jasonbird

Actually Burce Almighty is right there as well.

Jason

discostu1337

Well, just got back from Charlies Angels 2...was a decent flick. Lots of action and hot butts. Let's face it, it's not going to win any awards, but its a fun summer movie, and guess what....it's summer time! You guys need to lighten up with all the CA2 bashing. If every movie was meaningful, long, and well thought out...there wouldnt be any fun, stupid action movies to go see. Just my 2 cents...have not seen the Hulk yet, but friend said it was the best comic book movie ever...I will have to check it out for myself. Reveiws and word of mouth are usually opposite of my movie tastes anyways

GmoneyOwnsYou

Matthew Chmiel, what franchise do you think I was speaking of?

Matthew Chmiel

I thought you were talking about Ghostbusters. One of the few franchises I can think of that Sony owns.

GmoneyOwnsYou

KAY, you're right! And 80's fever is going around. 80's nostalgia, once a few more of Sony's big budget films bomb. They will go searching in the back and see what old franchises they can revive. And with all the nostalgia, Ghostbusters will eventually sooner or later be takin off the backburner. Trust me, it happened to Terminator. And its happening with Indiana Jones. Just a matter of time before Ghostbusters get the big 3. And the way things are going for Sony, they will do it without all the original crew. Reitman, Ramis, and Akroyd would all return still. Sony wont care about all the original crew, they are gonna want to make money.

Frank TJ Mackey

Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone already mentioned this,
but 28 DAYS only cost $14 million to make (including marketing) and it's already made $10 million in a weekend.

It's gonna be one of the most profitable films of the year.

That's the way movies should be made.......lower budgets, less stars and better storytelling.

Amen to that.

PJsig08

Well it better at least turn $200 million since that's what the film is budgeted at.I found that hilarious when I saw it. What idiot came up with that quote? Just further proves the movie sucks...morons.

Question: why don't people take into account the advertising costs as well. Like the Hulk cost $130 million or so, plus $40 million in advertising (according to boxofficemojo). So, don't they have to at least turn $170 million to make a profit?

I'm sure all the tie-ins (fast-food promotions, toys, games) makes the marketing for the movie break even, but still, I can't see how some of these summer movies are making a dollar for their studios. Maybe foreign ticket sales, and the DVD sales help bring the total gross for a movie way back up?

Matthew Chmiel

You are correct ($9 million budget and $5 million marketing budget), and by Wednesday it'll make $14 million. And when you think about it, in the UK it made over $10 million. So in all honesty, Fox Searchlight is just making a profit by releasing it to the US.

Daytripper

Isn't it a little early to be putting this one to bed? I mean, if it's makes the same as the first one by the end of it's run, I doubt very seriously the franchise is dead.

Daytripper

Where is that thread? Because the one I saw (several weeks back), most of the people were predicting, and or hoping, it would flop.

mwj

I didn't think Full Throttle looked good, but I expected it to make around $50 million at the very least. What is the break even on Full Throttle?

fumanstan

I actually gave it a lil bump this morning... you can find it here

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=299986

Quite a few of the predictions were in the 50-60 range, although that thread didn't have a whole lot of replies. Oh well... next up, T3!

jonathan.e

As a general rule of thumb movies need to make back 2.5 - 3 times their production costs before they make a profit. If/when Hulk gets into the $420-450M range it will start to register in the black. Until that time it’s losing money.

boston george

I am not surprised about CA:FT totals judging from the audience at a Sat. showing (re: very small)

And I know I might lose some street cred for this but I actually enjoyed it (although this may be due to the fact that it was my first date with a really cool girl)

Xndman

I thought that the ratio was 2 x cost to account for total cost. Also, with the rising direct cost of films, I don't think that the ratio applies anymore. For example, if Hulk's direct production cost were $140M, your telling me it cost another $140M to advertise and distribute? I doubt it. The new ratio is probably 150% of direct cost if a dircect cost > $100M. I don't know for sure, I'm just speculating.

jonathan.e

You have to factor in the percentage the exhibiting cinemas take, the tax the studio will pay on those earnings & any percentage points the director or stars may have along with cost of prints, transportation etc. All eat into the revenue the studio gets back which is why each movie has to generate so many times back it’s costs before it’s in the black. AFAIK, Hulk’s marketing costs currently stand around $40-$50M.

jasonbird

If your going to get that nitpicky, then you have to take into
account licensing and merchandise domestically and world wide.

Jason

jasonbird

Not to mention the home video/DVD market...

Jason

jonathan.e

Got nothing to do with nit-picking. They’re all costs against profit. Ignoring them would only create false figures. Yes, licensing of merchandise rights should also be taken into account but unsold merchandise isn’t going to generate much return to Universal after the maufacturers have taken their cut and covered their costs. Unsuccessful movies don’t tend to shift a lot of toys.

DVD market is another set of figures: Seperate production and advertising costs to the theatrical release.

fumanstan

Although in this case i believe the Hulk is doing pretty well as far as merchandise goes. I've seen a lot of toys being sold

jasonbird

That's the thing, the Hulk movie doesn't have to do incredible
(pardon the pun) to sell toys and whatnot. Fans of the comic
and TV show are also buying up the stuff. Plus, sure there are
costs in making a DVD, but a lot of the stuff for it is included in
the movie production (when their movies this big). They film
a lot of the content while the movie is being made. Plus the
returns still go to the studio, and it all gets credited towards the
movie. The added advertising and production costs to a dvd
compared to a theatrical release are nil (again depending on the
case).

Jason

jonathan.e

I’d be interested in seeing those figures. Do you know if they can be found anywhere?

Hardly nil - More millions would be needed to properly promote and distribute the DVD/video especally in the light of these current box office figures. Promotion is going to have to be that much more vigorous and widespread to overcome the perception that this is not a good movie.

Rogue588

wow.

first Fastlane bombs..

now Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle..

McG's having a McTerrible year...

does this mean next year he'll be doing McMusic videos again..?

nah...of course not. if his next flick does good, it'll be his "McComeback"...

Patman

Hulk figures - seen them at Target and Toys-R-Us.

I still get a kick out of those Hulk hands you can buy. You put them over your own hands, and when you move them around, or hit them on something, you get some Hulk growling noises coming from the Hulk hands.