Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Box Office: Why 'The Divergent Series' Is A Hollywood Cautionary Tale
31 views
Skip to first unread message
tmc...@gmail.com
Mar 21, 2016, 11:04:06 PM3/21/16
to
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/03/21/why-the-divergent-series-is-a-hollywood-cautionary-tale/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
The Divergent Series presents a somewhat unique, and arguably new, problem. The third film in the Veronica Roth-penned franchise opened with just $29.1 million on its opening weekend. That's a far cry from the $52m debut weekend of The Divergent Series: Insurgent or the $54m debut weekend for Divergent. At this juncture, it is likely that the film will end its domestic run with $75m domestic and (spitball math here) maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget. It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually signals the end of a franchise. But The Divergent Series still has one more film to go. And unlike most franchises, it kind of has to offer at least
The Divergent Series presents a somewhat unique, and arguably new, problem. The third film in the Veronica Roth-penned franchise opened with just $29.1 million on its opening weekend. That's a far cry from the $52m debut weekend of The Divergent Series: Insurgent or the $54m debut weekend for Divergent. At this juncture, it is likely that the film will end its domestic run with $75m domestic and (spitball math here) maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget. It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually signals the end of a franchise. But The Divergent Series still has one more film to go. And unlike most franchises, it kind of has to offer at least
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Mar 22, 2016, 12:10:25 AM3/22/16
to
In article <5ba7d366-fa94-45f4...@googlegroups.com>,
This is a very poorly written article. I'm surprised to find it in
a major site like forbes.com.
Aside from that though from what I understand this series suffers from
factors outside the studio's control: The fans didn't like the ending
of the last book.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
a major site like forbes.com.
Aside from that though from what I understand this series suffers from
factors outside the studio's control: The fans didn't like the ending
of the last book.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Your Name
Mar 22, 2016, 1:13:49 AM3/22/16
to
In article <dlbutc...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I wish I could get 100% interest on my investments. Damn banks are now
down to about 3% (some countries even have negative interest so are
idiotically charging you to save money!!). :-(
down to about 3% (some countries even have negative interest so are
idiotically charging you to save money!!). :-(
inf...@mindspring.com
Mar 22, 2016, 9:07:27 AM3/22/16
to
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:13:15 +1200, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
wrote:
>I wish I could get 100% interest on my investments. Damn banks are now
>down to about 3% (some countries even have negative interest so are
>idiotically charging you to save money!!). :-(
Wow! Three percent! My bank pays one tenth of one percent. That's ten
cents on a hundred dollars. I'd jump on three percent,
wrote:
>I wish I could get 100% interest on my investments. Damn banks are now
>down to about 3% (some countries even have negative interest so are
>idiotically charging you to save money!!). :-(
cents on a hundred dollars. I'd jump on three percent,
Obveeus
Mar 22, 2016, 9:38:25 AM3/22/16
to
On 3/22/2016 12:10 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <5ba7d366-fa94-45f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/03/21/why-the-divergent-series-is-a-hollywood-cautionary-tale/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
>>
>> The Divergent Series presents a somewhat unique, and arguably new,
>> problem. The third film in the Veronica Roth-penned franchise opened
>> with just $29.1 million on its opening weekend. That's a far cry from
>> the $52m debut weekend of The Divergent Series: Insurgent or the $54m
>> debut weekend for Divergent. At this juncture, it is likely that the
>> film will end its domestic run with $75m domestic and (spitball math
>> here) maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget. It's the kind of
>> underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually
>> signals the end of a franchise. But The Divergent Series still has one
>> more film to go. And unlike most franchises, it kind of has to offer at
>> least
>
> This is a very poorly written article. I'm surprised to find it in
> a major site like forbes.com.
watch ads just to read. As with Yahoo and etc..., I think they allow
for user submitted articles so everyone and their brother that wants to
be a blogger/reporter/whatnot is on their site.
> Aside from that though from what I understand this series suffers from
> factors outside the studio's control: The fans didn't like the ending
> of the last book.
books) to watch the films as well. The problem lies more in the number
of people who didn't read the books and are perfectly willing to wait
for these films to come to DVD/streaming/TV. Even with that, this third
film will turn a profit because the overseas trend for the series is
growing even as the North American boxoffice drops off.
Ed Stasiak
Mar 22, 2016, 2:43:38 PM3/22/16
to
> tmc...@gmail.com
and that's before they factor in the profits from DVDs, streaming and endless tv broadcasts...
>
> maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget.
> It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually
> signals the end of a franchise.
Only in Hollywood is a $120 MILLION profit on a cheesy tween girls flick considered a failure
> maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget.
> It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually
> signals the end of a franchise.
and that's before they factor in the profits from DVDs, streaming and endless tv broadcasts...
Obveeus
Mar 22, 2016, 3:36:08 PM3/22/16
to
the studio receives as income. Much of the box office total is kept by
local theaters and by the film's distributor. The studio might only be
getting about half of the total box office. Additionally, the 'budget'
is usually the production cost and does not factor in all the
advertising costs.
Lewis
Mar 22, 2016, 5:19:58 PM3/22/16
to
In message <ncs6l7$ua6$1...@dont-email.me>
> The studio might only be getting about half of the total box office.
Try 85-90%.
> Additionally, the 'budget' is usually the production cost and does not
> factor in all the advertising costs.
The budget is a hyper inflated number designed to reduce the reported
profit to cheat people who have points on the profits. The more
successful a movie is, the more likely it is to not make a "profit".
--
'Can't argue with the truth, sir.' 'In my experience, Vimes, you can
argue with anything.'
Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 2:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> tmc...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget.
>>> It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually
>>> signals the end of a franchise.
>>
>> Only in Hollywood is a $120 MILLION profit on a cheesy tween girls flick considered a failure
>> and that's before they factor in the profits from DVDs, streaming and endless tv broadcasts...
> You do have to keep in mind that the box office total is not the amount
> the studio receives as income. Much of the box office total is kept by
> local theaters and by the film's distributor.
Bull. Theatres get a *tiny* percentage.
> On 3/22/2016 2:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> tmc...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> maybe $230m worldwide on a $110m-$120m budget.
>>> It's the kind of underwhelming performance, a massive comedown no less, that usually
>>> signals the end of a franchise.
>>
>> Only in Hollywood is a $120 MILLION profit on a cheesy tween girls flick considered a failure
>> and that's before they factor in the profits from DVDs, streaming and endless tv broadcasts...
> You do have to keep in mind that the box office total is not the amount
> the studio receives as income. Much of the box office total is kept by
> local theaters and by the film's distributor.
> The studio might only be getting about half of the total box office.
> Additionally, the 'budget' is usually the production cost and does not
> factor in all the advertising costs.
profit to cheat people who have points on the profits. The more
successful a movie is, the more likely it is to not make a "profit".
--
'Can't argue with the truth, sir.' 'In my experience, Vimes, you can
argue with anything.'
Russell Watson
Mar 22, 2016, 5:35:24 PM3/22/16
to
chances with this genre (YA): Twilight, The Hunger Games and Harry
Potter, to figure out that part 3 is really just a setup for part 4, so
they watch part one of the finale on DVD and save their theater bucks
for the real deal. Maybe this will signal the end of this stupid trend
of dragging the final book in a series out into two movies.
BTR1701
Mar 22, 2016, 10:39:40 PM3/22/16
to
In article <ncs6l7$ua6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Additionally, the 'budget' is usually the production cost and does not
> factor in all the advertising costs.
It ought to. What's the justification for leaving out such a significant
and anticipated cost to every film?
wrote:
> Additionally, the 'budget' is usually the production cost and does not
> factor in all the advertising costs.
and anticipated cost to every film?
BTR1701
Mar 22, 2016, 10:40:21 PM3/22/16
to
In article <slrnnf3dns....@amelia.local>,
According to the Hollywood accountants, RETURN OF THE JEDI still has yet
to turn a profit.
to turn a profit.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 22, 2016, 11:16:53 PM3/22/16
to
moviePig
Mar 23, 2016, 9:17:11 AM3/23/16
to
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
Mar 23, 2016, 11:04:30 PM3/23/16
to
On 3/23/2016 9:16 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/22/2016 10:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <ncs6l7$ua6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, the 'budget' is usually the production cost and does not
>>> factor in all the advertising costs.
>>
>> It ought to. What's the justification for leaving out such a significant
>> and anticipated cost to every film?
>
> Possibly that its magnitude is more moment-to-moment discretionary.
the time when the 'budget' for the film is officially
announced/released). Also, the promotional costs are often shared
between the studio and the distributor and sometimes even the secondary
markets (like whatever TV network buys the rights to eventually premiere
the movie on cable offering up ad space to promote it while it is still
in theaters). The whole thing is extremely convoluted. Never the less,
the point remains that a person should not expect to be able to 'do the
math' (box office gross minus stated budget) and get an accurate answer
as to the film's profitability. It is a whole lot more accurate to
assume 50% of that stated box office gross and subtract the stated
budget from that number to estimate the likelihood of profitability for
the film before it has hit the aftermarkets (DVD/premium TV/ streaming /
basic cable / broadcast TV).
0 new messages