On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:16:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy <
Paul....@jcu.edu.au>
wrote:
>On Jan 11, 6:44 am, William George Ferguson <
wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
>> were failures at the box office. It is just that, a perception, not
>> reality.
>
>Blockbusters are rated at a different level to normal films. A
>blockbuster can make a small profit and still be a "failure"
>financially.
>
>> I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
>> the 'superhero' movies did
>
>> Movie est.Bdgt US Foreign Worldwide
>> Green Lantern 200m 117m 103m 220m
>
>It made 10%... and that's Box Office as you detail.
>
>If you're going to invest $200million you'll want it to do a lot
>better than that.
You would. The jury is out on whether Warners is happy or unhappy with the
take.
>However, that tells us that a second tier DC film can probably make
>$200mil so if you can make a, say, Flash, film for $100mil you'll do
>better.
>
>> Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
>> budget, it pretty much certainly made money
>
>GL didn't.
And my next sentence was "If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams."
GL did take in more than its estimated budget, and probably ended up making
money. (not on paper, of course)
One key thing to keep in mind about estimated budgets, specifically
estimated budgets over $100m, they are almost always inflated. This is one
of the key areas Hollywood Accounting uses to ensure that films do not show
a net profit, as long as the studio is better off with it not showing a net
profit (pretty much 'forever').For how the studios work (barely) within the
law to do this inflation, read the Buchwald transcripts, or read the Peter
Jackson filing on LOtR.
As to whether GL's performance was or wasn't satisfactory, the vote that
counts is Warner's. If there isn't a sequel, the vote isn't neccesarily
unsatisfactory, because there are so many factors, not all of them
economic, that go into a film being greenlighted, but 'unsatisfactory'
would surely be on the table. The only certainty is that a sequel is very
strong circumstantial evidence that Warner's was happy with the numbers.
As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg