• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Aquaman Movie - July 27, 2018
3 3

1,035 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, kav said:

I'm so confused

Nets a billion = profit of $1B.

Grosses a billion = box office of $1B.

It has not turned a profit yet according to some.........

Edited by kimik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kimik said:

Nets a billion = profit of $1B.

Grosses a billion = box office of $1B.

It has not turned a profit yet according to some.........

I know Hollywood investors are chumps if they make a deal for % of net.  Apparently you can make gone with the wind look like a money loser.  % of gross, baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kav said:

I know Hollywood investors are chumps if they make a deal for % of net.  Apparently you can make gone with the wind look like a money loser.  % of gross, baby.

Exactly. That being said, I expect that a lot of investors get a % up front back from cash product placement deals on big films as well as government grants.

As I pointed out earlier, one government provided a grant up front that covered 10% of the production costs (which made someone's calculations inaccurate/flawed from the start......) for filming in that jurisdiction. Since the film was shot in other countries as well, there were likely further government grants to shoot there. If I were financing these films I would ask for all of that money to be paid back first.

I can't say for certain since the only content production I have invested in was small stuff (a couple of million per project split 2/3 government grants - federal and provincial - and 1/3 investors and production company), but it appears that the film industry is likely similar to pharma in sense. From a macro view, that means the studios = big pharma and own IP/offer the product, finish development and market it, but do not pay the bulk of development cost (Phase 3 onwards); film investors/production companies = small pharma/biotechs that take the most risk and pay the most to generate the product for royalties; and the theatres = drug stores that distribute it to the masses. We all know who ends up with the most in the pharma scenario........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kimik said:

Nets a billion = profit of $1B.

Grosses a billion = box office of $1B.

It has not turned a profit yet according to some.........

I forget which news source I heard this from, guess I could google it but 325 million was the magic break even number I heard for production costs. I never look into this side of the entertainment business as I have no real interest in it and somebody has probably already posted the budget here somewhere from a reputable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oddball said:

I forget which news source I heard this from, guess I could google it but 325 million was the magic break even number I heard for production costs. I never look into this side of the entertainment business as I have no real interest in it and somebody has probably already posted the budget here somewhere from a reputable source.

SCREEN RANT: How Much Did Aquaman Cost To Make? - $160M (production budget)

ENTERTAINMENT CHEAT SHEET: How Much Money Did It Cost to Make Jason Momoa’s Latest Film? - $350M combined (production + marketing)

NEW YORK TIMES: ‘Aquaman’ Is Already a Box Office Titan - $350M combined (production + marketing)

THE-NUMBERS: Aquaman box office tracking - $160M (production budget)

BOX OFFICE MOJO: Aquaman box office tracking - unconfirmed

Then it breaks down from there with sites feeding off each other's articles repeating $160M or $200M for the production budget. Even quoting each other's exact sentences about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kimik said:

Exactly. That being said, I expect that a lot of investors get a % up front back from cash product placement deals on big films as well as government grants.

As I pointed out earlier, one government provided a grant up front that covered 10% of the production costs (which made someone's calculations inaccurate/flawed from the start......) for filming in that jurisdiction. Since the film was shot in other countries as well, there were likely further government grants to shoot there. If I were financing these films I would ask for all of that money to be paid back first.

I can't say for certain since the only content production I have invested in was small stuff (a couple of million per project split 2/3 government grants - federal and provincial - and 1/3 investors and production company), but it appears that the film industry is likely similar to pharma in sense. From a macro view, that means the studios = big pharma and own IP/offer the product, finish development and market it, but do not pay the bulk of development cost (Phase 3 onwards); film investors/production companies = small pharma/biotechs that take the most risk and pay the most to generate the product for royalties; and the theatres = drug stores that distribute it to the masses. We all know who ends up with the most in the pharma scenario........

My calculations remain perfectly fine and reasonable.  As I said before, nobody has done a deep forensics dive into this movie's actual books.  If someone did the production budget alone would probably be closer to $250MM than the $200MM everyone and their mother is estimating, and lets not even start to get into the kinds of dollar one profit participation deals that my friend Bosco only likes to bring up on Marvel movies (when he's not low balling DC movie budgets to make their gross multipliers look far better than they actually are ;)), but my goodness if we applied to the exact same unknown formula to Venom that movie likely profited in excess of $200MM theatrically :whatthe:.

But congratulations to Aquaman for doing the unthinkable and breaking the billion dollar mark.  

Let's see how much if that is actually profit the studio so far on big its big, dumb all in budget of (at least) $350MM-

(According to box office mojo)

China- $285MM @ 25%= $71MM

North America- $288MM @ 50%= $144M

Other Countries- $447MM @ 40%= $179MM

Total to theatrical profit to WB- $44MM

Starting to look decent now Aquaman but better keep swimming a little while longer to make sure.  (thumbsu

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

My calculations remain perfectly fine and reasonable.  As I said before, nobody has done a deep forensics dive into this movie's actual books.  If someone did the production budget alone would probably be closer to $250MM than the $200MM everyone and their mother is estimating, and lets not even start to get into the kinds of dollar one profit participation deals that my friend Bosco only likes to bring up on Marvel movies (when he's not low balling DC movie budgets to make their gross multipliers look far better than they actually are ;)), but my goodness if we applied to the exact same unknown formula to Venom that movie likely profited in excess of $200MM theatrically :whatthe:.

But congratulations to Aquaman for doing the unthinkable and breaking the billion dollar mark.  

Let's see how much if that is actually profit the studio so far on big its big, dumb all in budget of (at least) $350MM-

(According to box office mojo)

China- $285MM @ 25%= $71MM

North America- $288MM @ 50%= $144M

Other Countries- $447MM @ 40%= $179MM

Total to theatrical profit to WB- $44MM

Starting to look decent now Aquaman but better keep swimming a little while longer to make sure.  (thumbsu

-J.

We'll know soon, as Deadline will produce their list of 2018's "Most Profitable Blockbusters" list that analyzes full costs, off-sets, back-end participation and ROI -- around Mar. 30/Apr. 1.

In the mean time, Aquaman's still got ~3 weeks before it opens in Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

We'll know soon, as Deadline will produce their list of 2018's "Most Profitable Blockbusters" list that analyzes full costs, off-sets, back-end participation and ROI -- around Mar. 30/Apr. 1.

In the mean time, Aquaman's still got ~3 weeks before it opens in Japan.

$250MM+ - a lock  #mathisharddogscan'tcount

Edited by paperheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

We'll know soon, as Deadline will produce their list of 2018's "Most Profitable Blockbusters" list that analyzes full costs, off-sets, back-end participation and ROI -- around Mar. 30/Apr. 1.

In the mean time, Aquaman's still got ~3 weeks before it opens in Japan.

Can't wait.  :banana:

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2018 at 9:01 PM, Jaydogrules said:
On 12/26/2018 at 8:54 PM, lou_fine said:

Either way, it looks like Aquaman is going to be a sure fire winner (even by your measuring stick) for DC and Warners as forecasts are now saying that it could hit the $1B mark by the time its all said and done.  :whatthe:  :applause:

No chance this goes anywhere near a billion. Even with the holiday and extra days of previews  it is still lagging Justice League in comparable period in North American release.  Also, while it may have only been out for a week or so here, it is nearing a month of release in most other places in the world.  I will be impressed if it gets to $850MM after all is said and done. 

Jay;

I guess you must be beyond very impressed and totally ecstatic as comic book fan that Aquaman has now crossed over the $1B mark, as based upon your comments from just last month.  :devil:

Actually, I think it's really more than just about box office numbers and bottom line profits sometimes.  Although Venom is still ahead of Aquaman in terms of net profits (for now at least), I am definitely hearing a lot more positive buzz and ongoing chatter about the Aquaman movie as compared to the Venom movie.  I strongly believe this type of positive buzz for Aquaman has a hidden and still to be received monetary benefit for Warner's as this is also bodes well and is a big positive for other DC movies that are about to hit the theatres going forward.  :applause:

Bottom-line:  I think the success of this Aquaman movie will go to help upcoming DCEU movies relatively more than the success of the Venom movie will go towards helping the upcoming MCU movies going forward.  hm

Edited by lou_fine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Jay;

I guess you must be beyond very impressed and totally ecstatic as comic book fan that Aquaman has now crossed over the $1B mark, as based upon your comments from just last month.  :devil:

Actually, I think it's really more than just about box office numbers and bottom line profits sometimes.  Although Venom is still ahead of Aquaman in terms of net profits (for now at least), I am definitely hearing a lot more positive buzz and ongoing chatter about the Aquaman movie as compared to the Venom movie.  I strongly believe this type of positive buzz for Aquaman has a hidden and still to be received monetary benefit for Warner's as this is also bodes well and is a big positive for other DC movies that are about to hit the theatres going forward.  :applause:

Bottom-line:  I think the success of this Aquaman movie will go to help upcoming DCEU movies relatively more than the success of the Venom movie will go towards helping the upcoming MCU movies going forward.  hm

Aquaman over achieved even the most rosy industry expectations.  Venom did even more so.  If you want to see a true clinic in bad amateur box office predicting try reading the earlier comments in the Venom thread lol. 

As for what aquaman does for DCEU who knows, all of their movies were profitable (execept JL) Venom has a better audience score on rotten tomatoes than this movie (not that I put any stock in that), but it won't hurt!  But Venom certainly helped Sony and has officially launched their Spider-man-less movie-verse.

-J.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting item for those convinced its already been confirmed the expense was $200M. Even Forbes that was noting $200M now has to admit there are no confirmed details yet.

'Aquaman' Box Office: Nearly Double 'Man Of Steel' Despite Similar Reviews

Quote

... the $165m-$200m (depending on who you ask) underwater adventure has earned $1.023b worldwide...

It may have cost $200M with all those fantastic CGI scenes. But better to wait for the final details than assume. But his forecast at this point:

Quote

It is currently the 36th-biggest global grosser of all time, and it still has a little juice left in the can. Offhand (spitball math alert), I’m thinking the movie will end up just over/under $325m domestic and (presuming it maintains the 28/72 domestic/overseas split) around $1.153B worldwide. That’ll put it above The Dark Knight Rises ($1.084b in 2012, sans 3-D) to make it the biggest DC Comics flick of all time, and behind only Iron Man 3 ($1.215b in 2013) and Black Panther ($1.346b in 2018) among all solo superhero flicks.

 

 

Link to comment
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
3 3