Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Sky Captain box office earnings vs budget.

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Sky Captain box office earnings vs budget.

Old 01-26-05, 01:23 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sky Captain box office earnings vs budget.

Wondering if anyone could tell me the profit margin in this film. Wondering if it made enough of a splash to merit a sequel. Searched the forum and have not found anything on budgets or box office totals.
Old 01-26-05, 01:30 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joe Molotov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 8,507
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
According to BoxofficeMojo, it cost $75 Million for production and $35 Million marketing, and only made back $37 Million in the US and $15 Million overseas. Not exactly a smashing success.
Old 01-26-05, 01:32 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Worldwide takings, including domestic, were $53 million.

The film's production budget was $70 million, with a further $35 million spent on ads.

This might seem like bad news, but the critics' reviews were largely favorable, and the DVD profits have yet to come. Kerry Conran has also been contracted by Paramount to make another film for them, though there's been no guarantee that it would be a Sky Captain film. Also - there's a rumor that the $70 million figure is incredibly inflated (so that Paramount could say they made no profits and pay the actors less, or so the CG effects secrets wouldn't be stolen by other studios wanting more bang for their buck, depending on who you ask), but I don't put much stock in that.
Old 01-26-05, 12:34 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,727
Received 134 Likes on 109 Posts
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
there's a rumor that the $70 million figure is incredibly inflated.
I've heard this as well...I've heard that the actual costs were only about $30 to $35 million.
Old 01-26-05, 01:19 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Ah yes, those Academy-Award winning CG effects....oh wait.
Old 01-26-05, 01:41 PM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You mean those PS2 CG effects?
Old 01-26-05, 02:16 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There's no way Sky Captain only cost 30-35 million.
Old 01-26-05, 02:42 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hollywoodland
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
Ah yes, those Academy-Award winning CG effects....oh wait.
Originally Posted by QuiGonJosh
You mean those PS2 CG effects?

The vfx were done in that style to match the movie.
Old 01-26-05, 02:48 PM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,427
Received 30 Likes on 26 Posts
I highly doubt we'll see a sequel to this one.
Old 01-26-05, 02:48 PM
  #10  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
There's no way Sky Captain only cost 30-35 million.
Why not?

There was a great deal of pressure to keep the investments down on this film, due to the experimental nature of the piece.

I'm reading more and more that the 70 mil number is wayyyyyy off.

But no, to answer the original question, there will not be a sequel.
Old 01-26-05, 03:03 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
40 million seems to be much closer to the actual costs on this film. Recall this was also an independant production, and was only picked up by a studio well into its production. Not that that means it can't be expensive, but I get the feeling those lower numbers are probably correct.

But no, there won't be a sequel. Even at 40 million it didn't really make enough to justify a sequel.
Old 01-26-05, 05:23 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In the Universe.
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If this becomes a great success on DVD, look for a sequel.
Old 01-26-05, 05:30 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only way I could see a sequel happening is if the DVD sells through the roof, and Jude Law scores a few mega blockbusters and is seen as a major box office draw. Similar to what happened with Vin Diesel and Riddick. I don't really expect either to happen really, though I'm sure DVD sales will be pretty decent.

Anyway, I'm sure Kerry Conran will get some good work and we'll defiantely see more from him. I know he's attached to Princess of Mars for Paramount, and I haven't heard that changing at all. If he's going to be making any sequels, it'd be for that, but we'll have to see how it does.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high for a Sky Captain sequel though.
Old 01-26-05, 05:54 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,881
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
There's no way Sky Captain only cost 30-35 million.
Anyone know what Law, Jolie and Paltrow received? They could easily have blown that budget just on payroll.
Old 01-26-05, 06:06 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Numanoid
Anyone know what Law, Jolie and Paltrow received? They could easily have blown that budget just on payroll.
I'm pretty sure they didn't receive their normal big salaries. Jude Law was actually a producer on this film, so he'd have a vested interest in keeping the costs down. But in terms of acting, Law and Paltrow worked barely 25 days on this, and Jolie's entire role took her less than a week. Seeing as this project was an independant film when these actors signed on, I would imagine they were asked to keep their salaries in check, and would be willing to considering the unique nature of the film. It was hardly some big studio project where they throw money at actors to get them to be in them.
Old 01-26-05, 06:45 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
There's no way Sky Captain only cost 30-35 million.
Let's see, shot on HD video, so no film/processing costs, with virtually no sets, no location expenses, and post-production and CG animation done on a desktop Mac.

I can't believe "Sky Captain" cost $35 million, unless Gwyneth Paltrow got paid $15 million.

This, by the way, doesn't mean I didn't like the movie. I did.
Old 01-26-05, 07:26 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,841
Received 98 Likes on 76 Posts
I still can't help but wonder why the film didn't do better with all of the mostly positive notice it got. My only guess is that it couldn't connect with modern audiences that well, or people outside of the geek kingdom.
Old 01-26-05, 08:14 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Let's see, shot on HD video, so no film/processing costs, with virtually no sets, no location expenses, and post-production and CG animation done on a desktop Mac.
I don't care how it was done. The fact is considering who starred in it and the vast amount of CG work, as well as the companies that did that work, it sure as hell didn't cost 35 million dollars. I believe boxofficemojo.com is pretty accurate with their figures.

As for no film/processing costs, are you kidding me? Absolutely there were film costs, unless you're telling me that this film was only released in the very small percentage of theaters in this country that have digital projection.

As for no sets, CG and VFX can cost more than building a set a lot of times. Sometimes a set cost more. It just depends..

As for doing the effects on Macs, a lot of the effects nowadays are done on desktops, many running Linux. It is cheaper to run those, but it is not necessarily cheaper for the filmmaker. Many companies, including ILM, switched from SGI workstations to Intel workstations running Linux because they were cheaper to buy and had increased performance over the SGI machines. The days of the old massive SGI workstations are long since past. The actual FX work determines a lot of the cost, not what they were created on. Of course, there are other factors as well such as, the number of shots needed, the complexity of those shots, and the deadline for delivering said shots.

I believe 70 is more accurate than 35. Then again, if anyone can show me some real evidence that boxofficemojo.com is wrong, and the film did cost 35 million, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.

Last edited by Terrell; 01-26-05 at 08:18 PM.
Old 01-26-05, 08:31 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
I believe 70 is more accurate than 35. Then again, if anyone can show me some real evidence that boxofficemojo.com is wrong, and the film did cost 35 million, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.
According to IMDB the estimated budget is 40 mill. I'm not exactly sure who's right in this case since I have no facts myself so really it's a toss up between which one you want to believe more.
Old 01-26-05, 11:47 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
The Valeyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Building attractions one theme park at a time.
Posts: 10,794
Received 72 Likes on 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
I believe 70 is more accurate than 35. Then again, if anyone can show me some real evidence that boxofficemojo.com is wrong, and the film did cost 35 million, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.


From Ebert's Current Answer Man column:

"Q. As a free-lancer for the Seattle Times, I recently interviewed Kerry Conran, the writer-director of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," and when we discussed the film's budget, he quoted a figure -- off the record -- which was far below the $70 million that's been quoted in literally dozens of reviews and articles.

While I'm familiar with the ego-soothing spin strategies that studios use to inflate a film's budget, in the case of "Sky Captain," wouldn't it make more sense if Paramount had actually boasted about the film's relatively modest budget, since it represents a digital milestone?

Jeff Shannon, Lynnwood, Wash.


A. I heard the budget was not a million miles away from $38 million, which is the advertising budget for some films in that genre. So "Sky Captain" will win back its cost and turn a profit, despite a relatively tame reception at the box office. Many readers tell me I liked it more than they did, and accuse me of being blinded by its style, as if there's a surplus of style in today's movies."

Andrew
Old 01-27-05, 12:06 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
I still can't help but wonder why the film didn't do better with all of the mostly positive notice it got. My only guess is that it couldn't connect with modern audiences that well, or people outside of the geek kingdom.
The film was too bizarre for mainstream audiences. Everyone I talked to that didn't see it asked if it took place in the future. I "get" what they were trying to do, would've worked for a music video but 90 minutes of that gave me a headache.
Old 01-27-05, 12:09 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, US of A
Posts: 13,694
Received 75 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
I still can't help but wonder why the film didn't do better with all of the mostly positive notice it got. My only guess is that it couldn't connect with modern audiences that well, or people outside of the geek kingdom.
I dunno, but I went in with no preconceived notions about it and left feeling like I should have liked it, but I didn't. I would guess bad -- or at least lack of good -- word of mouth doomed it.

Last edited by Bill Needle; 01-27-05 at 12:11 AM.
Old 01-27-05, 12:20 AM
  #23  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
I believe boxofficemojo.com is pretty accurate with their figures.
It's not like the kids over at BOM.com do the footwork on figures. They just report what's already been reported. They are wrong plenty o' times.
Old 01-27-05, 12:45 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terrell
As for no film/processing costs, are you kidding me? Absolutely there were film costs, unless you're telling me that this film was only released in the very small percentage of theaters in this country that have digital projection.
I wasn't talking about how much the movie cost to distribute, I was talking about how much it cost to produce.
Old 01-27-05, 01:09 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live.
Posts: 29,769
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
I liked it the first time Paramont showed it, when it was called Captain Proton on ST: Voyager
actually it wasn't a bad movie, but I can see why it didn't have a big theater draw

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.