• 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.

BIRDS OF PREY starring Margot Robbie (2020?)
1 1

1,068 posts in this topic

22 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

And *I* remember when this unapologetic DC hack claimed that Venom, similarly budgeted as Birds of Prey and Shazam, needed to make $400MM to be "'worth it". 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/

Now extolling two money losing DC flops BoP and Shazam, neither of which sniffed 400MM are now "success stories". Bwahahahahahahaha!  The dead Herbalife guy has more credibility than this rambling nimrod.

Warner is still playing with unexpected found money from Joker.  But as of now they are 1-2.  The sad performance of Birds of Prey (and Shazam) is why I'm still raising my eyebrow that Warner would be so dense as to actually triple and quadruple down on failure by still actually following through on a pointless shazam sequel and even more pointless Black Adam movie.  hm

-J.

Now, on a more serious note.

Hopefully, the pain of seeing Shazam not take off like it should have after the critic and audience responses taught WB something about release planning. That film was made to be released during the holidays. With WB committing to Black Adam and Shazam 2, you would hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

And *I* remember when this unapologetic DC hack claimed that Venom, similarly budgeted as Birds of Prey and Shazam, needed to make $400MM to be "'worth it". 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/

Now extolling two money losing DC flops BoP and Shazam, neither of which sniffed 400MM are now "success stories". Bwahahahahahahaha!  The dead Herbalife guy has more credibility than this rambling nimrod.

Warner is still playing with unexpected found money from Joker.  But as of now they are 1-2.  The sad performance of Birds of Prey (and Shazam) is why I'm still raising my eyebrow that Warner would be so dense as to actually triple and quadruple down on failure by still actually following through on a pointless shazam sequel and even more pointless Black Adam movie.  hm

-J.

Forbes followed up the Mendelson stooge that was worse at math than the dead Herbalife guy with Mr. Bean, whose box office predictions are more hilarious than his movies. BOP can top WW :roflmao: Even after the thing flopped opening weekend he was saying it could pass Batman's $411MM worldwide. :insane:

Edited by paperheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Hughes article is really bad.

There's *zero* chance that WB lumped the costs for Shazam, Joker & BoP together in a "we only need 1 in 3 to hit" strategy - and to suggest there was some sort of synergy in their marketing costs when they were released so far apart?? Utter .

Consensus theatrical floor for BoP to ultimately break-even is $235 million worldwide.

It *may* hit that; may not.

If this loses the studio money, it won't be catastrophic -- but we comics fans will be the biggest casualty, as it will give WB pause before taking similar risks again -- esp. with Harley Quinn, the Suicide Squad and its ilk, R-rating or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCExcusesUnlimited

GL- Ryan Reynolds mis-cast as a superhero; Geoff Johns, knows comics, should have been more involved; Geoff Johns, doesn't know movies, should have been less involved. Result: critical bomb (27 Metacritic), box office bomb.

BOP- the rating, the title, the release date, the marketing. Result: critical meh (60 Metacritic), box office bomb.

Shazam- the release date, the marketing, too dark for kiddies. Result: critical hit, box office dud. 

BvS- rushed to catch MCU, director's cut better. Result: critical bomb, box office meh 

JL- generic villain, Snyder cut unwatchable, release the Snyder cut. Result: critical meh, box office bomb. 

Suicide Squad- didn't realize there was film in the camera. Result: critical bomb, box office smash. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

That Hughes article is really bad.

There's *zero* chance that WB lumped the costs for Shazam, Joker & BoP together in a "we only need 1 in 3 to hit" strategy - and to suggest there was some sort of synergy in their marketing costs when they were released so far apart?? Utter .

Consensus theatrical floor for BoP to ultimately break-even is $235 million worldwide.

It *may* hit that; may not.

If this loses the studio money, it won't be catastrophic -- but we comics fans will be the biggest casualty, as it will give WB pause before taking similar risks again -- esp. with Harley Quinn, the Suicide Squad and its ilk, R-rating or not.

With an all in of about $175MM, there's no way this thing breakers even at $235MM.  Not even close.  Using that dummy Hughes' own numbers as applied to Venom, break even is more like $350MM.

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

With an all in of about $175MM, there's no way this thing breakers even at $235MM.  Not even close.  Using that dummy Hughes' own numbers as applied to Venom, break even is more like $350MM.

-J.

Again with this ?

P&A is accounted for in post-theatrical -- :golfclap:nobody :golfclap:counts :golfclap:marketing :golfclap:budgets against a theatrical profitability calculation.

3.0x its known budget theatrical here is sufficient.

Also - Hughes himself -- crackhead that he is -- cited marketing for this film at $50 mill., not $90 mill.

Edited by Gatsby77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Again with this ?

P&A is accounted for in post-theatrical -- *nobody* counts marketing budgets against a theatrical profitability calculation. 3.0x its known budget here is sufficient.

Deadline does in the annual accounting for the biggest movies.  So when you are spending $100MM on your prints and advertising before you make a single dollar in the theaters (hence it is not "post theatrical") yeah, people are counting it.  Having more information and knowing what movies actually cost and when they really do hit profitability is never a bad thing.  (thumbsu And regardless of whether you knock the movie for those expenses "post" theatrically, or on the front end when they actually spend it, money spent and lost is money spent and lost.  All the rest is just "spinnnnning". :ohnoez:

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Deadline does in the annual accounting for the biggest movies.  So when you are spending $100MM on your prints and advertising before you make a single dollar in the theaters (hence it is not "post theatrical") yeah, people are counting it.  Having more information and knowing what movies actually cost and when they really do hit profitability is never a bad thing.  (thumbsu And regardless of whether you knock the movie for those expenses "post" theatrically, or on the front end when they actually spend it, money spent and lost is money spent and lost.  All the rest is just "spinnnnning". :ohnoez:

-J.

And there's no chance they got this in 4300 theaters and spent $50mm on P&A.  Using Deadline's numbers on the low budget CB movies, $90MM would be on the low side. Venom $100MM, Joker $120MM, DP $100MM, DP2 $110MM.  P&A is much more a fixed than variable cost when you are trying to launch one of these on   4000+ screens. BOP could break even at $250MM given that there won't be any China in there but spending $175MM and maybe breaking even is a wasted opportunity. 

Edited by paperheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Deadline does in the annual accounting for the biggest movies.

You're not wrong here.

But Deadline *also* includes the post-theatrical revenue (including DVD, streaming and TV sales -- the very "ancillaries" you always refuse to acknowledge) and these traditionally (as in, 90%+ of the time) *more* than balance out all of the P&A expenditure.

Which is why the industry doesn't count them in the rule-of-thumb 2.5x-3.0x theatrical = break-even calculation. $70-$100 million in marketing expenses doesn't matter when full-lifecycle post-theatrical sales are $120 million.

Again, 2.5-3.0x of the production budget theatrical is all that's needed for break-even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, paperheart said:

DCExcusesUnlimited

GL- Ryan Reynolds mis-cast as a superhero; Geoff Johns, knows comics, should have been more involved; Geoff Johns, doesn't know movies, should have been less involved. Result: critical bomb (27 Metacritic), box office bomb.

BOP- the rating, the title, the release date, the marketing. Result: critical meh (60 Metacritic), box office bomb.

Shazam- the release date, the marketing, too dark for kiddies. Result: critical hit, box office dud. 

BvS- rushed to catch MCU, director's cut better. Result: critical bomb, box office meh 

JL- generic villain, Snyder cut unwatchable, release the Snyder cut. Result: critical meh, box office bomb. 

Suicide Squad- didn't realize there was film in the camera. Result: critical bomb, box office smash. 

 

Like Forrest Gump says...

forrestgump01.PNG.3516cbe7272551b07442d0defb27d909.PNG

:insane:

'Result: critical meh (60 Metacritic)'

BOP01.PNG.bd1772b6a3087bd7e2e41a3f54de973a.PNG

Metacritic as the baseline for consistent reviews, where the majority of critics aggregated in its score noted Joker would inspire incels to riot. Fantastic! :golfclap:

Aquaman - going to bomb so hard, even the earthworms won't be able to go lower. At least, that was the prediction from fine folks with this much angst built up inside.

Aquaman01.PNG.5fd3815c127e1f1a01afbfd9a7fb2415.PNG

Wonder Woman -  'We all know this thing is going to bomb as a former insider told us so. How could they be lying? They dislike WB, like me.'

WW2017.PNG.3074b60ea0e2ec0beda6d16f465241ba.PNG

Dang! That didn't work either. Let's go back to Man of Steel where all the problems happened. That film cost so much money, they never broke even.

Man of Steel is a man of product placements

Quote

“Man of Steel,” the highly anticipated reboot of the Superman franchise, hits its first weekend in cinemas today. While it hasn’t broken box-office records, the movie has already earned $160-million from product placements. For those who don’t know, product placements are deals forged with brands and companies. In exchange for a fee, producers insert the company’s product or service in the movie. In “Man of Steel,” for example, Clark Kent (the alter-ego of Superman) is seen drinking Caspi Sun in numerous scenes. He also shaves using Gillette razors.

Well, that doesn't matter. That film was so bad, nobody wanted to see it again.

MOS2013.PNG.aed015c2165384e3c2e091112692ba46.PNG

Oh, you mean it took in $119.5M in domestic home theater sales so people could rewatch and hate it again - together at home? It's like a superhero Festivus event! :insane:

Well, then there is that nasty Joker film. That thing is going to bomb so hard too. I have it on good authority.

On 10/3/2019 at 4:14 PM, paperheart said:

fairly typical, the RT is a yes/no toggle, the Metacritic is an actual average of critical scores. and there goes the RT below 70.  must've been something in the water in Venice.

Joker01.PNG.f5b44d4efc1aeef79c316f1385ac4310.PNG

Ooops! 

So goofy to hate like this. It doesn't contribute to any decent dialogue. If anything, it is perpetual disruption. But hey, he must be cool. He uses Metacritic as a reference source. B|

Edited by Bosco685
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Deadline does in the annual accounting for the biggest movies.  So when you are spending $100MM on your prints and advertising before you make a single dollar in the theaters (hence it is not "post theatrical") yeah, people are counting it.  Having more information and knowing what movies actually cost and when they really do hit profitability is never a bad thing.  (thumbsu And regardless of whether you knock the movie for those expenses "post" theatrically, or on the front end when they actually spend it, money spent and lost is money spent and lost.  All the rest is just "spinnnnning". :ohnoez:

-J.

 

42 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

You're not wrong here.

But Deadline *also* includes the post-theatrical revenue (including DVD, streaming and TV sales -- the very "ancillaries" you always refuse to acknowledge) and these traditionally (as in, 90%+ of the time) *more* than balance out all of the P&A expenditure.

Which is why the industry doesn't count them in the rule-of-thumb 2.5x-3.0x theatrical = break-even calculation. $70-$100 million in marketing expenses doesn't matter when full-lifecycle post-theatrical sales are $120 million.

Again, 2.5-3.0x of the production budget theatrical is all that's needed for break-even.

Gents, as much as I love reading the year-end Deadline wrap-up of Biggest Box Office Winners contest, guess what? Anthony D'Alessandro is extremely pro-Disney. An obvious example: The Last Jedi

Where trusted industry aggregators like Box Office Mojo had the production budget at $300M to $325M...

TLJ_BOM01.PNG.7d7d1bb27fb54e7df47cf3137eee35a4.PNG

What did Anthony use for his Box Office Contest summary?

TLJ01.PNG.d083854e180ff97f0a39b73425328244.PNG

$200M! Seriously? For a massive Star Wars event film?

I'll let you get back now to 'I know better how films are financially gauged, because Deadline demonstrated how this works'.

:kidaround:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

You're not wrong here.

But Deadline *also* includes the post-theatrical revenue (including DVD, streaming and TV sales -- the very "ancillaries" you always refuse to acknowledge) and these traditionally (as in, 90%+ of the time) *more* than balance out all of the P&A expenditure.

Which is why the industry doesn't count them in the rule-of-thumb 2.5x-3.0x theatrical = break-even calculation. $70-$100 million in marketing expenses doesn't matter when full-lifecycle post-theatrical sales are $120 million.

Again, 2.5-3.0x of the production budget theatrical is all that's needed for break-even.

According to "the numbers', shazam only made about $31MM in video sales.   Of which studios "also" do not get 100% of rev.  Of which there are "also" associated costs of promotion, production, and marketing.  Even with that, Shazam still did not hit $400MM, and still did not break even.  Birds of Prey will enter that segment of the market $50-$100MM in the red.  

In other words, if you are relying on "ancillaries" to "break even", you've lost money on your movie.  In the case if BoP, you have a flop.  Does it matter where on a ledger a movie lists it costs ?  No.  The costs are the costs.  The calculus of what it movie needs to make just to break even does not change.  

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, paperheart said:

DCExcusesUnlimited

GL- Ryan Reynolds mis-cast as a superhero; Geoff Johns, knows comics, should have been more involved; Geoff Johns, doesn't know movies, should have been less involved. Result: critical bomb (27 Metacritic), box office bomb.

BOP- the rating, the title, the release date, the marketing. Result: critical meh (60 Metacritic), box office bomb.

Shazam- the release date, the marketing, too dark for kiddies. Result: critical hit, box office dud. 

BvS- rushed to catch MCU, director's cut better. Result: critical bomb, box office meh 

JL- generic villain, Snyder cut unwatchable, release the Snyder cut. Result: critical meh, box office bomb. 

Suicide Squad- didn't realize there was film in the camera. Result: critical bomb, box office smash. 

 

Allegedly, said by the same people that trimmed BvS (where the UE was infinitely better).

#ReleaseTheSnyderCut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

According to "the numbers', shazam only made about $31MM in video sales.   Of which studios "also" do not get 100% of rev.  Of which there are "also" associated costs of promotion, production, and marketing.  Even with that, Shazam still did not hit $400MM, and still did not break even.  Birds of Prey will enter that segment of the market $50-$100MM in the red.  

In other words, if you are relying on "ancillaries" to "break even", you've lost money on your movie.  In the case if BoP, you have a flop.  Does it matter where on a ledger a movie lists it costs ?  No.  The costs are the costs.  The calculus of what it movie needs to make just to break even does not change.  

-J.

As much as I reflect on the-Numbers for its fantastic research, some things you are assuming here to be careful of:

1) Home Theater Sales: That figure is just the domestic market. Not worldwide.

2) Digital Sales: Nowhere does anyone have public information on the combined contribution Digital SD/HD sales makes to a film. Yet it is the go-forward heavy-hitter from iTunes, Google Play, VUDU, Fandango Now and other providers.

3) Digital Sales impact on full reporting: One of the arguments used to proclaim Batman v Superman was a bomb is comparing it to the home theater sales of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.

DC_MCU_BO200219i.PNG.ade5dcdca5b6296d5f79c3501e32db11.PNG

Yet what that ignores is the massive one-month Walmart promotion that kicked off Batman v Superman's home theater release prior to the DVD and bluray sales using a specially packaged offering. These sold out instantly for Walmart, which was noted as a huge success and a confirmation it should include VUDU-specific offerings going forward. Hence, the VUDU booths in Walmart stores nowadays. None of that revenue is accounted for in any final tally, to include Deadline that guesstimates what it is.

Walmart_BVS01.PNG.0287fa3ed8f357c05a808e2c3825e9b8.PNG

 

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
1 1