quote:

Rule of thumb. Production budget x 2 = in the black.

Not correct and out of date. It used to be that the rule of thumb was 2.5 x production budget = break even point.

That is probably no longer feasible as more & more money comes from the foreign grosses where the amount that is returned to studio varies enormously. China, for example, only returns 25%.

Some territories are entirely pre-sold because the region is so notoriously corrupt that the studios don't want to deal with attempting to get what was promised so they simply take a few million dollars (if even that) for a film that goes on to gross, say, $30 million (and those are estimates by outside sources and not the cinemas themselves).

But one of the biggest areas of inflation is the marketing budgets as the studios have come to depend even more on these "tentpoles" covering losses on other films so they spend more to ensure that success. The old 2.5 x prod. budget took into account what was the typical marketing budget for films of the 80s. But these days, it's not uncommon for a film to have a marketing (which yes includes advertising) budget of around $100M alone.

Warcraft has an estimated production budget of $160M (could easily be $200M). It and Jason Bourne are the only big tentpoles for Universal this summer (Central Intelligence is a co-production with WB) and hence the the marketing budget is probably at least $75M. That's $235 and with the old 2.5X method means that Warcraft needs to get to $587.5M to break even.
-1

quote:

The bigger play for this $160M production +$110M P&A vehicle is overseas. Global B.O. currently stands at $286.1M with 55% coming from China. Industry sources tell Deadline that breakeven is at $500M worldwide.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
It cost 160m to make, it's at 415ish now. So really only needs to make 65m more to hit 3x the budget in returns. Even if it stops making money today, it turned a profit.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm

Where's it said it has to make 500m to break even?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
If that's true, then a lot of films are far less profitable than imagined.

I do question the "100m marketing budget" claim, sure for some films, but as a standard? Nah.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zack M
What do you make of this website?

http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_ro...d-no-profit.php

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Right off the bat, I'm leery of pajiba.

Just scanning through, some of those claims are really hard to believe, it's not like studios are in the business of losing money, if they did, they'd be out of business.

But I've also not looked deeply into any of them, so I can't confirm of deny as fact.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zack M
Is this true, guys?



And per Deadline:

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BackFire
I'd love to see Arthas' story on the big screen.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
Warcraft 66.1% drop off
30% and 80% at RT
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/warcraft/
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...id=warcraft.htm



Batman v Superman 69.3% drop off
27% and 66% at RT
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ba...awn_of_justice/
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...uperman2015.htm

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
Does anyone else find it sad that Zack is comparing BvS' entire run to Warcraft's what? 2 weeks of being out?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
(please log in to view the image)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
He is only saying it's a bad comparison because BvS had a larger drop off and lower critic and GA scores.