X-Men: Apocalypse set for May 27, 2016
0

1,628 posts in this topic

1,275 posts
The budget for X-Men: Apocalypse has been noted as $234 MM by a recent article.

 

Sydney gets blown up in the new X-Men movie

 

Based on that, this is the highest budget yet, before inflation adjustment. But it is X-Men: The Last Stand that truly still holds that 'crown' as its 2006 budget of $210 MM is $249.2 MM when adjusted for 2016 USD.

 

tkRDJYj.png

 

XLKGBmx.png

 

1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

2. The only real "flop" is Electra

3. That international debut for X-Men: Apocalypse is a monster (didn't expect it to be that big)

4. That Deadpool number is more impressive than I thought

 

***Love this kind of information (I'm an excel nerd lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts
1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

 

I appreciate the suggestion. But this has been mentioned before trying to determine 'true profit' with these movies is more challenging than people realize. That's why I stick just with the Revenue Ratio to be safe. But I do like your thinking.

 

Signed,

a fellow Excel nerd

 

:foryou:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,740 posts
1. If this is information that you gather, add a net profit column to the end

 

Nobody knows what that is because studios don't divulge their total costs. Production budgets get thrown out there, but whether or not they go over or under budget, how much marketing costs, how much translating to different languages costs, how many costs are built into studio generic costs, etc, are never divulged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts

4. That Deadpool number is more impressive than I thought

 

And I do agree with you. Deadpool taught all the studios what a monster of a hit these comic book movies can be if handled in a way audiences can relate to the characters and appreciate the story.

 

:cloud9:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts
Nobody knows what that is because studios don't divulge their total costs. Production budgets get thrown out there, but whether or not they go over or under budget, how much marketing costs, how much translating to different languages costs, how many costs are built into studio generic costs, etc, are never divulged.

 

Exactly!

 

Hollywood Accounting: Isn't it as easy as reading a studio's prospectus to figure out profits?

 

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

 

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

 

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

 

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

 

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

 

As a case study, he walks us through the numbers for "Gone In 60 Seconds." (It starred Angelina Jolie and Nicolas Cage. They stole cars. Don't pretend like you don't remember it.)

 

The movie grossed $240 million at the box office. And, after you take out all the costs and fees and everything associated with the movie, it lost $212 million.

 

This is the part of Hollywood accounting that is, essentially, fiction. Disney, which produced the movie, did not lose that money.

 

These are articles about how studios play with their individual movie balance sheets to claim expenses, actors claim salaries not received for negotiation power later on with other movies, or doing all they can to avoid paying royalties.

 

Fun times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,063 posts

I always wondered if there was more 'funny business" with the movies that have more "points" shared among the actors, directors and such, where as the movies that give away no points are more likely to show a greater profit (since all of the profit stays in house).

 

 

granted for tax purposes it's never good to show a profit, but there's only so much "fudging" that the IRS can take...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts
I always wondered if there was more 'funny business" with the movies that have more "points" shared among the actors, directors and such, where as the movies that give away no points are more likely to show a greater profit (since all of the profit stays in house).

 

 

granted for tax purposes it's never good to show a profit, but there's only so much "fudging" that the IRS can take...

 

I never realized how tricky that business was until I started researching revenues and profits for films and happened across all those articles.

 

It feels like the coin laundry business. To work around the 'cons' of the business, the IRS had to find ways to truly identify how much these businesses were making since coin payment is easy to hide. So it started gathering reports on water usage per laundromat to determine how many washes may have taken place.

 

Not so easy for determining how much went into making a movie. Or how much actors truly made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts

 

'Brain freeze'

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,612 posts

Looks like Apocalypse is heading for stinksville!

 

Wow! RT critics are destroying this movie!!!

 

Is there a pattern here???

 

The 2000 X-men movie was good, X2 was awesome and X3 was a letdown...

 

First class was great, Days of future Past was even better and now this looks like a bad rental.

 

Now given I don't put 100% faith in this critic system, but I find it spot on about 85% of the time.

 

 

There were some good movies that they got wrong and some overrated movies that left me scratching my head.

 

 

:sorry:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,263 posts

I just de-stressed for a bit and watched it while packing some stuff up. It was...okay. I might get into detail later, but it might not be worth the effort to. I don't think anyone will want to hear what I have to say since I'm a huge fan of the Byrne X-Men run as well as the Simonson X-Factor run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,357 posts
I bought my tickets a week ago, but it saddens me to say I'm not really excited about it. (shrug)

:o What?!?!?!

 

Blame it on the negative reviews, and my realization that Jennifer Lawrence is the main part of the entire movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568 posts

The main three in this X-Men franchise reboot are Xavier, Mystique, and Magneto. In this movie universe, it makes sense that Charles would trust her to lead these X-men. Why is that so hard to understand? It fits the story being told. Never understood this jab at the film.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,980 posts
The main three in this X-Men franchise reboot are Xavier, Mystique, and Magneto. In this movie universe, it makes sense that Charles would trust her to lead these X-men. Why is that so hard to understand? It fits the story being told. Never understood this jab at the film.

 

Especially since Jennifer Lawrence is the most famous and most critically acclaimed actor/actress of all the people in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,742 posts

Many people had a problem with Hugh Jackman becoming bigger than the rest of the team in the first 3 X-Men flicks. Same thing now with JLaw, except she plays a character that many fans don't even associate as an actual team member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,612 posts
I bought my tickets a week ago, but it saddens me to say I'm not really excited about it. (shrug)

:o What?!?!?!

 

Blame it on the negative reviews, and my realization that Jennifer Lawrence is the main part of the entire movie.

 

yeah this worked in the last sequel, but from the previews it looks like they are over doing it...

 

I not really a JL fan. I mean she's hot and all but I don't think her Mystique is all that.

 

It would've been the same if the first trilogy they made Halle Berry a huge lead.

I mean before X3 she won some huge awards but I really didn't see her role of storm

enough to take a huge part of screen time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066 posts

I watched this movie tonight and I can highly recommend it to any X-men fan, in fact I enjoyed it more than Civil war and that was also very good. There were a lot of nice nods to the X-men history and on those levels it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,315 posts
I watched this movie tonight and I can highly recommend it to any X-men fan, in fact I enjoyed it more than Civil war and that was also very good. There were a lot of nice nods to the X-men history and on those levels it worked.

 

Not surprising. If it has any semblance of a decent story it will blow CW away. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts

Bryan Singer regrets not sticking around to direct X-Men: The Last Stand

 

After directing both X-MEN and X2, it was assumed that Bryan Singer would return for X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, but Singer ended up dropping the film in favour of developing SUPERMAN RETURNS. While speaking with Fandango recently, Bryan Singer expressed regret at not sticking around to close out his X-MEN trilogy.

 

"I like finishing things. I like finishing this particular iteration. I know X-Men 3 was quite rushed and I didn't complete it, and I felt a little like it was probably my responsibility to do that as a filmmaker, and I didn't."

 

Before leaving to develop SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer produced a partial story treatment for what would be X-MEN: THE LAST STAND with Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty. His take on the film would have centered more on Jean Grey's (Famke Janssen) resurrection and fleshed out the Dark Phoenix story-line. After Singer left, taking Harris and Dougherty with him, Matthew Vaughn (X-MEN: FIRST CLASS) signed on to replace him. Vaughn soon realized that Fox wasn't going to give him the time to make the movie that he wanted to make and he decided to step down. Fox, anxious to make their release date, hired Brett Ratner (RUSH HOUR) to take over.

 

"I might not have killed all those characters, but that's what was so fun about Days of Future Past. We had a joke on set: 'Hey Brian, you're not only directing Days of Future Past -- you're actually living it!' I was going back and making changes in history. [With X-Men: The Last Stand], I don't fault anyone, including myself. It was just that circumstances didn't allow for it to happen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85,787 posts

Cool pop-up video to warm you up before going to see Apocalypse.

 

 

:whee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,973 posts

I've seen all the X-Men movies on Opening day "except for First Class".

I'm not going to miss this one over reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0