Frick you guys, the Flash wasn't a flop and it made money see? Hahaha...
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Frick you guys, the Flash wasn't a flop and it made money see? Hahaha...
Frick you guys, the Flash wasn't a flop and it made money see? Hahaha...
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
it made more than it cost to make. net positive
Does the 220 include advertising and reshoots and such? Because I doubt it does. If thats all the money they spent on it, the movie must have originally had a shoestring budget, which simply doesn't make sense.
Nah, its still in the red. The reported budget never includes marketing/advertising.
moron
once you factor in additional costs, the budget is strictly for what it cost to make the movie and doesnt include things like marketing, the break even point is about 2x the budget
but just breaking even is still a net loss for the studio, because for the same time and effort they could have pumped out a cheap adam sandler film which wont get much attention but will make a decent profit due to lower cost to make
so the break even point for the flash, which cost 200M to make, would be at least 400+M
though it would need at least a hundred million over that to be considered even a modest success
Meanwhile, their competition is making bigger profits and taking more of the market.
Making no money still hurts them if it's a big budget flick.
Of the super hero movies? Only Across the Spider-Verse made money for Sony. As high as GotG Vol 3 made, the profits were pretty small after you account for the high budget, marketing and that a huge chunk of the box office came from China which they get very little from in return, they made probably like $10m off it which isn't much. Also, with the trend of the Disney movie costing much higher than reported with Dr. Strange being a recent example, it probably actually might lose money when that information comes to light. Then it suffers the same fate as every Disney+ content where Disney is paying themselves to host it on there and losing them more money. That's why you see so many shows getting pulled from Disney+ used as a write-down. Though, that might be more to do with trying to shore up money to buy Hulu which they are forced to pay for. The smarter studios license their content out to other streaming companies so even if it doesn't make much at the box office, even though most movies don't to begin with and relied on blu-ray and DVD sales, they make back the money to cover the cost for the loss.
>Making no money still hurts them
what huffing farts does to a homie
according to lil' shitmaid disney shills those numbers are a rousing success
christ no
WB would have spent about 7 million a week on tv, radio and internet spots in the two weeks leading to release and the two following, we know they spent at least another 7 million just buying 30 seconds during the superbowl, plus what it cost to cut that ad together
they have easily outspent this and were probably getting hosed on distribution too, given how fast they started pulling it from theaters - but then it's reasonable the theater chains would be asking for more per ticket given the average patrons per screen on weekend 2 was just 113, well under half occupancy, and by the following weekend despite cutting screenings by 35% they were still only getting 60-ish patrons per screen
major motion picture
not the ads, it may include reshoots tho I suspect the true spend on those is north of there, they were claiming/estimating 200 million for the original budget and this went through significant amounts of remodeling
it's possible some of those costs were absorbed by other productions that also wanted those characters (like Batgirl etc) tho... that would seriously frick with the Salkind clause in everybody's contracts, so it wouldn't be a popular thing to do re: getting those people back for any movies with the same individual producers, plus it might fall foul of rules on sharing assets between companies depending on how the financial management of these productions is structured
lot of people taking early retirement on this one
Forget marketing.
The theaters keep around half or the box office haul. More-or-less depending on where the theaters are.
So the studio is only getting around $130M.
Could have Golden Age....
Shazam won, Barry lost
Flop of the Year?
Why did Aquaman do so well?
It had a Depeche Mode song
horny women wanna see good looking dudes shirtless and jason mamoa is a good lookin shirtless dude
Its a actually entertaining movie and people recognize Aquaman oh and china really liked it. can't wait for the sequel to bomb due to all the executive meddling going on with it.
>made before the DC stink set in
>made before general comic movie fatigue set in
>Mamoa is decently well known and liked
>even with the memes about Aquaman being lame he's still well known enough by normalgays to think a movie about him could be cool
>movie was actually decent
Also the release date helped. Christmas is one of those time periods where one blockbuster movie can utterly dominate.
Thats like a 300million loss
Nobody cares, we're mocking Blue Bettle now
Saw Blue Beetle, really mid.
The movie was more about "mi familia" than blue beetle.
i dont care if it made money i thought it was a fun movie
That's the neat thing: it wasn't.
220m doesn't include the 120-150 mil they spent on marketing.
It would have needed to hit 500 mil just to break even.
Rule of thumb remains, as always, breakeven around 2.5x budget