the movie was given a low budget, and they placed the movie in a brutally competitive month, to compete against Dumbo, Hellboy and upcoming Infinity War, it makes no sense to waste big sums of money to promote a movie that cost them only $100 mil.

 

[Erzengel]

I mean it's been discussed that Infinity War & Endgame had it's dates before Shazam was given a date. Further, Shazam did go into pre-production before Infinity Wars was released. Yes, in hindsight it's easy to say, well of course IW & EG would be huge, but even with MCU's track record there was still a chance that they could have went more the way of AOU.

 

[DS80]

There's no in between here. You don't under-market a movie unless you believe it's going to flop. Marketing is everything. There's no calculated keeping costs low when it comes to marketing - because marketing is what brings audiences to theaters. I'm trying to find any studio movie in recent years with such a low marketing budget compared to production budget and expectations from the genre and I can't. You can say "It's only $100M", but outside of Legendary productions - Godzilla and Detective Pikachu - Shazam is the most expensive WB movie in 2019.

If you want to believe WB spent $50M on Shazam's P&A, good for you I guess.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

There's no convincing me WB spent $50M on Shazam's P&A.

Then there’s not much point in continuing this conversation, is there? Enjoy your day.

 

[Everett Ross]

I doubt WB will spend much on a movie that's having a budget of $90 mil (or, $100 mil.). The rule of thumb is that they spend not more than half of movie's production budget on marketing.

There are exceptions to this rule.

Crazy Rich Asians
Production: $30M
Marketing/Distribution: $87M

The Nun
Production: $22M
Marketing/Distribution: $104M

A Star Is Born
Production: $33M
Marketing/Distribution: $133M

It
Production: $35M
Marketing/Distribution: $189M

 

[TheUndertaker]

I don't know how exactly Deadline calculates the P&A cost when they do the annual analysis, if they include the home release advertisement and if that counts for a lot.
BUT... Infinity War had a 150 million P&A listed in that analysis (which is the same they said in an article last week, about Endgame's P&A being 200 million, and where they mentioned GotG's being 80 million)...
While Wonder Woman had a 158 million P&A listed in their analysis.
So, clearly you can't trust all the numbers all the time that much.

Also, some people circulate a Variety article about how the TV spending of Shazam on the last week before release "topped the TV spending", but they ignore that it topped just for the week, barely ahead of MISSING LINK, and it was almost half of what they were spending with Ant-Man around the same time before release.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Here’s the thing: if Shazam had a $100-150 million global P&A campaign, we would know because Deadline, Variety and HR would all be filled with stories about how Shazam is a major bomb that’s going to lose $50-100 million at the box office. Advertising trades would be running “what went wrong” articles about the global marketing campaign and someone’s head at New Line (probably the person who agreed to put $150 million behind a $100 million movie) would have rolled.

That none of this has happened is a pretty strong indication that reports of a low marketing budget and of it being dumped in most OS markets is much more likely.

 

[Erzengel]

I really wanted Deadline to analyze Logan but it obviously didn't make the Top 10 most profitable movies. So we may never know how much or what the P&A budget for Shazam is.

 

[TheUndertaker]

I really wanted Deadline to analyze Logan but it obviously didn't make the Top 10 most profitable movies. So we may never know how much or what the P&A budget for Shazam is.

I think Deadline did mention the break even point in one of the earlier box office articles and it was similar to the one reported by Forbes, or around 270 million. I can't find it anymore though.
But about the P&A, yeah, there won't be an analysis because it won't be one of the Top 10 most profitable from 2019 nor Top 10 bombs from 2019 (they do both)

 

[Everett Ross]

 

[dhandler01]

There's no in between here. You don't under-market a movie unless you believe it's going to flop. Marketing is everything. There's no calculated keeping costs low when it comes to marketing - because marketing is what brings audiences to theaters. I'm trying to find any studio movie in recent years with such a low marketing budget compared to production budget and expectations from the genre and I can't. You can say "It's only $100M", but outside of Legendary productions - Godzilla and Detective Pikachu - Shazam is the most expensive WB movie in 2019.

If you want to believe WB spent $50M on Shazam's P&A, good for you I guess.

Not one for facts?

 

[dhandler01]

Here’s the thing: if Shazam had a $100-150 million global P&A campaign, we would know because Deadline, Variety and HR would all be filled with stories about how Shazam is a major bomb that’s going to lose $50-100 million at the box office. Advertising trades would be running “what went wrong” articles about the global marketing campaign and someone’s head at New Line (probably the person who agreed to put $150 million behind a $100 million movie) would have rolled.

That none of this has happened is a pretty strong indication that reports of a low marketing budget and of it being dumped in most OS markets is much more likely.

This.

 

[blackdragon6]

I feel like what did Shazam a disservice is the marketing. They made it seem like a movie made SPECIFICALLY for kids. And that seems to put some people off.

That's the complaints I kept hearing.

 

[Micromind]

So,

$145M total dom = $80M profit.
$44M total China = $11M profit.
$181M total overseas-China = $72.5M profit.

$80M+$11M+$72.5M = $163.5M profit.

Production cost of $100M. The question is how much they spent on prints and ads. According to Deadline end-of-year profit reports, WB spent $160M on Suicide Squad, Batman v Superman and Wonder Woman. And $150M on Aquaman.

The question is also how much the movie will make from home video and TV rights.

Here's what those reports look like:

This type of analysis might not be the presenting the reality, if we go by this logic, explain why MCU kept going, as they should have faced losses.

The Incredible Hulk
Production Budget: $150 million

Domestic: $134,806,913 51.2%
+ Foreign: $128,620,638 48.8%
----------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide: $263,427,551

Suppose prints and ads (Marketing costs) as $75 mil.
then, Production Budget + Marketing costs = $150 M+ $75 M = $225M.

It earned only $8 mil in China !

So, as per your analysis:

$134.8 M total Dom = $ 74.14 M profit (55% of Domestic collections)
$8M China= $2M Profit (25% of China Box Office)
$120.6M total overseas-China = $48.24M (40% of overseas collections -China)

$ 74.14 M + $2M + $48.24M = $124.28 M

So loss is :
$225 - 124.28 = $100.72 M.


I can calculate similarly for Thor,

Domestic: $181,030,624 40.3%
+ Foreign: $268,295,994 59.7%
-----------------------------------------------
= Worldwide: $449,326,618

Again considering just $75M as prints and ads ( marketing costs)
then, Production Budget + Marketing costs = $150 M+ $75 M = $225M.

Box Office Mojo is not giving any China figures.

$181 M total Dom = $ 99.55 M profit (55% of Domestic collections)
$268M total overseas = $107.2M profit (40% of overseas collections)

$99.55 M + $107.2M = $206.75 M.


So loss is :
$225M - 206.75M = $18.25 M.

 

[Erzengel]

This type of analysis might not be the presenting the reality, if we go by this logic, explain why MCU kept going, as they should have faced losses.

Because TIH, Thor and TFA were building towards the Avengers. It doesn't matter if they took losses or low profits as long as TA was a hit. They even gambled by spending more than they did with any of the other movies.

Shazam is only building towards it's next sequel.

 

[Micromind]

Because TIH, Thor and TFA were building towards the Avengers. It doesn't matter if they took losses or low profits as long as TA was a hit. They even gambled by spending more than they did with any of the other movies.

Shazam is only building towards it's next sequel.

Notice how I only assumed only half of the Production budget as the Marketing cost, the poster I quoted says most comic book movies have at least $100M as marketing budget, which makes the loss calculation even greater.

 

[Micromind]

If the loss figure is low then it can be compensated by DVD/Bluray sales, streaming, merchandise sales, giving movie rights to TV networks etc. Also, Product placement and Product advertising can generate revenue even before the movie is released.

 

[Erzengel]

If the loss figure is low then it can be compensated by DVD/Bluray sales, streaming, merchandise sales, giving movie rights to TV networks etc. Also, Product placement and Product advertising can generate revenue even before the movie is released.

Now you are repeating what most posters said with MOS and BvS. I always considered that type of stuff extra not a way to recoup costs.

 

[Micromind]

Now you are repeating what most posters said with MOS and BvS. I always considered that type of stuff extra not a way to recoup costs.

But they bring in money which is added by Accounting department. Company Execs do look at all figures. Batman Begins was not a box Office hit but it had good reviews and good wom, apart from that, it's DVD sales were great, which were noticed by Studio Execs. That was one of the reasons why The Dark Knight was green-lit.

Then take the example of Green Lantern, which bombed at Box office and it failed to sell merchandise, which resulted in bigger losses, that's one of the reasons why it failed spectacularly.

Also, Shazam is not only building up to Shazam 2 but also Black Adam movie, which is a part of Shazam's own mini franchise.

 

[Erzengel]

But they bring in money which is added by Accounting department. Company Execs do look at all figures. Batman Begins was not a box Office hit but it had good reviews and good wom, apart from that, it's DVD sales were great, which were noticed by Studio Execs. That was one of the reasons why The Dark Knight was green-lit.

Yes, but it's also Batman. If TDK wasn't TDK or if it tanked, we probably wouldn't geta TDKR and we probably would have seen a reboot because Batman is regardless the #1 commodity in the genre.

Then take the example of Green Lantern, which bombed at Box office and it failed to sell merchandise, which resulted in bigger losses, that's one of the reasons why it failed spectacularly.

But it was also a C list character then wasn't strong enough to build upon so they moved on to MOS.

Also, Shazam is not only building up to Shazam 2 but also Black Adam movie, which is a part of Shazam's own mini franchise.

If WB is following their own new protocol, I don't see a Shazam 2 or even a Black Adam being more than $200M. If Shazam made $750M or more, I do think that we would have seen a bigger sequel.

 

[TheUndertaker]

The First Avenger also pretty much lost/barely made any money during the theatrical run but sold a lot of DVDs/Blu-rays, to the point where it's one of the 9 MCU movies in the top 100 all time blu-ray sales, and above Age of Ultron, Infinity War and GotG (granted, the last 2 still have a lot to sell in the coming years). But Iron Man 3 sold less blu-rays and DVDs than it. That's something.