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

[Bosco685]

So with product placement Birds of Prey definitely pushed the Blackberry Keyone.

But you would hope the production team hit up the Poultry Association as hard as it pushed that egg sandwich. 

 

[Chaos_in_Canada]

3 hours ago, I like pie said:

Saw it a few days ago with super low expectations. Gets a 4/10 from me, with all 4 stars going to Margot Robbie eye candy.

The fighting choreography was awful. Seemed like they were under water.

4 is better than 3

[zhamlau]

So the upshot is simply we don't really know what the actual production costs are (neither do the studios potentially), we don't know exactly how much of each dollar spent in box office the studios sees because it can change from studio to studio country to country, We don't know advertising budgets cause its always implied then quickly supported/denied depending on what side your breads buttered on...So therefore we never can truly know if a film was profitable or not beyond anecdotal evidence.

I'm not fully onboard with that view, but it seems to be the eventual landing point were getting to.

[Bosco685]

8 hours ago, zhamlau said:

So the upshot is simply we don't really know what the actual production costs are (neither do the studios potentially), we don't know exactly how much of each dollar spent in box office the studios sees because it can change from studio to studio country to country, We don't know advertising budgets cause its always implied then quickly supported/denied depending on what side your breads buttered on...So therefore we never can truly know if a film was profitable or not beyond anecdotal evidence.

I'm not fully onboard with that view, but it seems to be the eventual landing point were getting to.

It takes some research and reading to level-set on the reality of the situation.

Including some of the articles in those threads from credible sources that talk through the challenges of Hollywood accounting.

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

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

NPR: We See Angelina's Bottom Line

Show Me The Money: The World of Product Placement

Edited March 9, 2020 by Bosco685

[Jaydogrules]

On 3/8/2020 at 7:42 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Oh, Hey Kids!  Look!

Halloween is a *perfect* example that illustrates why P&A costs don't matter in back-of-the-hand theatrical profitability calculations!

Notice that the revenue from "Worldwide Home Entertainment" ($32 million) and "Global TV Net ($87 million) sum to $119 milliion.

Meanwhile, the total non-production expenses -- Worldwide P&A ($75.5 million), Video Costs ($11 million), Participations ($12 million), Residuals & Off-the-Tops ($11 million) and Interest ($2 million) sum to $111.5 million.

Which means that all the non-production expenses (the bulk of which is P&A) are covered by post-theatrical revenue.

They cancel each other out.

What have we learned?

You don't need to count P&A expense against a theatrical break-even calculation. It will be covered by post-theatrical revenue.

This is why the industry shorthand for break-even is global theatrical revenue of 2.5-3.0x production budget, not 4.5x production budget, or "2.5-3.0x production budget plus P&A expenses."

This is still incorrect. Deadline, Variety, and Forbes (when it is not a film that has failed that they are trying to run cover for) quite regularly reference a movie's P&A, at least in its first week or two of release.  These things are not left in a vacuum.  They are all upfronts to even get a movie into theaters so they matter.  I am trying to find a way to shortcut the final analysis to include potential ancillaries, but it cannot be done while a movie is still in theaters, and the majority of that info will be unknown to the general public once the movie does move to the ancillary market.  

That, however, does not make the information (the P&A) irrelevant while a movie makes its box office run.  If nothing else, it tells us how big a movie really is, if it hits a nice profit after production, P&A theatrically, the ancillary aftermarket is gravy.  Or, as with Birds of Prey, a movie that will be $100MM in the hole and will need to say plenty of prayers to still not lose $40MM even after ancillaries.  

But just for fun, let's look at Halloween again.  A movie with a measly $10MM production budget that still spent $75MM on P&A, but grossed $270MM worldwide.  

If @Bosco685 had made a chart for that movie, with its $270MM BO and only $10MM budget, he would have that as a 27X multiplier.  

Wow, that just sounds fantastic doesnt it?

Except, it would be nowhere near accurate. 

For as we can see, the actual multiplier after all was said and done, would be more like 12.8X.  Nearly 15X less.  Still fantastic, but a loooong way from the basic and very misleading 27X that  we would see on his chart.  And this movie was made for peanuts from top to bottom. 

Kind of gives new perspective to all these 2-3X movies we see on his charts, doesnt it?

Now, just for fun, let's look at what would happen if we took the production, P&A, all front end expenses studios spend just to get into theaters, and do my 50/40/25 calculation of the worldwide BO. Doing so gives the studio a $36MM profit before it even hits the ancillary market.  But let's just say it stopped there.  That would represent a 3.6X return (on only the production budget, if that's all we should be looking at on the front end, as you're suggesting).

Now that 3.6X multiplier is a heck of a lot closer to the final 12.8X multiplier than the @Bosco685 method of 27X would be, without knowing a thing about or taking into account a thing that happens in the movie's after-theater life.   

Now granted, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, but I stand by the practicality of including the P&A in the discussion, because, as I said before, more info is better than less, and most trades do so as well, at least when there isnt an agenda.  

-J.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is still incorrect. Deadline, Variety, and Forbes (when it is not a film that has failed that they are trying to run cover for) quite regularly reference a movie's P&A, at least in its first week or two of release.  These things are not left in a vacuum.  They are all upfronts to even get a movie into theaters so they matter.  I am trying to find a way to shortcut the final analysis to include potential ancillaries, but it cannot be done while a movie is still in theaters, and the majority of that info will be unknown to the general public once the movie does move to the ancillary market.  

That, however, does not make the information (the P&A) irrelevant while a movie makes its box office run.  If nothing else, it tells us how big a movie really is, if it hits a nice profit after production, P&A theatrically, the ancillary aftermarket is gravy.  Or, as with Birds of Prey, a movie that will be $100MM in the hole and will need to say plenty of prayers to still not lose $40MM even after ancillaries.  

But just for fun, let's look at Halloween again.  A movie with a measly $10MM production budget that still spent $75MM on P&A, but grossed $270MM worldwide.  

If @Bosco685 had made a chart for that movie, with its $270MM BO and only $10MM budget, he would have that as a 27X multiplier.  

Wow, that just sounds fantastic doesnt it?

Except, it would be nowhere near accurate. 

For as we can see, the actual multiplier after all was said and done, would be more like 12.8X.  Nearly 15X less.  Still fantastic, but a loooong way from the basic and very misleading 27X that  we would see on his chart.  And this movie was made for peanuts from top to bottom. 

Kind of gives new perspective to all these 2-3X movies we see on his charts, doesnt it?

Now, just for fun, let's look at what would happen if we took the production, P&A, all front end expenses studios spend just to get into theaters, and do my 50/40/25 calculation of the worldwide BO. Doing so gives the studio a $36MM profit before it even hits the ancillary market.  But let's just say it stopped there.  That would represent a 3.6X return (on only the production budget, if that's all we should be looking at on the front end, as you're suggesting).

Now that 3.6X multiplier is a heck of a lot closer to the final 12.8X multiplier than the @Bosco685 method of 27X would be, without knowing a thing about or taking into account a thing that happens in the movie's after-theater life.   

Now granted, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, but I stand by the practicality of including the P&A in the discussion, because, as I said before, more info is better than less, and most trades do so as well, at least when there isnt an agenda.  

-J.

@Jaydogrules as I have noted over the years I never try to shoot for determining profits because there are so many variable to account for (e.g. P&A actual budget vs guesstimations, product placement revenue, revenue share deals that not always publicized, special tax incentive clauses to encourage location use). I always stick to a REVENUE-BASED MODEL because of this as the P&A Budget is never even clearly estimated by box office aggregators, and Deadline doesn't come out with more solid details until its EOY Box Office Contest (why Spider-Man: Homecoming went from Deadline's estimates $120M to a closer $157M).

Again, you have tried this game before with films (Wonder Woman vs Spider-Man: Homecoming) and missed the estimates massively. It is because it is a tricky business to fully calculate all the necessary details - including actual P&A Budgets. Including things such as Home Theater Sales which nowadays need to factor in DVD and Bluray sales and the more massive Digital sales are key for true profits in the end. This is where films on the brink of breaking-even actually become profitable.

@Jaydogrules you keep guesstimating all you want. Meanwhile, the highest revenue-to-production budget bar to date for a DC or Marvel film didn't occur until recently - Deadpool (2016) and Joker (2019). So to assume Comic Book Genre films need to generate such revenue ratio levels to be profitable is a rare bar to achieve. And you can see from these revenue heavy-hitters this is not the common range achieved by many of these films considered definite hits.

The more reasonable and realistic minimum bar is the 2.5X to 3.0X level in modern times (2008 and beyond) due to how the Cinema Market has matured so much over the decades. Though even films such as Batman Begin (2005) at 2.5X production budget are considered a success. And in the case of Amazing Spider-Man 2, it was ever so slightly profitable. But even Sony executives realized for such a massive investment the expectation was much higher than a 2.8X goal.

[Jaydogrules]

23 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

@Jaydogrules as I have noted over the years I never try to shoot for determining profits because there are so many variable to account for (e.g. P&A actual budget vs guesstimations, product placement revenue, revenue share deals that not always publicized, special tax incentive clauses to encourage location use). I always stick to a REVENUE-BASED MODEL because of this as the P&A Budget is never even clearly estimated by box office aggregators, and Deadline doesn't come out with more solid details until its EOY Box Office Contest (why Spider-Man: Homecoming went from Deadline's estimates $120M to a closer $157M).

Again, you have tried this game before with films (Wonder Woman vs Spider-Man: Homecoming) and missed the estimates massively. It is because it is a tricky business to fully calculate all the necessary details - including actual P&A Budgets. Including things such as Home Theater Sales which nowadays need to factor in DVD and Bluray sales and the more massive Digital sales are key for true profits in the end. This is where films on the brink of breaking-even actually become profitable.

@Jaydogrules you keep guesstimating all you want. Meanwhile, the highest revenue-to-production budget bar to date for a DC or Marvel film didn't occur until recently - Deadpool (2016) and Joker (2019). So to assume Comic Book Genre films need to generate such revenue ratio levels to be profitable is a rare bar to achieve. And you can see from these revenue heavy-hitters this is not the common range achieved by many of these films considered definite hits.

The more reasonable and realistic minimum bar is the 2.5X to 3.0X level in modern times (2008 and beyond) due to how the Cinema Market has matured so much over the decades. Though even films such as Batman Begin (2005) at 2.5X production budget are considered a success. And in the case of Amazing Spider-Man 2, it was ever so slightly profitable. But even Sony executives realized for such a massive investment the expectation was much higher than a 2.8X goal.

I agree with most of what you just said.  Remember, I wasn't trying to knock your charts, I was just performing a thought experiment to amuse myself.     Although I don't think it will be long before we start seeing something closer to a 4X being the reported real "break even" point for "world wide tentpoles".  

-J.

PS:  You don't have to tag someone if you're already quoting their post.  Lol

[Bosco685]

35 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I agree with most of what you just said.  Remember, I wasn't trying to knock your charts, I was just performing a thought experiment to amuse myself.     Although I don't think it will be long before we start seeing something closer to a 4X being the reported real "break even" point for "world wide tentpoles".  

-J.

PS:  You don't have to tag someone if you're already quoting their post.  Lol

I wanted your full attention.

[Bosco685]

Birds of Prey ended up with a $4.5M worldwide weekend update

[Gatsby77]

18 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Now that 3.6X multiplier is a heck of a lot closer to the final 12.8X multiplier than the @Bosco685 method of 27X would be, without knowing a thing about or taking into account a thing that happens in the movie's after-theater life.   

Now granted, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, but I stand by the practicality of including the P&A in the discussion, because, as I said before, more info is better than less, and most trades do so as well, at least when there isnt an agenda.  

-J.

Nice "thought experiment" but you're still wrong on two counts.

1) I've already noted that the 2.5-3.0 theatrical break-even guideline doesn't apply to low-budget horror films. For exactly the reasons you mention.

Jason Blum (you know, of Blumhouse Productions) noted a year ago that the theatrical break-even for his films is roughly $50 million worldwide, even though the vast majority of them have production budgets of under $10 million (some as low as $3 million).

Because of P&A: it takes $10-$25 million to get even a $5 million horror movie into theaters.

2) Even with Halloween, the P&A expenses are more than cancelled out by the post-theatrical net studio profits.

Ditto with *every other* example Bosco pulled from Deadline a page back.

 

We all know Birds of Prey will lose Warner Bros. money. But, assuming it ends its run at $210 milliion worlwide, it'll only lose them $20-$25 million.

Not horrible, and (importantly) likely not devastating to the box office of the forthcoming Suicide Squad sequel.

Because you're not accounting for the $50-$100 million more in net profit even this film will make in post-theatrical.

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

We all know Birds of Prey will lose Warner Bros. money. But, assuming it ends its run at $210 milliion worlwide, it'll only lose them $20-$25 million.

Not horrible, and (importantly) likely not devastating to the box office of the forthcoming Suicide Squad sequel.

Because you're not accounting for the $50-$100 million more in net profit even this film will make in post-theatrical.

And the interesting thing with Home Theater Sales is if the box office can get it close enough to break-even, that can take it over the top later on. Not great for the theater run. But for the studio balance sheet, it matters. Even films such as The Incredible Hulk had a solid post-box office run prior to the days of Digital HD offerings.

Though with Disney once it had the distribution rights for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, it has released these two as special DVD sets, then Bluray/DVD bundled sets, then most recently a Bluray/Digital bundled set. Each time, probably the same fans purchased each to get any extra goodies.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 3/8/2020 at 5:16 PM, Chaos_in_Canada said:

[Hollywood1892]

Just saw it on the weekend

Pretty wicked movie, but the junk food helped

1 bag of fritos bbq hoops

1 slim jim

1 munchies

1 Rockstar energy drink

2 peppermint patties

 

Has anyone seen the new X movie theatres?

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

10 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

Just saw it on the weekend

Pretty wicked movie, but the junk food helped

1 bag of fritos bbq hoops

1 slim jim

1 munchies

1 Rockstar energy drink

2 peppermint patties

 

Has anyone seen the new X movie theatres?

I love how you commented more about food than the movie.

Can we get a diagnosis, out of 5 or 10 (and maybe a brief review), or...?

[Hollywood1892]

36 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I love how you commented more about food than the movie.

Can we get a diagnosis, out of 5 or 10 (and maybe a brief review), or...?

Sure no problem 

I rated it 7 out of 10

More of a nonsensical crime drama then a superhero movie...tbh DC needs some epics, hopefully they can redeem with an Aquaman sequel and New Gods down the pipe. But there was maybe 1 supernatural sequence of events that reminded me that it was a superhero movie

[SkintDoctor]

44 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

I love how you commented more about food than the movie.

Can we get a diagnosis, out of 5 or 10 (and maybe a brief review), or...?

I thought the movie STUNK! how is that for a review?

[Chaos_in_Canada]

2 minutes ago, BaronSamedi said:

I thought the movie STUNK! how is that for a review?

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, BaronSamedi said:

I thought the movie STUNK! how is that for a review?

Give me # out of 5 or 10 so I know exactly how bad it is plz.

[SkintDoctor]

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Give me # out of 5 or 10 so I know exactly how bad it is plz.

2/10. If you like Margot Robbie then go see it. If you like girl goes crazy after breakup then go see it, but serious she was already insane before the breakup.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, BaronSamedi said:

2/10. If you like Margot Robbie then go see it. If you like girl goes crazy after breakup then go see it, but serious she was already insane before the breakup.

I'm not seeing a Worlds of DC film in theaters until they #ReleaseTheSnyderCut.