Does anyone know what a film has to gross/net dollar-wise on a film, to be labeled a "success", leading to sequals, what have you? If I remember correctly, the first Austin Power's flopped at the box office but found much success in the rental market....

Actually the first Austin Powers movie was a success theatrically. With its low 16.5 million budget, it's 68 million worldwide gross was pretty good. But on video it became very, very popular and led to the sequels being mega blockbusters, versus the decent sized hit the first one was.

As for how to determine how much money is enough...a general, but less then accurate way is to double the costs (budget plus P&A). At this point of total revenue, you can consider the film profitable. Then you have to consider DVD sales on top of that and of course any other ancillary revenues the film might generate (soundtracks, merchandising, advertising and product tie-ins etc) which might bring the profitability point down a bit. Of course, we'll never know an exact breakdown, but above is a decent way to judge these sort of things.

Sex & Violence. Use them wisely.

In my more simplistic view of the hollywood money machine, I would think that all they want is to break even (Marketing and production costs vs. Worldwide theatrical gross) while in theaters so that they can rake in the bucks on the DVD release and on the eventual DVD re-release/extended edition/director's cut/super-bit/ultimate/Special edition.

Profitability is a well kept secret by Hollywood for both financial and political reasons.

While there are clear markers for success, the truth about a film's fate is typically one of mystery, sure to be endlessly debated here.

Yes, Scott is correct. Hollywood fudges with their accounting for reasons that are still unknown to me.

Well, the same as any company. So they can keep as much of the money as they can and share as little as possible. Considering the many profit sharing partners in all these films, it's not too shocking.

Of course, box office figures also get more public mainstream scrutiny then your average company sales.

if a movie makes back more than its budget, I'd say that's a success. To me success always means monotary value-- it has nothing to do with the actual quality.

Right. A better example would be Office Space, sequels aside.

I think to have a successful film you need two things, and one of them is not a good film. Marketing & word of mouth. Marketing will get people in the seats opening weekend, but word of mouth is what carries it to the next weekend & video.

Great marketing & poor word of mouth:
Godzilla. Over a years worth of marketing got people in the seats opening weekend, but word of mouth spread quickly about this turd.

Little marketing & great word of mouth:
Then there are the freak of nature films that succeed with little to no marketing and strong word of mouth. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, & Blair Witch being some examples.

Great marketing & great word of mouth:
Star Wars Episode 3 & Batman Begins.

So marketing is up there, but nothing beats word of mouth & water cooler discussions.

Simply comparing box office totals to budget is misleading. A lot of that money goes to the theaters, even if studios pocket a big percentage of the first week sales.

My rough guess at a formula...

Box office take - exhibitor's take - any back end money to stars/etc - marketing
+ DVD/TV profits = Studio profits

(And the theatrical portion assumes worldwide, not just domestic)

Vin Diesel.

Well, that and the name Star Wars.

As for box office, once you figure that theaters get a big chunk of the domestic take, the equation turns out completely different.

Films get made based on assumptions of profit and opportunity cost (with some marketing image thrown in). If Film A will turn a $10 million profit, but Film B will turn $20 million, Film A might not get made. However, if Film C can make $15 million, and you can shoot Films A and C at the same times for the same combined budget as Film B, then Film B might not get made. Studios are huge, but they still have limited resources. Just because something will make money doesn't mean the studios think something else will make more money and be a wiser investment.

I say all this to address the question of sequels. Just because something is profitable and a sequel is assumed to be equally profitable does not mean it will necessarily get made. A lot of it has to do with timing and what else is on the table or in the pipeline. What may have a high opportunity cost one year could be relatively low in another. All these factors and countless others make it difficult to ever know when a sequel is possible or not. "Success" isn't just turning a profit but turning the largest profit possible with a limited number of resources. It's a fluid concept, and it's very rare when two films can be compared as "successful" using the same standards.

das

A successful movie must have little-to-no suckage.

Do you wait until the test of time has played a part before you label something a success? I hope you don't let a film's gross sales affect whether or not you enjoy it personally.

It really depends on how you define "success."

If you're talking financially, then that's a whole case of worms, not just a can.

Not even organized crime comes close to the "creative bookkeeping" practiced in Hollywood. Why? Because with organized crime "creative bookkeeping" is only needed when "laundering" money. To make illegal income appear to come from legitimate sources, so it can be funneled into legitimate financial establishments. Not all revenue generated by organized crime needs to be "laundered." A lot stays hidden in a cash only, underground criminal economy that is interlinked with the non-underground economy. After a hitman is paid to whack someone, he pays cash to buy lunch at a fast food joint, a suit at a men's store, etc., etc. That's why every bill, except those fresh off U.S. mint presses, has detectable traces of cocaine.

Hollywood's "creative bookkeeping" more complex than organized crime because Hollywood is trying to keep income from appearing as profits that can be taxed.

Heck, I think organized crime is probably in a distant third place, behind the recording industry, and just ahead of the government. Any government.

Now that I think about it, let's place organized crime in forth place.

Hollywood's "creative bookkeeping" is the stuff of so many scandals, I've lost track of the ones that have gone down just in my lifetime. The last big one I remember involved actor Cliff Robertson (who was a victim of it) and was even made into movie. Nothing changed because of it.